From castanford at gmail.com Sat Oct 1 04:27:02 2005 From: castanford at gmail.com (Chris) Date: Sat Oct 1 04:34:07 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Marx and Buddhism In-Reply-To: <1128103961.4426.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <003b01c5c570$a31d90c0$2930cece@charlie> <433CBDD0.7000004@cola.iges.org> <1128103961.4426.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <290923980510010327m48619991r8f9d1f18a1de315f@mail.gmail.com> Thank you for this, Richard. Would you be so kind as to point to exactly what writings of BB lead you to this conviction? On 10/1/05, Richard P. Hayes wrote: > > Bhikkhu > Buddhadasa. > His writings reinforced my deeply held conviction that any Buddhist who > is not a communist (not to be confused with being a Communist) is really > just fooling around. > > Richard > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20051001/8e772990/attachment.htm From rainbowchaser at fastmail.fm Sat Oct 1 04:21:36 2005 From: rainbowchaser at fastmail.fm (David Roberts) Date: Sat Oct 1 07:17:03 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Marx and Buddhism Message-ID: <433E6330.6050607@fastmail.fm> I cannot give a reference (although I think it may be in /Anti-D?hring/ or maybe /Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy/) but Engels does claim the Buddha as the first ever dialectical materialist. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20051001/ba5d9dc3/attachment.html From joy.vriens at nerim.net Sat Oct 1 07:27:49 2005 From: joy.vriens at nerim.net (Joy Vriens) Date: Sat Oct 1 07:34:11 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: References: <1127942930.6308.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> <433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net> <1128014197.4974.20.camel@localhost.localdomain> <433C3AB0.6000206@nerim.net> Message-ID: <433E8ED5.2050706@nerim.net> Hi Chan Fu, >>The world is a bit mad and paranoid at the moment. > "At the moment"...? Well, perhaps if you take "the moment" > to be the last 3 or 4 millennia. Paranoia seens to be encoded > directly in DNA - ref: "fear of snakes, etc.". It' is, and has been > for quite a while, "mad as a box of frogs". Sure, with the difference that it has been largely de-spiritualised, which I initially thought to be a good thing, but I seem to be changing ideas on that point. Being de-spiritualised (and I am not including New Age products in spirituality, which is only another form of consumerism or religion as an expression of identity-angst), it is like it's being locked in in a closed circle. Looking around instead of looking up. And madness and paranoia with no issue is thousand times worse. There seems to be a new thirst for spiritual things, but I am afraid it will be market and media controlled. I am quite pessismistic about people and their ability to give expression to genuin freedom in the present situation. Our present world is also one that believes in activity and abhors passivity. Its hyperactivity exacerbates the madness and paranoia. > Hello, Joy! Fancy meeting you in a place where I was only > intending to read! Now, if I can just find Jonathan and > a few cows... How is Jonathan, I miss him. You on the other hand don't give me enough time to miss you, but I miss you too, especially your songs. ;-) From joy.vriens at nerim.net Sat Oct 1 07:56:20 2005 From: joy.vriens at nerim.net (Joy Vriens) Date: Sat Oct 1 08:04:09 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Marx and Buddhism In-Reply-To: <290923980510010327m48619991r8f9d1f18a1de315f@mail.gmail.com> References: <003b01c5c570$a31d90c0$2930cece@charlie> <433CBDD0.7000004@cola.iges.org> <1128103961.4426.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> <290923980510010327m48619991r8f9d1f18a1de315f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <433E9584.9040402@nerim.net> Chris wrote: > Thank you for this, Richard. Would you be so kind as to point to exactly > what writings of BB lead you to this conviction? The very interesting book "Une herm?neutique bouddhique contemporaine de Tha?lande: Buddhadasa Bhikku" by Louis Gabaude has some chapters on this topic. Louis Gabaude writes that fundamentally, BB rejects communism for the same reason as a liberal democracy, because in both systems material, physical and carnal happiness, remain the first and unique objective, in spite of their different mechanisms. But in quantity he has more often condemned "liberal" materialism to his audience, who, beings themselves victims of this system, could understand how the consumer society flatters passions, destroys the natural environment and erases the cultural heritage. etc etc. (p435). Joy From joy.vriens at nerim.net Sat Oct 1 08:23:39 2005 From: joy.vriens at nerim.net (Joy Vriens) Date: Sat Oct 1 08:24:13 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: <1128027954.6335.90.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1127942930.6308.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> <433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net> <1128014197.4974.20.camel@localhost.localdomain> <433C3AB0.6000206@nerim.net> <1128027954.6335.90.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <433E9BEB.3070004@nerim.net> Richard P. Hayes wrote: > Then George W. Bush was elected. Now I'm pretty sure > things could be even worse than this. In fact, I'm confident that things > will get much worse. The door to things getting much worse is the only > one that this gang of fanatical madmen have left open. We will have to wait, he hasn't finished yet. William Bennet, an adviser of his 2000 election campaign, apparently said: "But I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down." http://www.able2know.com/forums/about60463.html The idea is there already and has been put forward, albeit with all the necessary disclaimers, because people aren't ready for it yet. If it were so impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible how come a professional campaign adviser (who knows everything about PR and communication), can have it in the first place and dare speak about it in public? From jehms at xs4all.nl Sat Oct 1 09:27:11 2005 From: jehms at xs4all.nl (Erik Hoogcarspel) Date: Sat Oct 1 09:34:08 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Getting real about Buddhism and capitalism In-Reply-To: <002101c5c619$b6aa66f0$2930cece@charlie> References: <000301c5c5dd$a088c790$2930cece@charlie> <433D8BDE.9090405@xs4all.nl> <002101c5c619$b6aa66f0$2930cece@charlie> Message-ID: <433EAACF.4020406@xs4all.nl> jkirk schreef: > > > Hm---somehow I missed the Fable of the Bees, http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/profiles/mandev.htm Erik www.xs4all.nl/~jehms From rhayes at unm.edu Sat Oct 1 09:30:27 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Sat Oct 1 09:34:12 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Marx and Buddhism In-Reply-To: <290923980510010327m48619991r8f9d1f18a1de315f@mail.gmail.com> References: <003b01c5c570$a31d90c0$2930cece@charlie> <433CBDD0.7000004@cola.iges.org> <1128103961.4426.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> <290923980510010327m48619991r8f9d1f18a1de315f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1128180627.4429.23.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Sat, 2005-10-01 at 17:27 +0700, Chris wrote: > Thank you for this, Richard. Would you be so kind as to point to > exactly what writings of BB lead you to this conviction? The only essays of Bhikkhu Buddhadasa I have read are those in Donald K. Swearer's translation of selections from Buddhadasa's work, a volume entitled "Me and Mine." I don't have a copy of that book in hand, and I read it many years ago, so I can't refer you now to any specific essays in that volume. If you can find it and read it, however, you'll no doubt stumble upon them. -- Richard Hayes From jkirk at spro.net Sat Oct 1 09:29:06 2005 From: jkirk at spro.net (jkirk) Date: Sat Oct 1 09:34:13 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Marx and Buddhism References: <003b01c5c570$a31d90c0$2930cece@charlie> <433CBDD0.7000004@cola.iges.org> <1128103961.4426.3.camel@localhost.localdomain><290923980510010327m48619991r8f9d1f18a1de315f@mail.gmail.com> <433E9584.9040402@nerim.net> Message-ID: <002401c5c69c$dcba4580$2930cece@charlie> There's a good discussion of Buddhadasa's political views on capitalism and Marxism in Jackson, Peter A., _Buddhadasa. Theravada Buddhism and Modernist Reform in Thailand_. Silkworm Books, 1987, 2003. His entire Ch. 9 is about Buddhadasa's political writings, with pp. 236-238, "Buddhadasa on Capitalism and Communism." Can't quote extensively, but Jackson says: "Because of the dominance of a materialist mentality, that is, of a deluded attachment to material wealth, Buddhadasa says that capitalists have used the potentially beneficial social and technological development associated with industrialization and mechanization to greedily hoard wealth. [This systematic greed] has as a consequence created social conflicts between impoverished workers and the wealthy capitalist employers." (237) "For Buddhadasa, peace is not only attained through inner, moral and meditative practice but also by combining this with morally guided social action directed towards ending the power of certain exploitative and self-centered sections of society....However, [he] does not go beyond this analysis to suggest a concrete political program to overcome social conflicts. His solution...is moral and educational..." (238) The context of Buddhadasa's political reflections should not be overlooked: he was alive and already famous (or infamous depending on the politics of commentators) during the time when the Thai government was fighting communist cadres in the northern mountain and jungle areas of the country. His criticisms of capitalism and his sympathy with poverty stricken farmers and workers led some national chauvinists to label him a communist even though he was distinctly not a communist. While I sympathize with Buddhadasa's views on politics, I also find them so deeply influenced by his position as a monk, a renouncer, that it led him also to condemn typical methods of political organization and action as immoral. Jackson writes, "...Buddhadasa maintains that the party politics and political factionalism characteristic of Western democracies are outside his definition of politics, and are in fact a manifestation of immorality [quoting Buddhadasa]: 'When there is no morality politics necessarily splits into parties and factions.' (239) And quoting B. again: "Liberal democracy opens the way for full freedom but doesn't clearly define what freedom is. Then people's kilesa snatch the opportunity to be free according to the power of those kilesa." (240) While I agree with his critique of the "freedom" idea as not adequately defined, I wonder how any kind of politics can escape social organization --whether of parties or of factions. (Even non-democracy under Hitler or Stalin was riddled with factions.) So far no method of organizing political interests other than via parties has been devised. Jackson interestingly suggests that the Thai notion of "wun-wai or confusion" was part of Buddhadasa's objections to party politics, the cultural objection to undignified and messy public displays (which of course is what party politics is). Perhaps, but since monks are not supposed to involve themselves in partisan politics (even though some have done so), I don't see how Buddhadasa could be expected to come up with some political program. Like prophets crying in the wilderness (or jungle in this case), he could only analyze, moralize, and teach. But his views had a huge impact on Thai society in his time. Joanna From curt at cola.iges.org Sat Oct 1 09:51:18 2005 From: curt at cola.iges.org (curt) Date: Sat Oct 1 10:13:15 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Getting real about Buddhism and capitalism In-Reply-To: <433D8BDE.9090405@xs4all.nl> References: <000301c5c5dd$a088c790$2930cece@charlie> <433D8BDE.9090405@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <433EB076.2020707@cola.iges.org> I think that the entanglement of Buddhism with capitalism goes much further and deeper than the financial successes and excesses of big shot teachers. We are all conditioned by the society that we grow up in - and that conditioning continues throughout our lives. I have found that it requires extensive meditation practice, ardent study of Marx and Plato, and large doses of hallucinogenic drugs to even begin to scratch the surface of this conditioning. While my methods to address this problem may appear unsound to some - the problem itself, and the urgent need to address it, is right out of Buddhism 101. Economic conditioning is extremely deeply buried, especially in the American psyche (which is rapidly becoming the Human psyche). Americans have a hard time even saying the word "class" without twitching and barking uncontrollably. And we all belong to an economic class (usually not the one we suppose - to the extent that we do suppose) - and the vast majority of the actual facts of our lives from the moment we are conceived (think infant mortality) to the moment we die are rigidly determined by what class we belong to. And these "material conditions" largely condition our consciousness. Anyone who takes the conditioned nature of our minds seriously should take a second look at Marx - if you haven't already. Far from being the callous materialist that he is usually portrayed as, Marx's whole Philosophy is mostly concerned with consciousness - and precisely with consciousness as a conditioned phenomenon. Most of what Marx says can be very broadly summarized as "if you change the conditioning then you will change the resulting consciousness". The rest is working out the details. Of course most "Marxists" can't see this because of their hyper-materialism - for which they can largely blame Marx himself, whose overcorrection of Hegel's idealism doomed Marxism to be congenitally stunted in the ethics department. But even though Marx insisted that he was a callous materialist - he was actually a Philosopher of the Mind (not the brain, but the Mind.) Unfortunately most Marxists do as Marx said, not as he did. Most Buddhist teachers appear to be completely unaware of the pernicious role of economics in the conditioning of consciousness. They either blandly accept, or enthusiastically endorse whatever the existing socio-economic status quo is. This is even true for 99% of Buddhists who consider themselves "engaged" - their political/social/economic critique rarely strays from a predictably "liberal" agenda that at most seeks to, ever so gently and slowly, reform capitalism. - Curt Erik Hoogcarspel wrote: > jkirk schreef: > >> Lately some of us have been finding opportunities to critique current >> national affairs >> via a Buddhist critique as well as a Marxist or some other critique. >> That being the case, it is time, IMHO, to get real about what it is >> that is corrupting and terrorizing the ordinary peoples of the entire >> world and ruining their habitats and means of survival: >> the arms industry and trade. With that in mind, here are some >> pertinent data, and I do not want to hear back the NRA argument that >> weapons don't kill, people do. >> Joanna >> > You're right of course , Joanna. People kill... with weapons. If > everything would depend on people, there would be no reason to > prohibit any drug or poison. Since Marx philosophers have discovered > the power things have on us, see Marshal McLUhan, Foucault, Heidegger, > Latour and Baudrillard. Capitalism depends on greed. This is clear > from The Wealth of the Nations by Asam Smith, who took the idea > probably from the Fable of the Bees from Bernard de Mandeville. > Mandeville argues that the economy thrives on wickedness and I think > he is right. What strikes and annoys me is that some (mostly Tibetan) > big shots of the sangha claim that their financial succes is a > consequence of their holyness. > > From rhayes at unm.edu Sat Oct 1 10:05:37 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Sat Oct 1 10:14:11 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Getting real about Buddhism and capitalism In-Reply-To: <000301c5c5dd$a088c790$2930cece@charlie> References: <000301c5c5dd$a088c790$2930cece@charlie> Message-ID: <1128182737.4677.21.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Fri, 2005-09-30 at 10:40 -0600, jkirk wrote: > Lately some of us have been finding opportunities to critique current > national affairs > via a Buddhist critique as well as a Marxist or some other critique. That > being the case, it is time, IMHO, to get real about what it is that is > corrupting and terrorizing the ordinary peoples of the entire world and > ruining their habitats and means of survival: > the arms industry and trade. Years ago there was a book called something like "Trading with the enemy" that chronicled all the major US corporations that supplied materials and know-how to Hitler's Reich, not only before the second world war but during it. The principal names were General Motors, ITT, Standard Oil and a few others. Wal-mart didn't exist then, but I'm sure they would have been in on the deal somehow, given how much support they are giving to the current gang of thugs who have taken over the USA. After seeing how much money the blue chip corporations made by selling goods to both Hitler and the Allies, it's not hard to jump (or take a baby step) to the conclusion that many major corporations have no concern whatsoever with morality and will do business with anyone who has the cash or good credit. It is also apparent that it's time for Buddhists to get serious about the central plank of all Buddhist practice, namely, renunciation, since that is the most effective way to boycott the corporations that are destroying our environment, undermining democracy everywhere and leaving us all increasingly incapable of discerning truth from propaganda and PR. (I'd say more about this, but I have to go shopping now.) Have you ever visited the website www.misspoppy.com ? You can find there a collection of inspirationally funny T-shirts, refrigerator magnets and so forth. My favorite one says "Republicans are people too. Mean, selfish, greedy people." I'd buy that one if I could find a companion for it that said something like like "Democrats are people too. Ineffective, gutless, incompetent people." Yours, as always, in non-partisan despair and disgust, Richard -- My Unitarian Jihad Name (http://tinyurl.com/6valr ) is: The Logging Chain of Loving Kindness You can get your own at http://homepage.mac.com/whump/ujname.html From jkirk at spro.net Sat Oct 1 10:52:48 2005 From: jkirk at spro.net (jkirk) Date: Sat Oct 1 10:54:10 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Getting real about Buddhism and capitalism References: <000301c5c5dd$a088c790$2930cece@charlie> <433D8BDE.9090405@xs4all.nl><002101c5c619$b6aa66f0$2930cece@charlie> <433EAACF.4020406@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <001301c5c6a8$8e0e3bb0$2930cece@charlie> Fascinating--that he even anticipated Keynes on thrift. He could be seen as the first exponent of "trickle-down" economics, the optimistic (but erroneous) view that as the rich get richer they spend more thus creating jobs that wil trickle down to the poor. Problem with this is that the rich do not spend that much--they invest most of their gains to create further paper gains--today most of what they spend is on imports (BMWs, Mercedes, Paris and Milan fashion and residences in foreign countries)--not on things that would generate significant job increases in their own countries. But trickle-down, contrary to all the evidence, is still the mantra of the Republican Party bee-hive, Bush & co. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Erik Hoogcarspel" To: "Buddhist discussion forum" Sent: Saturday, October 01, 2005 9:27 AM Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] Getting real about Buddhism and capitalism > jkirk schreef: > >> >> >> Hm---somehow I missed the Fable of the Bees, > > > http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/profiles/mandev.htm > > > Erik > > > www.xs4all.nl/~jehms > > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From jkirk at spro.net Sat Oct 1 11:04:19 2005 From: jkirk at spro.net (jkirk) Date: Sat Oct 1 11:04:11 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Marx and Buddhism References: <003b01c5c570$a31d90c0$2930cece@charlie> <433D31DC.4070507@xs4all.nl><000e01c5c5db$a981e860$7dee6480@chass> <433D3F29.3050705@cola.iges.org> Message-ID: <001101c5c6aa$29ff62f0$2930cece@charlie> http://people.lulu.com/users/index.php?fHomepage=132055 A google search turned up this bit from a theologian, Roy Catchpole: Dialectical Materialism: (summary). Human history is a continuation of evolution on the conscious level, the course of both being determined by natural law; for matter by its very nature moves from lower to higher forms. It has within itself the potentiality of life, consciousness, thoughts and ideals. It is not static or mechanical, but dynamic and alive. The first and most important of the inherent qualities of matter is `motion', not only mechanical and mathematical movement, but still more, impulse, vital life spirit, tension, or to use Jacob Boheme's expression, the throes (Qual) of matter. The primary forces of matter are the forces of being within it. (The German, `Qual' is best translated not `throes', but `torment'). This more accurately indicates the Marxist `essential unease' of all transient things. In this fundamental sense Marxism has everything in common with the Buddhist perception that the world in which we live - the world of matter - is in a state of permanent flux. It was not for nothing that Engels identified the Buddha as being one of the intellectual precursors of dialectical materialism: - take the Buddhist idea of `impermanence', everything both is and is not; it is constantly changing and in flux, coming into being and passing away (Engels. Anti-Duhring. p.27). Or, the Buddhist concept of `insubstantiality', or `the void of self' (Pali). Here, too Engels is in full agreement. `Every organic being is at each moment the same and not the same; at each moment it is assimilating matter drawn from without, and excreting other matter; at each moment the cells of its body are dying and new ones being re-formed...etc.' Ibid.pp38-9. Third, `unease', `disquiet'. The Pali word, `Dukkha' exactly corresponds to the `Tension? the `throes' (torment) of matter. Thus the `materialist' premisses from which Buddhism starts can be seen to be identical with the Marxist interpretation of existence. But the agreement ends here. Whereas the Buddhist declares that a state of being exists which transcends and `negates' the world of matter, making liberation possible, making mind and what we call `soul', the goal of human existence, Marx accepts the world of matter as the only existent reality and sees `salvation, liberation, fulfilment etc' in terms of an eschatological fulfilment which will appear in the last days. The reason for this is not hard to see. Buddha comes from an Indian culture. He was an Indian, for whom time is cyclical. Marx was a Jew and the son of a rabbi whose father was a rabbi before him. The Jews (and Christians) have always regarded time as a straight line. The purpose of the human race is, as it has always been for Judeo-Christians, focussed to the end time; bringing matter under control and governing it, living in accordance with the laws by which nature itself is governed. Individual (Buddhist) Nirvana is not an option for Marx the Jew. Salvation has to be for the whole human race, or as he puts it in "The Communist Manifesto", `The free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.' ------------- joanna From jkirk at spro.net Sat Oct 1 11:11:29 2005 From: jkirk at spro.net (jkirk) Date: Sat Oct 1 11:14:12 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Getting real about Buddhism and capitalism References: <000301c5c5dd$a088c790$2930cece@charlie><433D8BDE.9090405@xs4all.nl> <433EB076.2020707@cola.iges.org> Message-ID: <001501c5c6ab$2a6904c0$2930cece@charlie> > > Most Buddhist teachers appear to be completely unaware of the pernicious > role of economics in the conditioning of consciousness. They either > blandly accept, or enthusiastically endorse whatever the existing > socio-economic status quo is. This is even true for 99% of Buddhists who > consider themselves "engaged" - their political/social/economic critique > rarely strays from a predictably "liberal" agenda that at most seeks to, > ever so gently and slowly, reform capitalism. > > - Curt =============== Such could not be said of Buddhadasa, the one teacher who actually made a trenchant if idealistic critique of social order and disorder. However, what would you have instead of reform? bloody revolution in this era of high tech mass murder? where would that leave the world and the beings within it? Continuous wars going on right now are bad enough. Joanna From jehms at xs4all.nl Sat Oct 1 12:49:33 2005 From: jehms at xs4all.nl (Erik Hoogcarspel) Date: Sat Oct 1 12:54:11 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Getting real about Buddhism and capitalism In-Reply-To: <001301c5c6a8$8e0e3bb0$2930cece@charlie> References: <000301c5c5dd$a088c790$2930cece@charlie> <433D8BDE.9090405@xs4all.nl><002101c5c619$b6aa66f0$2930cece@charlie> <433EAACF.4020406@xs4all.nl> <001301c5c6a8$8e0e3bb0$2930cece@charlie> Message-ID: <433EDA3D.20509@xs4all.nl> jkirk schreef: > Fascinating--that he even anticipated Keynes on thrift. He could be > seen as the first exponent of "trickle-down" economics, the optimistic > (but erroneous) view that as the rich get richer they spend more thus > creating jobs that wil trickle down to the poor. > > Problem with this is that the rich do not spend that much--they invest > most of their gains to create further paper gains--today most of what > they spend is on imports (BMWs, Mercedes, Paris and Milan fashion and > residences in foreign countries)--not on things that would generate > significant job increases in their own countries. > > But trickle-down, contrary to all the evidence, is still the mantra of > the Republican Party bee-hive, Bush & co. > What Mandeville, Smith and Keynes couldn't see are the environmental problems. I read in an article in Le Monde that economists expect the wages of India to become equal to Western standards within 22 years. China is going much faster and will reach the level (my guess) within 10 years. There's not enough material on earth to satisfy the enormous demand for luxury goods in the future. Already now the increase in demand for airconditionings puts a heavy strain on China's electricity supplies. Still economists believe in the growth model, which in our economy of reproduction means an unlimited production of demand, greed in Buddhist terms. So mass production is entails the prodcution of a mass of unsatified consumers. Buddhists can even use the 12 nidaanas to show how this works. Wasn't there a guy named Schumpeter who dreamed about a Buddhist economy? Erik www.xs4all.nl/~jehms From curt at cola.iges.org Sat Oct 1 11:38:01 2005 From: curt at cola.iges.org (curt) Date: Sat Oct 1 15:03:45 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Getting real about Buddhism and capitalism In-Reply-To: <1128182737.4677.21.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <000301c5c5dd$a088c790$2930cece@charlie> <1128182737.4677.21.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <433EC979.4030908@cola.iges.org> As long as we are talking t-shirts, allow me to recommend the "Gnostic Friends Network", which sells a very nice t-shirt emblazoned with the observation that "Bush is a Reptilian Shapeshifter": http://www.cafepress.com/enemiescom The above link is to their "cafepress" page - their main page is at: http://www.enemies.com Of course Richard won't buy one of these shirts unless he can find a companion shirt that observes that "Kerry is an Slimy Invertebrate Numbnuts". But, you know, while watching the (largely disappointing) PBS documentary on "The 60's" this week I was reminded of Kerry's role in the Vietnam Veterans Against the War. Because of that alone I will always be proud that I voted for the no good so-and-so. And I'd vote for him again. But if you are really in the market for alternative kitsch you can do no better than the merchandise section of the Scottish Socialist Party's website. They don't have refrigerator magnets, but they do have postcards that, and I am not making this up, have the complete text of the "Socialist 10 Commandments". When I first saw this it brought me to a complete stop - and that ain't easy. To make it even more intriguing - the little picture of the postcard is so small that you can't make out what the "Commandments" actually say. Of course I immediately entered "Socialist 10 commandments" in google and was taken directly to the, and, once again, I am not making this up - to the wikipedia entry for "Socialist Sunday Schools"!!!! For this (and much else) I will always be indebted to my comrades in the Scottish Socialist Party. Oh, here's the link to their "socialist productions": http://www.socialistproductions.org/. Just one more plug - their website is the only place I've ever seen the DVD (or any other format) of the documentary "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised" for sale. - Curt P.S. Wikipedia entry for Socialist Sunday Schools: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Sunday_Schools Richard P. Hayes wrote: >Have you ever visited the website www.misspoppy.com ? You can find there >a collection of inspirationally funny T-shirts, refrigerator magnets and >so forth. My favorite one says "Republicans are people too. Mean, >selfish, greedy people." I'd buy that one if I could find a companion >for it that said something like like "Democrats are people too. >Ineffective, gutless, incompetent people." > >Yours, as always, in non-partisan despair and disgust, >Richard > > From gbungo at earthlink.net Sat Oct 1 17:35:13 2005 From: gbungo at earthlink.net (Gregory Bungo) Date: Sat Oct 1 17:44:14 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Oak and the Tribe of the Buddha In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi Richard, Richard Nance wrote on 2005-09-28 10:29 AM: >> Was the Shakya tribe/clan really named after oak trees? > > If so, it's the first I've heard of it. Pali scholars might want to > weigh in, but it seems to me that Logan has landed in a muddle by > assuming that s"aakya is derived from s"aaka, and then assuming that > s"aaka is a terms that refers to oak. > > There's no evidence that I know of for such a use. ..... Thanks for answering my question about the Shakyas and oaks. If I happen to discover Logan's source, I will post it to the forum. Sincerely, Greg Bungo From dlusthau at mailer.fsu.edu Sat Oct 1 18:00:57 2005 From: dlusthau at mailer.fsu.edu (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Sat Oct 1 18:04:18 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Marx and Buddhism References: <003b01c5c570$a31d90c0$2930cece@charlie> <433CBDD0.7000004@cola.iges.org> Message-ID: <00d501c5c6e4$60f46640$10339c04@Dan> Boy, talk about contemporary Westerners imagining an imaginary Buddhism in their own image (as was discussed here not so long ago re: Zen). >Capitalism > is completely incompatible with Buddhism, by the way, Buddhism literally crawled out of the swamps in India when it allied with the Merchants, who not only helped them establish a major base in Gandhara, but led them through the Silk Road from Parthia to China. Mahayana Buddhism (e.g., Sambhoga-kaya) is capitalist through and through and through. Buddhism survived when it did in Asia due to patronage from the upper classes (merchants, officials, ruling classes), and it is similarly no accident that those in the West most attracted to Buddhism continue to be middle class or better. Marx's so called "materialism" (dialectical materialism) is not really as materialist as is often thought, and many contemporary thinkers now concede he never overcame Hegel's idealism, as he viewed it, but repeated it in a modified form. Instead of nirvana, he offered a this-worldly utopia. Buddhism would have been one more opiate of the masses (so that, e.g., Western Buddhists can imagine they are not really middle class dependents on the capitalist system). To quote another 60s poet-musician who also came up with some insightful lyrics from time to time: "Keep you doped with religion, sex and tv, now you think you're so clever, and classless, and free, But you're still fucking peasants as far as I can see. A Working Class Hero is something to be..." ("Working Class Hero"; John Lennon) Dan Lusthaus From chanfu at gmail.com Sat Oct 1 18:53:33 2005 From: chanfu at gmail.com (Chan Fu) Date: Sat Oct 1 18:54:16 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Marx and Buddhism In-Reply-To: <00d501c5c6e4$60f46640$10339c04@Dan> References: <003b01c5c570$a31d90c0$2930cece@charlie> <433CBDD0.7000004@cola.iges.org> <00d501c5c6e4$60f46640$10339c04@Dan> Message-ID: On 10/1/05, Dan Lusthaus wrote: > Boy, talk about contemporary Westerners imagining an imaginary Buddhism in > their own image (as was discussed here not so long ago re: Zen). > > >Capitalism > > is completely incompatible with Buddhism, by the way, > > Buddhism literally crawled out of the swamps in India when it allied with > the Merchants, who not only helped them establish a major base in Gandhara, > but led them through the Silk Road from Parthia to China. Mahayana Buddhism > (e.g., Sambhoga-kaya) is capitalist through and through and through. > Buddhism survived when it did in Asia due to patronage from the upper > classes (merchants, officials, ruling classes), and it is similarly no > accident that those in the West most attracted to Buddhism continue to be > middle class or better. > > Marx's so called "materialism" (dialectical materialism) is not really as > materialist as is often thought, and many contemporary thinkers now concede > he never overcame Hegel's idealism, as he viewed it, but repeated it in a > modified form. Instead of nirvana, he offered a this-worldly utopia. > Buddhism would have been one more opiate of the masses (so that, e.g., > Western Buddhists can imagine they are not really middle class dependents on > the capitalist system). > > To quote another 60s poet-musician who also came up with some insightful > lyrics from time to time: > > "Keep you doped with religion, sex and tv, > now you think you're so clever, and classless, and free, > But you're still fucking peasants as far as I can see. > > A Working Class Hero is something to be..." > > ("Working Class Hero"; John Lennon) > > Dan Lusthaus I never really knew I was a communist until I found this: http://www.politicalaffairs.net/section-Standard/ From chanfu at gmail.com Sat Oct 1 18:50:14 2005 From: chanfu at gmail.com (Chan Fu) Date: Sat Oct 1 18:54:17 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: <433E8ED5.2050706@nerim.net> References: <1127942930.6308.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> <433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net> <1128014197.4974.20.camel@localhost.localdomain> <433C3AB0.6000206@nerim.net> <433E8ED5.2050706@nerim.net> Message-ID: On 10/1/05, Joy Vriens wrote: > Hi Chan Fu, > > >>The world is a bit mad and paranoid at the moment. > > > "At the moment"...? Well, perhaps if you take "the moment" > > to be the last 3 or 4 millennia. Paranoia seens to be encoded > > directly in DNA - ref: "fear of snakes, etc.". It' is, and has been > > for quite a while, "mad as a box of frogs". > > Sure, with the difference that it has been largely de-spiritualised, > which I initially thought to be a good thing, but I seem to be changing > ideas on that point. Being de-spiritualised (and I am not including New > Age products in spirituality, which is only another form of consumerism > or religion as an expression of identity-angst), it is like it's being > locked in in a closed circle. Looking around instead of looking up. And > madness and paranoia with no issue is thousand times worse. There seems > to be a new thirst for spiritual things, but I am afraid it will be > market and media controlled. I am quite pessismistic about people and > their ability to give expression to genuin freedom in the present > situation. Our present world is also one that believes in activity and > abhors passivity. Its hyperactivity exacerbates the madness and paranoia. Wow! That's about 2 issues per sentence and it might take me a week just to parse them all, not to mention replies. Are you willing to wait for the book? Let me be grossly general for a moment, ok? What I've seen is all the mind-noise obscuring clarity, but that doesn't say much, does it? Perhaps "spiritual things" can be understood in the psychology of self - of being human with this marvelous mind/brain gadget. Personally, there is so much to be amazed at that I can't help but be amazed. Is that spirituality? I don't know. Are these capabilities of mind spiritual? Perhaps they are. In any case, for me, this moment of being is enough to be joyful about. Is that spiritual? I don't know. I don't know if not being able to fit all this beauty into some intellectual construct is spiritual. All I know is that it's beautiful, and that includes all our knowledge, perceptions, thoughts and actions, as part of it. So, maybe, my choices are the spiritual part of it? > > Hello, Joy! Fancy meeting you in a place where I was only > > intending to read! Now, if I can just find Jonathan and > > a few cows... > > How is Jonathan, I miss him. You on the other hand don't give me enough > time to miss you, but I miss you too, especially your songs. ;-) I really don't know. He vanished just as we were discussing the merits of gurnseys vs swiss vs holsteins and beginning to have a "good conversation" (a la "Last Samurai"). :( One of his favorite expressions was "madder than a box of frogs", so, ex memorium and intellectum, it was added to my idiomatic vocabulary (which is just a museum...). He wasn't ill, so perhaps he's simply out looking for better restaurants or somesuch. Richard has disavowed music, so in the spirit of "no singing in the audience", I doubt I'll be tempted to sing in this particular basement, but I've missed your debates - like this one. Even more, I'm glad to see your unique mind still influencing this world. Do we, intellectually, select for quality (Pirsig)? I don't know, but it makes for a nice dream - just like idea of spirituality. Actually, I've only recently wondered whether it's testable and it may well be. As for friendship, I've found that I must be very careful about claiming that. But that wariness doesn't discourage hope. I'm very happy to see you again, though. be well, cf From chanfu at gmail.com Sat Oct 1 19:05:54 2005 From: chanfu at gmail.com (Chan Fu) Date: Sat Oct 1 19:14:19 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Getting real about Buddhism and capitalism In-Reply-To: <002101c5c619$b6aa66f0$2930cece@charlie> References: <000301c5c5dd$a088c790$2930cece@charlie> <433D8BDE.9090405@xs4all.nl> <002101c5c619$b6aa66f0$2930cece@charlie> Message-ID: On 9/30/05, jkirk wrote: > Hm---somehow I missed the Fable of the Bees, but interestingly enough, one > year when > I was doing research on ricksha arts in Bangladesh,one popular painted panel > subject was > bees on the panel (left) putting honey into a hive, and a hand on the right > putting coin into a > clay pot bank. I bet Stith Thompson had something to say about world > distribution of this figure. > Perhaps the issue of credit is only found in tales of the Mullah Nasrullah:) > Ironically, any economy could thrive just fine without the arms industry, > but cadres of > power hungry males thrive better with Ak47s. > Joanna Thanks for the jpg, Jo. - perfect pro-family illustration. Oldest living ancestor = naked mole rats. "The memories of my family outings are still a source of strength to me. I remember we'd all pile into the car - I forget what kind it was - and drive and drive. I'm not sure where we'd go, but I think there were some trees there. The smell of something was strong in the air as we played whatever sport we played. I remember a bigger, older guy we called "Dad." We'd eat some stuff, or not, and then I think we went home. I guess some things never leave you." --Jack Handy Sorry, but I failed to mark a really interesting review of ABC's "Commander in Chief" for ya. Couldn't decide whether it was pro- or anti - Hillary, but I'd surely vote for her. As for "power hungry males" - they don't stop with pea-shooters. Nukes are the ultimate in testicles when stealing lunch money doesn't work. ;) From rhayes at unm.edu Sat Oct 1 21:57:27 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Sat Oct 1 22:04:20 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Getting real about Buddhism and capitalism In-Reply-To: <433EC979.4030908@cola.iges.org> References: <000301c5c5dd$a088c790$2930cece@charlie> <1128182737.4677.21.camel@localhost.localdomain> <433EC979.4030908@cola.iges.org> Message-ID: <1128225447.8046.8.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Sat, 2005-10-01 at 13:38 -0400, curt wrote: > But, you know, while watching the (largely disappointing) PBS > documentary on "The 60's" this week I was reminded of Kerry's role in > the Vietnam Veterans Against the War. Because of that alone I will > always be proud that I voted for the no good so-and-so. And I'd vote for > him again. So would I. I really liked Kerry and would not hesitate to vote for hims again. But I have have to look at one more documentary full of fat bald men talking about the 60s, I may have to start throwing Molotov cocktails at PBS. (If I want to look at a fat bald guy with a white beard who served his country by dodging the draft and living on a Quaker commune in Canada, I can just look in the goddamn mirror.) Jesus Murphy, watching that god-awful documentary on Dylan, then the one on Peter Paul and Mary, then that thing on Bob Marley and other protest singers, then a documentary on the 60s, all in a span of three days, has thoroughly killed whatever tiny shred of interest I once had in my sorry generation. I think we need to die now and make room for the next couple of generations to mess up the world in their own chosen way. -- My Unitarian Jihad Name (http://tinyurl.com/6valr ) is: The Logging Chain of Loving Kindness You can get your own at http://homepage.mac.com/whump/ujname.html From joy.vriens at nerim.net Sat Oct 1 23:39:51 2005 From: joy.vriens at nerim.net (Joy Vriens) Date: Sat Oct 1 23:44:24 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: References: <1127942930.6308.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> <433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net> <1128014197.4974.20.camel@localhost.localdomain> <433C3AB0.6000206@nerim.net> <433E8ED5.2050706@nerim.net> Message-ID: <433F72A7.6020805@nerim.net> Chan Fu wrote: > What I've seen is all the mind-noise obscuring clarity, > but that doesn't say much, does it? Perhaps "spiritual > things" can be understood in the psychology of self - > of being human with this marvelous mind/brain gadget. > Personally, there is so much to be amazed at that I can't > help but be amazed. Is that spirituality? I don't know. Sorry for the two issues per sentence, my mind goes often faster than my writing. Being a bit of an idealist I guess spirituality is anything left when the homo economicus, the calculating human, is removed. When I say I find the world is disenchanted and that it needs enchantment, I am probably talking about myself and you are right to point out that enchantment is an individual matter too. But it does help when one feels more stimulated by one's environment. Yes, your continuous amazement probably is a sign of enchantment or spirituality. > Are these capabilities of mind spiritual? Perhaps they are. > In any case, for me, this moment of being is enough to be joyful about. > Is that spiritual? I don't know. I don't know if not being able to > fit all this beauty into some intellectual construct is spiritual. I personally manage to find beauty and fullfillment in some intellectual constructs too and find it hard to get by without them. But there is more peace (dare I say opiate?) if one doesn't indulge in them. > All I know is that it's beautiful, and that includes all our knowledge, > perceptions, thoughts and actions, as part of it. > So, maybe, my choices are the spiritual part of it? There are times, like the present time, that my "worldy" activity is quite overwhelming. I am closely involved in the Justice system in this country (France) and find that it is not contributing to build a better society, on the contrary I often find it very destructive and disruptive. And through my wife I am pretty directly confrontated with the failures of the education system. These institutions are two essential pillars of society and if their principles are flawed the society it supports doesn't function properly either. They both are punitive systems, that only judge on performances in a negative way. The objective of education here is to prepare to enter one of the elite schools, in this following the ambitions of most parents. This means the school career of most students, that gradually drop out of the race, becomes a series of failures. Right from Kinder garden schools (4 years), you get rapports about how the child is doing, compared to general statistics and in view of the highest end goal. I could give other exemples but I will try and limit the issues. :-) This has always been like this, like you pointed out, and probably even worse, but with the lack of another, more spiritual, dimension, in which one can find development it becomes more claustrophobic. > As for friendship, I've found that I must be very careful about > claiming that. But that wariness doesn't discourage hope. > I'm very happy to see you again, though. What do they say? The best way to have a friendship is to be a friend or somesuch. With friendship, Joy From jehms at xs4all.nl Sun Oct 2 05:00:44 2005 From: jehms at xs4all.nl (Erik Hoogcarspel) Date: Sun Oct 2 05:04:25 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Karma and capitalism In-Reply-To: <433EDA3D.20509@xs4all.nl> References: <000301c5c5dd$a088c790$2930cece@charlie> <433D8BDE.9090405@xs4all.nl><002101c5c619$b6aa66f0$2930cece@charlie> <433EAACF.4020406@xs4all.nl> <001301c5c6a8$8e0e3bb0$2930cece@charlie> <433EDA3D.20509@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <433FBDDC.6030508@xs4all.nl> A second thought about capitalism and Buddhism. I find that the karmatheory in the vaipulyasuutra's has become very capitalistic. All the elements are there: interest, investment and logaritmic increase if you 'buy'stock in the right mantra or teaching. I wonder what caused this, it must have been the economic system in India at the time. Erik www.xs4all.nl/~jehms From joy.vriens at nerim.net Sun Oct 2 06:31:27 2005 From: joy.vriens at nerim.net (Joy Vriens) Date: Sun Oct 2 06:34:30 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Marx and Buddhism In-Reply-To: <00d501c5c6e4$60f46640$10339c04@Dan> References: <003b01c5c570$a31d90c0$2930cece@charlie> <433CBDD0.7000004@cola.iges.org> <00d501c5c6e4$60f46640$10339c04@Dan> Message-ID: <433FD31F.6040902@nerim.net> Dan Lusthaus wrote: >>Capitalism >>is completely incompatible with Buddhism, by the way, > Buddhism literally crawled out of the swamps in India when it allied with > the Merchants, who not only helped them establish a major base in Gandhara, > but led them through the Silk Road from Parthia to China. Mahayana Buddhism > (e.g., Sambhoga-kaya) is capitalist through and through and through. One more anecdote about Buddhadasa. In the middle of the sixties he had regular visits from Westerners and Americans who feared Communism and wanted him to oppose Communism. They told him they would help him financially and materially and that if he needed anything he only had to ask them. BB answered that Buddhists fear the passions more than Communism. On which they left.(Gabaude p. 439) BTW I believe it's more correct nowadays to compare religion to amphetamines, cocaine etc. than to an opiate. If only it were an opiate... Joy From curt at cola.iges.org Sat Oct 1 18:37:37 2005 From: curt at cola.iges.org (curt) Date: Sun Oct 2 06:40:38 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Marx and Buddhism In-Reply-To: <00d501c5c6e4$60f46640$10339c04@Dan> References: <003b01c5c570$a31d90c0$2930cece@charlie> <433CBDD0.7000004@cola.iges.org> <00d501c5c6e4$60f46640$10339c04@Dan> Message-ID: <433F2BD1.7080100@cola.iges.org> Dan Lusthaus wrote: >Boy, talk about contemporary Westerners imagining an imaginary Buddhism in >their own image (as was discussed here not so long ago re: Zen). > > > >>Capitalism >>is completely incompatible with Buddhism, by the way, >> >> > >Buddhism literally crawled out of the swamps in India when it allied with >the Merchants, who not only helped them establish a major base in Gandhara, >but led them through the Silk Road from Parthia to China. Mahayana Buddhism >(e.g., Sambhoga-kaya) is capitalist through and through and through. >Buddhism survived when it did in Asia due to patronage from the upper >classes (merchants, officials, ruling classes), and it is similarly no >accident that those in the West most attracted to Buddhism continue to be >middle class or better. > > A bunch of merchants do not a capitalist ruling class make. First you have to have a sufficient mass of Capital to provide said merchants with the wherewithall to make themselves into a ruling class. This only came about via a series of unfortunate events known as the "primitive accumulation" period (which was well over 10 centuries after Buddhism was spread along the Silk Road). And when I say series of unfortunate events, I mean that the "enclosures" are hardly even worth mentioning (compared to the genocide in the western hemisphere, the african slave trade, etc). Buddhism is compatible with being a merchant - and possibly even with being a Capitalist (although I doubt it) - but Buddh-ism (emphasis on the "ism") is fundamentally incompatible with Capital-ism. As "isms" go there could hardly be two less suited to each other. Capitalism is a system in which only one thing matters - Capital. Under Capitalism all of society becomes ever more subordinated to the production of Capital. "Culture" itself is reduced to mere advertising. "Politics" is reduced to a competition to see who can "attract" more investments and create the best "business environment". Corporations become "person-like" entities with "rights" protected by the Constitution. Buddhism, on the other hand, is committed to the alleviation of suffering. And you don't need a weatherman to tell you that increasing Capital leads to increasiong suffering. - Curt From sinhavacin at hotmail.com Sat Oct 1 17:00:01 2005 From: sinhavacin at hotmail.com (Dh Sinhavacin) Date: Sun Oct 2 06:43:19 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Getting real about Buddhism and capitalism In-Reply-To: <433EDA3D.20509@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: Erik asked: Wasn't there a guy named Schumpeter who dreamed about a >Buddhist economy? > > Hi Erik, I think you are thinking of EF Schumacher's *Small is Beautiful - A Study of Economics As If People Mattered*. I find that my copy (London, Abacus) was printed in 1979, which is probably about when I read it, but I remember I was impressed by it. There is a chapter entitled 'Buddhist Economics', but the whole book (if unreliable memory serves) is Buddhist-influenced. I must read it again. Sinhavacin From jinavamsa at yahoo.com Sat Oct 1 19:34:33 2005 From: jinavamsa at yahoo.com (Mitchell Ginsberg) Date: Sun Oct 2 06:43:20 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Getting real about Buddhism and capitalism In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051002013433.2579.qmail@web60020.mail.yahoo.com> hello all, Well, after having figured out how to change my subscription, here I am again, enjoying the postings of the past few days in my spare time. Just one addendum here: > On 9/30/05, jkirk wrote: > > Hm---somehow I missed the Fable of the Bees, but > interestingly enough, one > year when > I was doing research on ricksha arts in > Bangladesh,one popular painted panel > subject was > bees on the panel (left) putting honey into a > hive, and a hand on the right > putting coin into a > clay pot bank. I bet Stith Thompson had something > to say about world > distribution of this figure. > Perhaps the issue of credit is only found in tales > of the Mullah Nasrullah:) ======== Searching with Nasruddin, Nasreddin, Nasretin (more Turkish style), or with Hoca (an alternative title), will presumably work better here than Nasrullah. But that's just a bit of proof-reading still in my blood.... Jinavamsa ============ > Ironically, any economy could thrive just fine > without the arms industry, but cadres of > power hungry males thrive better with Ak47s. > Joanna ==================== http://www.geocities.com/jinavamsa/mentalhealth.html with links to my home page, info on The Inner Palace (3rd ed.) and The Far Shore (3rd ed.), further links to psychotherapy, to my current teaching, to the Insight Practice (Vipassana), Chishtiyya (Sufi), Creative Solutions for Peace, and Nasrudin discussion groups, and to the Collective Dharma Insight project. __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From jkirk at spro.net Sun Oct 2 07:23:25 2005 From: jkirk at spro.net (jkirk) Date: Sun Oct 2 07:24:27 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Getting real about Buddhism and capitalism References: <20051002013433.2579.qmail@web60020.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <000a01c5c754$783051a0$2930cece@charlie> >> Perhaps the issue of credit is only found in tales >> of the Mullah Nasrullah:) > > > ======== > Searching with Nasruddin, Nasreddin, Nasretin (more > Turkish style), or with Hoca (an alternative title), > will presumably work better here than Nasrullah. > > But that's just a bit of proof-reading still in my > blood.... > Jinavamsa > ============ Well duh---of course it's Nasruddin! Thanks for proofing. Joanna From wdkish81 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 2 07:14:53 2005 From: wdkish81 at yahoo.com (Bill Kish) Date: Sun Oct 2 07:24:28 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Turn off your television (was Re: Getting real about Buddhism and capitalism) In-Reply-To: <200510020408.j9248Mtn015250@ns1.swcp.com> Message-ID: <20051002131453.19478.qmail@web30507.mail.mud.yahoo.com> The Logging Chain of Loving Kindness wrote: >But I have have to look at one more documentary full of fat bald >men talking about the 60s, I may have to start throwing Molotov >cocktails at PBS. Perhaps a better solution would be to just unplug your television leave it on your sidewalk with a sign that reads "take me". The only purpose it serves is to provide a never ending selection of other people's papa~nca, no ? -------------------------------- The Nunchuku of Quiet Reflection __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From jkirk at spro.net Sun Oct 2 07:37:55 2005 From: jkirk at spro.net (jkirk) Date: Sun Oct 2 07:44:29 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Turn off your television (was Re: Getting real aboutBuddhism and capitalism) References: <20051002131453.19478.qmail@web30507.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <001401c5c756$7ed9e050$2930cece@charlie> Funnnnneeeeeeeee...... and how true. Joanna =============================== > > The Logging Chain of Loving Kindness wrote: > >>But I have have to look at one more documentary full of fat bald >>men talking about the 60s, I may have to start throwing Molotov >>cocktails at PBS. > > Perhaps a better solution would be to just unplug your television > leave it on your sidewalk with a sign that reads "take me". The > only purpose it serves is to provide a never ending selection of > other people's papa~nca, no ? > > -------------------------------- > The Nunchuku of Quiet Reflection > > > > __________________________________ > Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 > http://mail.yahoo.com > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From rainbowchaser at fastmail.fm Sun Oct 2 07:54:35 2005 From: rainbowchaser at fastmail.fm (David Roberts) Date: Sun Oct 2 08:04:32 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Marx and Buddhism In-Reply-To: <433F2BD1.7080100@cola.iges.org> References: <003b01c5c570$a31d90c0$2930cece@charlie> <433CBDD0.7000004@cola.iges.org> <00d501c5c6e4$60f46640$10339c04@Dan> <433F2BD1.7080100@cola.iges.org> Message-ID: <433FE69B.9090504@fastmail.fm> curt wrote: > Dan Lusthaus wrote: > >> Buddhism literally crawled out of the swamps in India when it allied >> with >> the Merchants, who not only helped them establish a major base in >> Gandhara, >> but led them through the Silk Road from Parthia to China. Mahayana >> Buddhism >> (e.g., Sambhoga-kaya) is capitalist through and through and through. >> Buddhism survived when it did in Asia due to patronage from the upper >> classes (merchants, officials, ruling classes), and it is similarly no >> accident that those in the West most attracted to Buddhism continue >> to be >> middle class or better. > > A bunch of merchants do not a capitalist ruling class make. Correct. There have always been merchants, under all economic systems, just as there have always been thieves, and the charitable. But there has not always been the Capitalist economic formation which, historically, arises, in Europe, as the Feudal economic formation subsides. The Capitalist economic formation has since become globalised, accurately predicted by Marx in the 1840s - he saw the beginnings of globalisation around 1492, some may recognise that date. > First you have to have a sufficient mass of Capital to provide said > merchants with the wherewithall to make themselves into a ruling > class. This only came about via a series of unfortunate events known > as the "primitive accumulation" period (which was well over 10 > centuries after Buddhism was spread along the Silk Road). And when I > say series of unfortunate events, I mean that the "enclosures" are > hardly even worth mentioning (compared to the genocide in the western > hemisphere, the african slave trade, etc). Buddhism is compatible with > being a merchant - and possibly even with being a Capitalist (although > I doubt it) - but Buddh-ism (emphasis on the "ism") is fundamentally > incompatible with Capital-ism. As "isms" go there could hardly be two > less suited to each other. Capitalism is a system in which only one > thing matters - Capital. Under Capitalism all of society becomes ever > more subordinated to the production of Capital. "Culture" itself is > reduced to mere advertising. "Politics" is reduced to a competition to > see who can "attract" more investments and create the best "business > environment". Corporations become "person-like" entities with "rights" > protected by the Constitution. And under Capitalism: 'All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses, his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind.' Marx and Engels, /The Communist Manifesto/ So Capitalism seems not only incompatible with Buddhism but also with Conservatism. (Recommended: Marshall Berman, 1983, /All That is Solid Melts Into Air/: /The Experience of Modernity/, London, Verso) David a.k.a Brother Howitzer of Courteous Debate** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20051002/bc96a8d5/attachment.htm From ziobro at wfu.edu Sun Oct 2 09:24:25 2005 From: ziobro at wfu.edu (Stanley J. Ziobro II) Date: Sun Oct 2 09:34:27 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Marx and Buddhism In-Reply-To: <433FD31F.6040902@nerim.net> References: <003b01c5c570$a31d90c0$2930cece@charlie> <433CBDD0.7000004@cola.iges.org> <00d501c5c6e4$60f46640$10339c04@Dan> <433FD31F.6040902@nerim.net> Message-ID: On Sun, 2 Oct 2005, Joy Vriens wrote: > Dan Lusthaus wrote: > > >>Capitalism > >>is completely incompatible with Buddhism, by the way, > > > Buddhism literally crawled out of the swamps in India when it allied with > > the Merchants, who not only helped them establish a major base in Gandhara, > > but led them through the Silk Road from Parthia to China. Mahayana Buddhism > > (e.g., Sambhoga-kaya) is capitalist through and through and through. > > One more anecdote about Buddhadasa. In the middle of the sixties he had > regular visits from Westerners and Americans who feared Communism and > wanted him to oppose Communism. They told him they would help him > financially and materially and that if he needed anything he only had to > ask them. BB answered that Buddhists fear the passions more than > Communism. On which they left.(Gabaude p. 439) Because Dan was indicating the role merchantile endeavors played in the spread of Buddhism, and because this anecdote illustrates one Buddhist's resonse to geopolitical realities, I fail to see the cogency of your remarks. Besides, do not Communists also suffer from the passions? Or was the Communicst Revolution and its effects the play of dispassionate agents on the world stage? > BTW I believe it's more correct nowadays to compare religion to > amphetamines, cocaine etc. than to an opiate. If only it were an opiate... Would you consider that non-religion (whatever that would be) necessarily provides an answer? Besides the existence of a non-religion being an impossibility, I tend to think that the desire for non-religion, because it is a desire, also must be transcended. Stan Ziobro From rainbowchaser at fastmail.fm Sun Oct 2 09:35:54 2005 From: rainbowchaser at fastmail.fm (David Roberts) Date: Sun Oct 2 09:44:28 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Turn off your television In-Reply-To: <20051002131453.19478.qmail@web30507.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20051002131453.19478.qmail@web30507.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <433FFE5A.6060102@fastmail.fm> Bill Kish wrote: >Perhaps a better solution would be to just unplug your television >leave it on your sidewalk with a sign that reads "take me". The >only purpose it serves is to provide a never ending selection of >other people's papa~nca, no ? > Is that only TVs or does it apply to computer discussions forums too? From joy.vriens at nerim.net Sun Oct 2 12:42:06 2005 From: joy.vriens at nerim.net (Joy Vriens) Date: Sun Oct 2 12:44:36 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Marx and Buddhism In-Reply-To: References: <003b01c5c570$a31d90c0$2930cece@charlie> <433CBDD0.7000004@cola.iges.org> <00d501c5c6e4$60f46640$10339c04@Dan> <433FD31F.6040902@nerim.net> Message-ID: <434029FE.6050202@nerim.net> Stanley J. Ziobro II apparently asking for a little reconstitution of the thread (skip to after ------- if not interested in a reconstitution): Curt wrote: Capitalism is completely incompatible with Buddhism, by the way, and the only sound critique of Capitalism that there is is Marx's. So one way or the other, Marx the atheist and Buddha the agnostic must be somehow reconciled. To which Richard answered: > This reconciliation has already occurred in the writings of Bhikkhu > Buddhadasa. > His writings reinforced my deeply held conviction that any Buddhist who > is not a communist (not to be confused with being a Communist) is really > just fooling around. And then I wrote: The very interesting book "Une herm?neutique bouddhique contemporaine de Tha?lande: Buddhadasa Bhikku" by Louis Gabaude has some chapters on this topic. etc. Then Dan answered Curt >>>Buddhism literally crawled out of the swamps in India when it allied with >>>the Merchants, who not only helped them establish a major base in Gandhara, >>>but led them through the Silk Road from Parthia to China. Mahayana Buddhism >>>(e.g., Sambhoga-kaya) is capitalist through and through and through. Then I added: >>One more anecdote about Buddhadasa. In the middle of the sixties he had >>regular visits from Westerners and Americans who feared Communism and >>wanted him to oppose Communism. They told him they would help him >>financially and materially and that if he needed anything he only had to >>ask them. BB answered that Buddhists fear the passions more than >>Communism. On which they left.(Gabaude p. 439) Voil?. ------------------------------------------------------------- > Because Dan was indicating the role merchantile endeavors played in the > spread of Buddhism, and because this anecdote illustrates one Buddhist's > resonse to geopolitical realities, I fail to see the cogency of your > remarks. Besides, do not Communists also suffer from the passions? Or > was the Communicst Revolution and its effects the play of dispassionate > agents on the world stage? There was no intended cogency in my remarks, so it is quite all right if you fail to see it. In my first reaction to Richard's mention of Buddhadasa I wrote: "BB rejects communism for the same reason as a liberal democracy, because in both systems material, physical and carnal happiness, remain the first and unique objective, in spite of their different mechanisms." Which should answer your question on whether Communists suffer from passions. They do, just the same as liberalists according to BB. If you want me to react to Dan's remark on Buddhism allying with Merchants to spread their creed, I would say that this doesn't make them capitalists. No more than that Christians can be qualified as militarists for allying with the Roman legions for spreading through the Roman Empire. >>BTW I believe it's more correct nowadays to compare religion to >>amphetamines, cocaine etc. than to an opiate. If only it were an opiate... > Would you consider that non-religion (whatever that would be) necessarily > provides an answer? To what question? > Besides the existence of a non-religion being an > impossibility, I tend to think that the desire for non-religion, because it is > a desire, also must be transcended. From a Buddhist point of view probably. Joy II (I was named after my grandfather) From joy.vriens at nerim.net Sun Oct 2 12:48:32 2005 From: joy.vriens at nerim.net (Joy Vriens) Date: Sun Oct 2 12:54:32 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Turn off your television In-Reply-To: <433FFE5A.6060102@fastmail.fm> References: <20051002131453.19478.qmail@web30507.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <433FFE5A.6060102@fastmail.fm> Message-ID: <43402B80.9020709@nerim.net> David Roberts wrote: > Bill Kish wrote: > >> Perhaps a better solution would be to just unplug your television >> leave it on your sidewalk with a sign that reads "take me". The >> only purpose it serves is to provide a never ending selection of >> other people's papa~nca, no ? > Is that only TVs or does it apply to computer discussions forums too? Yes, and it also applies to those having those discussions. Perhaps we should all go and stand on the sidewalk with a sign that reads "Take me". Joy From rhayes at unm.edu Sun Oct 2 14:04:33 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Sun Oct 2 14:14:30 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Turn off your television (was Re: Getting real about Buddhism and capitalism) In-Reply-To: <20051002131453.19478.qmail@web30507.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20051002131453.19478.qmail@web30507.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1128283473.4604.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Sun, 2005-10-02 at 06:14 -0700, The Nunchuku of Quiet Reflection wrote: > Perhaps a better solution would be to just unplug your television > leave it on your sidewalk with a sign that reads "take me". But it might then fall into the hands of some poor fool who would not know the dangers of watching Fox News. Perhaps the better solution would be to take the picture tube out (if they are still called that), take it to a toxic waste dump, and leave the shell of the TV out in the yard as a shelter for homeless mice and cockroaches. Thanks for the suggestion. It was far more Buddhist than my original plan. -- The Logging Chain of Loving Kindness From chanfu at gmail.com Sun Oct 2 17:33:19 2005 From: chanfu at gmail.com (Chan Fu) Date: Sun Oct 2 17:34:34 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Karma and capitalism In-Reply-To: <433FBDDC.6030508@xs4all.nl> References: <000301c5c5dd$a088c790$2930cece@charlie> <433D8BDE.9090405@xs4all.nl> <002101c5c619$b6aa66f0$2930cece@charlie> <433EAACF.4020406@xs4all.nl> <001301c5c6a8$8e0e3bb0$2930cece@charlie> <433EDA3D.20509@xs4all.nl> <433FBDDC.6030508@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: On 10/2/05, Erik Hoogcarspel wrote: > A second thought about capitalism and Buddhism. I find that the karmatheory in the vaipulyasuutra's has become very capitalistic. All the elements are there: interest, investment and logaritmic increase if you 'buy'stock in the right mantra or teaching. I wonder what caused this, it must have been the economic system in India at the time. > > Erik papa?ca it's not just the appetizer, it's the whole menu... From chanfu at gmail.com Sun Oct 2 17:30:10 2005 From: chanfu at gmail.com (Chan Fu) Date: Sun Oct 2 17:34:35 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: <433F72A7.6020805@nerim.net> References: <433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net> <1128014197.4974.20.camel@localhost.localdomain> <433C3AB0.6000206@nerim.net> <433E8ED5.2050706@nerim.net> <433F72A7.6020805@nerim.net> Message-ID: On 10/2/05, Joy Vriens wrote: > Chan Fu wrote: > > > What I've seen is all the mind-noise obscuring clarity, > > but that doesn't say much, does it? Perhaps "spiritual > > things" can be understood in the psychology of self - > > of being human with this marvelous mind/brain gadget. > > Personally, there is so much to be amazed at that I can't > > help but be amazed. Is that spirituality? I don't know. > > Sorry for the two issues per sentence, my mind goes often faster than my > writing. Being a bit of an idealist I guess spirituality is anything > left when the homo economicus, the calculating human, is removed. When I > say I find the world is disenchanted and that it needs enchantment, I am > probably talking about myself and you are right to point out that > enchantment is an individual matter too. But it does help when one feels > more stimulated by one's environment. Yes, your continuous amazement > probably is a sign of enchantment or spirituality. No matter, my wife's goes faster than her lips. She's still enchanting, though... One *is* one's environment, IMO. You really can't take (or universalize) yourself out of it. Buddha-wise, you can subtract everything but 'just being' and that's very relaxing and all, but it's just another mind trick - it's only another way of fooling yourself. I tiptoed around the old folk's advice about letting go of 'emptiness' for a long time before it came on like the very first joke. > > Are these capabilities of mind spiritual? Perhaps they are. > > In any case, for me, this moment of being is enough to be joyful about. > > Is that spiritual? I don't know. I don't know if not being able to > > fit all this beauty into some intellectual construct is spiritual. > > I personally manage to find beauty and fullfillment in some intellectual > constructs too and find it hard to get by without them. But there is > more peace (dare I say opiate?) if one doesn't indulge in them. Perhaps one's free to indulge. It's like going swimming. If you make the mistake of wishing to be a fish, you may wind up hooked. > > All I know is that it's beautiful, and that includes all our knowledge, > > perceptions, thoughts and actions, as part of it. > > So, maybe, my choices are the spiritual part of it? > > There are times, like the present time, that my "worldy" activity is > quite overwhelming. I am closely involved in the Justice system in this > country (France) and find that it is not contributing to build a better > society, on the contrary I often find it very destructive and > disruptive. And through my wife I am pretty directly confrontated with > the failures of the education system. These institutions are two > essential pillars of society and if their principles are flawed the > society it supports doesn't function properly either. They both are > punitive systems, that only judge on performances in a negative way. The > objective of education here is to prepare to enter one of the elite > schools, in this following the ambitions of most parents. This means the > school career of most students, that gradually drop out of the race, > becomes a series of failures. Right from Kinder garden schools (4 > years), you get rapports about how the child is doing, compared to > general statistics and in view of the highest end goal. I could give > other exemples but I will try and limit the issues. :-) This has always > been like this, like you pointed out, and probably even worse, but with > the lack of another, more spiritual, dimension, in which one can find > development it becomes more claustrophobic. Urk! Yes. I've been following the current politics, legal battles, and the "(un)Intelligent Design" religious snake-fest just north of here and wondering if my grandchildren will get a fair (unbiased) chance at life. Maybe the development that you speak of is only the opportunity to use our minds and appreciate the beauty of being. Maybe "spiritual" refers just to our beautiful (and lately evolved/discovered) minds. But you're in a better cultural ecology for that. Candles are flickering here, for lack of air. But don't dismay. The pendulum has swung before. We just weren't riding on it at the time. ~2500 years ago seems to have marked a point in this evolution of reflection where it was rediscovered that thought (the ability to think as we do) could cause a great deal of suffering (mental pain). We're still learning, but our "spirituality" - our creativity and capacity of mind - is surely evolving in a beautiful way. So, as the old mind-numbing, regressive, buddhism dies off and is replaced by just learning how to be what we are, perhaps we'll get lucky and we'll create even more beautiful things rather than going back to square one. We may even learn how to use this big wad of bubblegum in our heads before we screw it all up. "We are as gods, and may as well get used to it." - Heinlein > > As for friendship, I've found that I must be very careful about > > claiming that. But that wariness doesn't discourage hope. > > I'm very happy to see you again, though. > > What do they say? The best way to have a friendship is to be a friend or > somesuch. > > With friendship, > > Joy Always. -- Brother Cattle Prod of Love and Mercy From franzmetcalf at earthlink.net Sun Oct 2 19:04:49 2005 From: franzmetcalf at earthlink.net (Franz Metcalf) Date: Sun Oct 2 19:14:36 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Marx and Buddhism In-Reply-To: <00d501c5c6e4$60f46640$10339c04@Dan> References: <003b01c5c570$a31d90c0$2930cece@charlie> <433CBDD0.7000004@cola.iges.org> <00d501c5c6e4$60f46640$10339c04@Dan> Message-ID: <9be20ab0f3db423e296f941f5887bd15@earthlink.net> Gang, Dan Lusthaus wrote, > Marx's so called "materialism" (dialectical materialism) is not really > as > materialist as is often thought, and many contemporary thinkers now > concede > he never overcame Hegel's idealism, as he viewed it, but repeated it > in a > modified form. Instead of nirvana, he offered a this-worldly utopia. I read Marx in a graduate program in the history of religions, and so he seemed to me to owe less to Hegel than to the his own renounced Judaism. His "this-worldly utopia," as Dan rightly labeled it, sounded like nothing so much as the inevitable triumph of a righteous Israel. I had to wonder if he--unconsciously, of course--thought of himself as a kind of massiach. No doubt others have done serious work on this topic and I've just never read it, but it was crashingly obvious. (Other seminal figures in the social sciences also created their own secularized religions which they never acknowledged as such. Freud, ironically, not the least.) Mandatory Buddhist content: I think Dan is right to assert that Marx would have seen Buddhism (the religion) as an opiate of the masses, yet he would also have seen its roots in "the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering." The Buddha was onto something and, incomparably more than any other religion, Buddhism still addresses real suffering and protests its causes. This is why Buddhism, though not inevitably Marxist, opposes the central engine of capitalism. Read Marx's words once more, thinking of Buddhism: > /Religious/ suffering is, at one and the same time, the /expression/ > of real suffering and a /protest/ against real suffering. Religion is > the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, > and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the /opium/ of the people. > > The abolition of religion as the /illusory/ happiness of the people is > the demand for their /real/ happiness. To call on them to give up > their illusions about their condition is to call on them to /give up a > condition that requires illusions/. The criticism of religion is, > therefore, /in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears/ of which > religion is the /halo/. > > From "Introduction to A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel?s > Philosophy of Right" > see > http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/critique-hpr/intro.htm Remarkable, isn't it, how the Buddha seems to answer Marx's call for the abolition of religion? (I don't know what Marx wrote about Hinduism, but it can't have been good.) Franz Metcalf Little Brother Howitzer of Courteous Debate From jkirk at spro.net Sun Oct 2 19:22:36 2005 From: jkirk at spro.net (jkirk) Date: Sun Oct 2 19:24:46 2005 Subject: Fw: [Buddha-l] Karma and capitalism Message-ID: <005b01c5c7b8$f0649280$2930cece@charlie> ----- Original Message ----- From: "jkirk" To: "Erik Hoogcarspel" Sent: Sunday, October 02, 2005 4:08 PM Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] Karma and capitalism >>> A second thought about capitalism and Buddhism. I find that the >>> karmatheory in the vaipulyasuutras has become very capitalistic. All the >>> elements are there: interest, investment and logaritmic increase if you >>> 'buy'stock in the right mantra or teaching. I wonder what caused this, >>> it must have been the economic system in India at the time. Eric H. ======================== Kim Gutschow shows how this economy of merit works in Ladakh. However, I'm not sure that "banking" merit leads to its accruing interest, so to speak-- it just sits there and grows like an account with no interest, or a pile of gold, a savings account for future reference. Thus, I see the merit economy as a form of economic exchange, but not necessarily an example of capitalistic exchange per se, even though the term capital could be used to describe accumulated merit. As for the way holiness increases merit -- ergo the more one donates to holier people the more merit one accrues than donating to a beggar, e.g.,-- one could substitute the old adage, "money runs to money"! Joanna From bcarral at kungzhi.org Sun Oct 2 19:24:30 2005 From: bcarral at kungzhi.org (Benito Carral) Date: Sun Oct 2 19:34:42 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: <1127931162.4635.40.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <17110171619.20050928022634@kungzhi.org> <1127931162.4635.40.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <211914396.20051003032430@kungzhi.org> On Wednesday, September 28, 2005, Richard P. Hayes wrote: > Welcome back. Thank you. :-) > Compared to the disagreements that some subscribers > have had with the moderator, yours were very mild. The good thing about disagreements is that we all can learn from them (and the them can be dealt with). Although from different stands, I think that most of us share a common and global goal, try to make this a better world for everyone. There are a lot of bad (corporations) and mindless (victims) guys out there, so we should work together. > Still, they were enough to keep you from polluting > your mind with the contents of buddha-l for a few > months, and that is probably good for you. I would rather say that I have used my time and intellectual resources in related issues, mostly social analysus and global justice. I have even been elected president of a new association, Asociaci?n para la Sensibilizaci?n sobre la Diversidad Cultural (Association for the Sensitization about Cultural Diversity), where we have been developing some interestings projects. By the way, we need new creative force for our now paused Collective Dharma Insight project (if someone is interested in joining our team, please, contact me). > This week I have been reading with my students one of > the best expositions on Buddhist theory and practice > I have ever read anywhere, namely, Bhikkhu Bodhi's > The Way to the End of Suffering," Thank you for sharing with us these interesting and usefeful words by Bhikku Bodhi. I have been an activist anti-cellular phones tirany since some years ago. I'm surrounded by idle talk (I have also sinned, I confess) and I can't swallow it. Although I have discovered that sometimes it's necessary to participate in stupid talking in order to mobilize individuals in new and more constructive (I hope) directions. > By sheer coincidence, I happened to watch Martin > Scorsese's documentary on Bob Dylan just after > reading that. [...] So why did so many of us like it? > Mass delusion? Qui?n sabe? I suppose that it has something to do with the feeling one can get through Dylan's songs that it's possible to use music in order to become aware of social conflicts and join people. By an interesting coincidence, I watched today _Big Fish_ by Tim Burton, where one can get the feeling of how powerful (and wonderful, and warming) stories can be in order to shape reality. Yesterday I asked a friend, "Can you still dreaming meaningful, warming and beautiful stories?" He said, "Yes, I can," and I sighed with a feeling of trust. (I know that we all can disagree about what a "meaningful, warming and beatiful story" is--mine are about family life and friendly lifestiles--, but, hey!, I said something about disagreements at the beginning. :-) > Nothing has happened since you left. History came to > an end, and nothing came along to replace it. It will > not take more than ten minutes to read everything > that has been written here since you last logged on. Well, I hope to enjoy those ten minutes sometime along this week. > With a passive, vacant and sterile mind, I remain, > for the time being, Thank you for you nice wellcoming. Best wishes, Beni From bcarral at kungzhi.org Sun Oct 2 19:45:50 2005 From: bcarral at kungzhi.org (Benito Carral) Date: Sun Oct 2 19:54:37 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Nirvana In-Reply-To: <433AEF49.5000003@xs4all.nl> References: <6.2.3.4.2.20050926172522.01e0f8c0@mailbag.com> <20050927131619.13604.qmail@web30211.mail.mud.yahoo.com><7964f6db050927090940107ff9@mail.gmail.com> <433A3CDA.5050003@nerim.net> <001f01c5c43f$1bcf4780$2930cece@charlie> <433AB7F6.5000109@nerim.net> <433AEF49.5000003@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <1225483126.20051003034550@kungzhi.org> On Wednesday, September 28, 2005, Erik Hoogcarspel wrote: > I heard a talk the other day which Gombrich gave > during a Buddhist summerschool in England a few years > ago. There he states that the Buddha took many > Brahmanic concepts and used them and turned them > around to explain his own way to nirvaa.na. It's quite clear to me that the Buddha developed his own vision from the vision he shared with his fellow citizens (as it couldn't be otherwise). Buddhism is not a root global story (as I like to call to a specific kind of cosmovision), but an answer to one of those (i.e., a dependent alternative global story). It's not only that he transformed old Indian concepts, but that he owes his own cosmovision to them. I would say that he was quite closer to both Brahmanic and Upanisadic worlds (because in fact they were really not worlds apart). Best wishes, Beni From bcarral at kungzhi.org Sun Oct 2 20:29:46 2005 From: bcarral at kungzhi.org (Benito Carral) Date: Sun Oct 2 20:34:36 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: <433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net> References: <1127942930.6308.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> <433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net> Message-ID: <617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org> On Thursday, September 29, 2005, Joy Vriens wrote: > If one forgets a second about the battle of good > against bad, freedom-lovers and freedom-haters, and > the suffering it causes, it's quite a funny remark > coming from someone for whom Jesus is the favorite > political philosopher, one that is alleged to have > said: Recently, I was said in a sidrer?a (Asturian folk pub where Asturian cider is the queen) conversation, "Everything are opinions, and mine is just one more". (This is the kind of rethoric I used to call "Americanized stupid liberal talk" but that I tend to call "globalized gibberish" nowadays.) Well, I don't agree with the statement at all, but let's pretend that we buy it for a couple of seconds. Maybe Bush is just defending his own reading of Jesus's philosophy--globalized gibberish legitimizes him, and it seems that half of the US supports his reading, at least it supported such a reading during the last election time. This rises the perturbing question of how American (global) public opinion is shaped (by corporations), but maybe it would be better to deal with it at another time. Best wishes, Beni From dlusthau at mailer.fsu.edu Sun Oct 2 21:49:03 2005 From: dlusthau at mailer.fsu.edu (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Sun Oct 2 21:54:39 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Karma and capitalism References: <005b01c5c7b8$f0649280$2930cece@charlie> Message-ID: <009c01c5c7cd$65f1dda0$1d369c04@Dan> Joanna write: > However, I'm not sure that "banking" merit leads to its accruing interest, > so to speak-- it just sits there and grows like an account with no > interest, That's why Buddhists talk about transference of merit (parinama) -- receiving a basically undeserved loan (especially in its Pure Land variety -- but a matter of asking for rather than earning in any form) that should be used to raise oneself up by one's bootstraps so that one can become a sambhoga-kaya and thereby distribute undeserved merit loans to others. So it seems some are willing to concede (as 2000+ years of Buddhist history would compellingly and decisively indicate) that Buddhism is compatible with mercantilism, but for some reason, not capitalism. Unfortunately the ad hoc definition of capitalism they rely on for this already questionable distinction seems drawn more from Michael Douglas in "Wall Street" (with a dose of Ayn Rand) than from Adam Smith or basic capitalist theory, which aims at the sublimation and redirection of desire for the general good -- just as Buddhism does when it promotes the marga as a desirable path, a path driven by the engine of desire for anuttara-samyak-sambodhi for oneself and others (substitute the word "wealth" for anuttara-samyak-sambodhi in that phrase and the isomorphism should be obvious). Compassion is a sublimated form of desire, but a desire nonetheless, as numerous classical Buddhist texts attest. But, one might object, Buddhism aims at ultimately eradicating desire, while capitalism does not. That eradication, however, is so far off in the distance (and not achieved until post-tenth bhumi practice) that in practical terms Buddhism remains a system of displacing one set of desires and objectives for another. Buddhists acknowledge that when they classify even the giants such as Nagarjuna and Asanga, et al. as no better than first-bhumi Bodhisattvas. When Buddhists ignore or shortcut such evaluative criteria, we get all the issues that Brian Victoria exposed concerning 20th century Japanese Zen. Or western Buddhists. Dan Lusthaus From joy.vriens at nerim.net Sun Oct 2 23:55:16 2005 From: joy.vriens at nerim.net (Joy Vriens) Date: Mon Oct 3 00:04:41 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: References: <433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net> <1128014197.4974.20.camel@localhost.localdomain> <433C3AB0.6000206@nerim.net> <433E8ED5.2050706@nerim.net> <433F72A7.6020805@nerim.net> Message-ID: <4340C7C4.4030207@nerim.net> Chan Fu wrote: > One *is* one's environment, IMO. You really can't take > (or universalize) yourself out of it. How come you're not disenchanted then? > Buddha-wise, you can > subtract everything but 'just being' and that's very relaxing > and all, but it's just another mind trick - it's only another > way of fooling yourself. Yes like the bodhisattva career and the tantras in which the divinity is woken up from its deep concentration and summoned to act. > I tiptoed around the old folk's advice about letting > go of 'emptiness' for a long time before it came on like > the very first joke. Isn't it all jokes and tricks? >>I personally manage to find beauty and fullfillment in some intellectual >>constructs too and find it hard to get by without them. But there is >>more peace (dare I say opiate?) if one doesn't indulge in them. > Perhaps one's free to indulge. It's like going swimming. > If you make the mistake of wishing to be a fish, you may > wind up hooked. Oh, but I am hooked up. I have discovered that I am even when I think I am not. > Maybe the development that you speak of is only the opportunity > to use our minds and appreciate the beauty of being. Maybe > "spiritual" refers just to our beautiful (and lately evolved/discovered) > minds. But you're in a better cultural ecology for that. Candles > are flickering here, for lack of air. Yes beauty and mind are definitely connected. No beauty without mind. > But don't dismay. The pendulum has swung before. We just weren't > riding on it at the time. If you are referring to a sort of the times they're a-changing feeling, it's quite an impressive thing to witness. I was born in a time of newly found hope, freedom, tolerance, intrepidity and I thought perhaps humankind had managed to come out of troubled times and was perhaps indeed evolving. Progress did exist. Seeing it swinging back like it does in the current speed is very scary. But it is a great lesson. > ~2500 years ago seems to have marked a point in this evolution > of reflection where it was rediscovered that thought (the > ability to think as we do) could cause a great deal of suffering > (mental pain). We're still learning, but our "spirituality" - our > creativity and capacity of mind - is surely evolving in a beautiful way. How do you manage, if we are our environment? > So, as the old mind-numbing, regressive, buddhism dies off and > is replaced by just learning how to be what we are, perhaps > we'll get lucky and we'll create even more beautiful things rather > than going back to square one. We may even learn how to use > this big wad of bubblegum in our heads before we screw it all up. Sounds great, but you are not going into the direction the pendulum is swinging in. :-) Joy (perfectly pure ethics) From joy.vriens at nerim.net Mon Oct 3 00:09:01 2005 From: joy.vriens at nerim.net (Joy Vriens) Date: Mon Oct 3 00:14:41 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: <617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org> References: <1127942930.6308.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> <433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net> <617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org> Message-ID: <4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net> Hi Benito, > Recently, I was said in a sidrer?a (Asturian folk > pub where Asturian cider is the queen) conversation, > "Everything are opinions, and mine is just one more". > (This is the kind of rethoric I used to call > "Americanized stupid liberal talk" but that I tend to > call "globalized gibberish" nowadays.) Well, I don't > agree with the statement at all, but let's pretend that > we buy it for a couple of seconds. Maybe Bush is just > defending his own reading of Jesus's > philosophy--globalized gibberish legitimizes him, and > it seems that half of the US supports his reading, at > least it supported such a reading during the last > election time. This rises the perturbing question of > how American (global) public opinion is shaped (by > corporations), but maybe it would be better to deal > with it at another time. I was in Oviedo a couple of years ago for work. Pleasant little town and lovely cider. If only they really thought "Everything are opinions, and mine is just one more" and drew the right conclusion not to act on them. If you want to be a sceptic, be one all the way, with mucho cojones, and leave the others to their opinions I'd say, but that's only my opinion. The Anglosaxon (as us Latins like to call them) brand of Christian religion seems to be a very militant one. I was struck when walking into British cathedrals to see so many statues and representations of admirals, military symbols, allusions to national victories etc. there. Nation and religion are almost one. I guess that historically this is less true of catholic nations that were confederated in their link with Rome and therefore national elements were less present. I am afraid that the Americans can't separate their nationalism and religion. Nice to see you back Joy > Best wishes, > > Beni > > > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l > > From joy.vriens at nerim.net Mon Oct 3 01:13:22 2005 From: joy.vriens at nerim.net (Joy Vriens) Date: Mon Oct 3 01:14:42 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Marx and Buddhism In-Reply-To: <9be20ab0f3db423e296f941f5887bd15@earthlink.net> References: <003b01c5c570$a31d90c0$2930cece@charlie> <433CBDD0.7000004@cola.iges.org> <00d501c5c6e4$60f46640$10339c04@Dan> <9be20ab0f3db423e296f941f5887bd15@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <4340DA12.1070900@nerim.net> Franz Metcalf wrote: > Read Marx's words once more, thinking of Buddhism: > >> /Religious/ suffering is, at one and the same time, the /expression/ >> of real suffering and a /protest/ against real suffering. Religion is >> the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, >> and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the /opium/ of the people. >> >> The abolition of religion as the /illusory/ happiness of the people is >> the demand for their /real/ happiness. To call on them to give up >> their illusions about their condition is to call on them to /give up a >> condition that requires illusions/. The criticism of religion is, >> therefore, /in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears/ of which >> religion is the /halo/. Hi Franz, Thanks for posting this. Marx's ideas are often mixed up with what Communism did with them. But when one reads this bit about religion, the condemnation of religion doesn't look so outspoken. It is of course better not to have oppression and a heartless and soulless world, but in such a world he seems to think religion is the sigh, the heart and the soul. Religion is no doubt an illusion but so is the wish to abolish it as Stan Ziobro suggested. Kick it out of your door, it will be creeping back in through every crack of your bunker. Even kicking it out is religion. What is condemnable in a religion, its participation in furthering oppression, a heartless and soulless world, should and can be eliminated. That is not an illusion IMO, if political reasons allow it, which is another problem. Joy From joy.vriens at nerim.net Mon Oct 3 01:58:21 2005 From: joy.vriens at nerim.net (Joy Vriens) Date: Mon Oct 3 02:04:46 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Karma and capitalism In-Reply-To: <009c01c5c7cd$65f1dda0$1d369c04@Dan> References: <005b01c5c7b8$f0649280$2930cece@charlie> <009c01c5c7cd$65f1dda0$1d369c04@Dan> Message-ID: <4340E49D.5010109@nerim.net> Dan Lusthaus wrote: > So it seems some are willing to concede (as 2000+ years of Buddhist history > would compellingly and decisively indicate) that Buddhism is compatible with > mercantilism, but for some reason, not capitalism. I would rather turn it around and say that mercantilism and capitalism are compatible with just anything as long as it's worth investing in it for various reasons. They are the genuin universal religion of this earth. One could also say that Buddhism is pretty much compatible with anything too. Yoga, Samkhya, Brahmanism, Bhakti, guruvada, Vedantism, Taoism, Pantheism, Scepticism, Stoicism, sacrifices, salvation, indulgences, Shamanism, Psychology, Quietism... Why single out mercantilism? Or why exclude mercantilism for that matter. Like any religion, Buddhism has grown out of this world, has fed on this world, but is it aiming this world? There is a difference here between Buddhism as a philosophy/religion and Buddhism as a historical reality. Joy From curt at cola.iges.org Mon Oct 3 07:53:29 2005 From: curt at cola.iges.org (curt) Date: Mon Oct 3 09:30:48 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Karma and capitalism In-Reply-To: <009c01c5c7cd$65f1dda0$1d369c04@Dan> References: <005b01c5c7b8$f0649280$2930cece@charlie> <009c01c5c7cd$65f1dda0$1d369c04@Dan> Message-ID: <434137D9.9090807@cola.iges.org> Dan Lusthaus wrote: >So it seems some are willing to concede (as 2000+ years of Buddhist history >would compellingly and decisively indicate) that Buddhism is compatible with >mercantilism, but for some reason, not capitalism. Unfortunately the ad hoc >definition of capitalism they rely on for this already questionable >distinction seems drawn more from Michael Douglas in "Wall Street" (with a >dose of Ayn Rand) than from Adam Smith or basic capitalist theory, which >aims at the sublimation and redirection of desire for the general good -- >just as Buddhism does when it promotes the marga as a desirable path, a path >driven by the engine of desire for anuttara-samyak-sambodhi for oneself and >others (substitute the word "wealth" for anuttara-samyak-sambodhi in that >phrase and the isomorphism should be obvious). Compassion is a sublimated >form of desire, but a desire nonetheless, as numerous classical Buddhist >texts attest. > > You might want to reconsider taking up this gauntlet. The nature of Capitalism as a uniquely modern phenomenon that was completely inconceivable prior to the industrial revolution is not some kind of "ad hoc" theory based on "questionable distinctions". Marx and Smith (who agreed almost completely on matters of "pure" economics) were both quite clear in their belief that Capitalism was a new thing that had never existed before in human history - and that it was limited to those nations in which the industrial revolution had completely transformed "the means of production". India - like most of the world - has only experienced the pointy end of Capitalist stick - and that only as a result of its engulfment into the British Empire (and that, as previously stated, more than 10 centuries after the the spread of Buddhism along the Silk Road). - Curt From bcarral at kungzhi.org Mon Oct 3 09:46:45 2005 From: bcarral at kungzhi.org (Benito Carral) Date: Mon Oct 3 09:54:48 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: On Dylan and Poetry In-Reply-To: <3520ffae7c3103f1a3a2b7125a8e257a@earthlink.net> References: <1127942930.6308.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1128005702.4806.24.camel@localhost.localdomain> <2cc63730eeb1a4a7627ab8dfcd9b601e@earthlink.net> <1128016760.6335.30.camel@localhost.localdomain> <3520ffae7c3103f1a3a2b7125a8e257a@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <1529004845.20051003174645@kungzhi.org> On Thursday, September 29, 2005, Franz Metcalf wrote: > Some call fleeting trans-personal Zen experiences > distractions because they don't seem to be accretive. > [...] Both these possible forms of distraction fail > to lead beyond themselves toward kilesa-nirodha. > Others, including myself, argue that such experiences > *are themselves* the end of the path. I think that most of people in our globalized world tends to seek ephemeral distractions as the impermanent end of the path, so I suppose that it all depens on what path we talk about. It is clear to me that distraction was not what the old Indian Buddha had in mind. However I must to recognize that, while one is distracted listening music or reading poetry, one is not usually causing direct harm to others (although we should have in mind what entertainment corporations do with the economic resources we provide to them), which is already something. I think that distration as a final aspiration is a quite postmodern thing, something with which Woody Allen would agree. In fact, he has reportedly said, "I feel that it's impossible really to be happy, and that the best you can hope for is to be distracted" (interviewed by Geoff Andrew)(1). Best wishes, Beni (1) It can be read on . From bcarral at kungzhi.org Mon Oct 3 10:02:38 2005 From: bcarral at kungzhi.org (Benito Carral) Date: Mon Oct 3 10:04:51 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: On Dylan and Poetry In-Reply-To: <7d00075d1873397e43feb49ae09f1fd0@mindspring.com> References: <1127942930.6308.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1128005702.4806.24.camel@localhost.localdomain> <7d00075d1873397e43feb49ae09f1fd0@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <964974157.20051003180238@kungzhi.org> On Thursday, September 29, 2005, Jim Peavler wrote: > [...] I have always thought that studying poetry and > listening to music could make a person a better > person. In fact, like Shakespeare, I have never > trusted anyone who doesn't like music. Well, the question is that there are different kinds of music. Confucius reportedly said, "The tunes of Zheng are lascivious." So I suppose that the Buddhist music is the one that incites one to be less greedy, angry, and stupid when one stops listening it. I tend to mistrust anyone who enjoy listening foolish music. Best wishes, Beni From jkirk at spro.net Mon Oct 3 10:45:08 2005 From: jkirk at spro.net (jkirk) Date: Mon Oct 3 10:54:53 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Karma and capitalism References: <005b01c5c7b8$f0649280$2930cece@charlie><009c01c5c7cd$65f1dda0$1d369c04@Dan> <434137D9.9090807@cola.iges.org> Message-ID: <004201c5c839$d103deb0$2930cece@charlie> >> >> > You might want to reconsider taking up this gauntlet. The nature of > Capitalism as a uniquely modern phenomenon that was completely > inconceivable prior to the industrial revolution is not some kind of "ad > hoc" theory based on "questionable distinctions". Marx and Smith (who > agreed almost completely on matters of "pure" economics) were both quite > clear in their belief that Capitalism was a new thing that had never > existed before in human history - and that it was limited to those > nations in which the industrial revolution had completely transformed > "the means of production". India - like most of the world - has only > experienced the pointy end of Capitalist stick - and that only as a > result of its engulfment into the British Empire (and that, as > previously stated, more than 10 centuries after the the spread of > Buddhism along the Silk Road). > > - Curt ========================== Quite right--the evidence is rather incontestable. Joanna From bcarral at kungzhi.org Mon Oct 3 10:47:37 2005 From: bcarral at kungzhi.org (Benito Carral) Date: Mon Oct 3 10:54:58 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Getting real about Buddhism and capitalism In-Reply-To: <1128182737.4677.21.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <000301c5c5dd$a088c790$2930cece@charlie> <1128182737.4677.21.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <595146405.20051003184737@kungzhi.org> On Saturday, October 1, 2005, Richard P. Hayes wrote: > After seeing how much money the blue chip > corporations made by selling goods to both Hitler and > the Allies, it's not hard to jump (or take a baby > step) to the conclusion that many major corporations > have no concern whatsoever with morality and will do > business with anyone who has the cash or good credit. I don't know if you have watched _The Corporation_ documentary by Mark Achbar, Jennifer Abbott & Joel Bakan, a must see in relation with the present topic. Corporations are ruled by greed, so they can't generate global and sustainable good results. World economics and politics are ruled by psychopaths. > It is also apparent that it's time for Buddhists to > get serious about the central plank of all Buddhist > practice, namely, renunciation, since that is the > most effective way to boycott the corporations that > are destroying our environment, undermining democracy > everywhere and leaving us all increasingly incapable > of discerning truth from propaganda and PR. Nowadays I tend to think that if we wait to organize an effective global boycott it would be too late. There is a common topic in the global justice movement, how should we act? I'm not sure. What I know is that we should take the power from the corporations and give it to the people--the problem with this is that most of people are is already brainwashed by the global corporative liberal gibberish. In fact, although I don't like to recognize it in public (but, damn!, this is the Buddhist hell, isn't?), I really think that there is not solution. This is the Ending Age, our society and our world would be destroyed and something new will take their place, and I'm sure that it will be for good. Now I'm trying to figure out creative ways to accelerate the destruction with the less harm involved. Best wishes, Beni From bcarral at kungzhi.org Mon Oct 3 11:50:52 2005 From: bcarral at kungzhi.org (Benito Carral) Date: Mon Oct 3 11:54:48 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Turn off your television In-Reply-To: <20051002131453.19478.qmail@web30507.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <200510020408.j9248Mtn015250@ns1.swcp.com> <20051002131453.19478.qmail@web30507.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <334675007.20051003195052@kungzhi.org> On Sunday, October 2, 2005, Bill Kish wrote: >> But I have have to look at one more documentary full >> of fat bald men talking about the 60s, I may have to >> start throwing Molotov cocktails at PBS. > Perhaps a better solution would be to just unplug > your television leave it on your sidewalk with a sign > that reads "take me". The only purpose it serves is > to provide a never ending selection of other people's > papa~nca, no? Let me share with you some bits of experience taken from my life. I think that television can be a good way to know what some interesting people have to say. I'm thinking mostly in documentaries as _The Take_ or _The Corporation_ (corporations get economic resources with our television time, we should develop an inform to know if we gain more than we loose watching such programs). The problem is that one should be on guard (let me say "aware" as a Buddhist friendly option and relate it with the fifth ethical training) 24/7 and that is quite difficult as we all know. When one arrives at home completely exhausted, it's easy to fall in the temptation of watching some stupid (corporate directed) program in order "to enjoy" some relax. So I think that the solution is to make an extra effort in our Buddhist practice. Best wishes, Beni From curt at cola.iges.org Mon Oct 3 11:16:48 2005 From: curt at cola.iges.org (curt) Date: Mon Oct 3 12:34:12 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Karma and capitalism In-Reply-To: <009c01c5c7cd$65f1dda0$1d369c04@Dan> References: <005b01c5c7b8$f0649280$2930cece@charlie> <009c01c5c7cd$65f1dda0$1d369c04@Dan> Message-ID: <43416780.2090302@cola.iges.org> Dan Lusthaus wrote: >So it seems some are willing to concede (as 2000+ years of Buddhist history >would compellingly and decisively indicate) that Buddhism is compatible with >mercantilism, but for some reason, not capitalism. Unfortunately the ad hoc >definition of capitalism they rely on for this already questionable >distinction seems drawn more from Michael Douglas in "Wall Street" (with a >dose of Ayn Rand) than from Adam Smith or basic capitalist theory, which >aims at the sublimation and redirection of desire for the general good.... > I am quite fascinated by this description of "basic capitalist theory" as being aimed at "the sublimation and redirection of desire for the general good...." Is this something that Adam Smith said? It sounds more likely to come from some modern supply-side apologist of the moralizing variety - like maybe Jack Kemp or Bill (how to reduce crime) Bennett - although the phraseology is a bit fanciful for either one of them. I would very much like to know the actual source for this description of "basic capitalist theory". - Curt From chanfu at gmail.com Mon Oct 3 14:15:58 2005 From: chanfu at gmail.com (Chan Fu) Date: Mon Oct 3 14:24:52 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: <4340C7C4.4030207@nerim.net> References: <433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net> <1128014197.4974.20.camel@localhost.localdomain> <433C3AB0.6000206@nerim.net> <433E8ED5.2050706@nerim.net> <433F72A7.6020805@nerim.net> <4340C7C4.4030207@nerim.net> Message-ID: On 10/3/05, Joy Vriens wrote: > Chan Fu wrote: > > > One *is* one's environment, IMO. You really can't take > > (or universalize) yourself out of it. > > How come you're not disenchanted then? 'Cause it's all so enchanting, of course! :-) Humanity has been through many hard times and survived. Perhaps it's because the universe just laughs at that great big MYSELF and keeps going. I'm sure if we (or it) managed to erase humanity, it would reinvent us. Maybe with cute fuzzy ears. > > Buddha-wise, you can > > subtract everything but 'just being' and that's very relaxing > > and all, but it's just another mind trick - it's only another > > way of fooling yourself. > > Yes like the bodhisattva career and the tantras in which the divinity is > woken up from its deep concentration and summoned to act. > > > I tiptoed around the old folk's advice about letting > > go of 'emptiness' for a long time before it came on like > > the very first joke. > > Isn't it all jokes and tricks? "Madder than a box of frogs" may, in fact, be my most favorite colloquilism of all time. > >>I personally manage to find beauty and fullfillment in some intellectual > >>constructs too and find it hard to get by without them. But there is > >>more peace (dare I say opiate?) if one doesn't indulge in them. > > > Perhaps one's free to indulge. It's like going swimming. > > If you make the mistake of wishing to be a fish, you may > > wind up hooked. > > Oh, but I am hooked up. I have discovered that I am even when I think I > am not. That doesn't seem to be something to agonize over. I'm hooked on playing bridge, on my children and grandchildren, on music - hell, I'm hooked on everything. What I meant was not being able to accept where you are (the past/future thingie). > > Maybe the development that you speak of is only the opportunity > > to use our minds and appreciate the beauty of being. Maybe > > "spiritual" refers just to our beautiful (and lately evolved/discovered) > > minds. But you're in a better cultural ecology for that. Candles > > are flickering here, for lack of air. > > Yes beauty and mind are definitely connected. No beauty without mind. > > > But don't dismay. The pendulum has swung before. We just weren't > > riding on it at the time. > > If you are referring to a sort of the times they're a-changing feeling, > it's quite an impressive thing to witness. I was born in a time of newly > found hope, freedom, tolerance, intrepidity and I thought perhaps > humankind had managed to come out of troubled times and was perhaps > indeed evolving. Progress did exist. Seeing it swinging back like it > does in the current speed is very scary. But it is a great lesson. Yes, that. I was born at the beginning of WWII so I've been on it for a few swings now...;) It'll be interesting to see if it doesn't fall clean off the clock this time. The situation here is ummm...not nearly as bad as it could be. Progress is still happening - China and India are working on it while the USA restacks its bibles. > > ~2500 years ago seems to have marked a point in this evolution > > of reflection where it was rediscovered that thought (the > > ability to think as we do) could cause a great deal of suffering > > (mental pain). We're still learning, but our "spirituality" - our > > creativity and capacity of mind - is surely evolving in a beautiful way. > > How do you manage, if we are our environment? Careful attention to ecological balance? > > So, as the old mind-numbing, regressive, buddhism dies off and > > is replaced by just learning how to be what we are, perhaps > > we'll get lucky and we'll create even more beautiful things rather > > than going back to square one. We may even learn how to use > > this big wad of bubblegum in our heads before we screw it all up. > > Sounds great, but you are not going into the direction the pendulum is > swinging in. :-) On Mondays, Grandma used to say, "Swim against the stream", On Fridays she'd say, "Go with the flow." I was so confused when I was a kid that I just stuck with Wednesday. > Joy (perfectly pure ethics) :-) always From brburl at mailbag.com Mon Oct 3 14:46:11 2005 From: brburl at mailbag.com (Bruce Burrill) Date: Mon Oct 3 14:54:51 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Theravada In-Reply-To: References: <433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net> <1128014197.4974.20.camel@localhost.localdomain> <433C3AB0.6000206@nerim.net> <433E8ED5.2050706@nerim.net> <433F72A7.6020805@nerim.net> <4340C7C4.4030207@nerim.net> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20051003154206.03d12460@mailbag.com> Am I correct to say that Theravada not only refers to an ordination lineage, but is also a doctrinal lineage. Such a distinction can be made? Are there solely ordination lineages that have no doctrinal affiliations, or doctrinal schools that have no ordination lineage? I think I know the answers to these question, but I would some learned input from maybe Profs Counsins, Lusthaus, and Gethin (if he is still on the list) and anyone else who has good handle on this. Thanks much. From chanfu at gmail.com Mon Oct 3 15:12:35 2005 From: chanfu at gmail.com (Chan Fu) Date: Mon Oct 3 15:14:55 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Theravada In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20051003154206.03d12460@mailbag.com> References: <433C3AB0.6000206@nerim.net> <433E8ED5.2050706@nerim.net> <433F72A7.6020805@nerim.net> <4340C7C4.4030207@nerim.net> <6.2.3.4.2.20051003154206.03d12460@mailbag.com> Message-ID: On 10/3/05, Bruce Burrill wrote: > Am I correct to say that Theravada not only refers to an ordination > lineage, but is also a doctrinal lineage. Such a distinction can be > made? Are there solely ordination lineages that have no doctrinal > affiliations, or doctrinal schools that have no ordination lineage? I > think I know the answers to these question, but I would some learned > input from maybe Profs Counsins, Lusthaus, and Gethin (if he is still > on the list) and anyone else who has good handle on this. Thanks much. Yes. as well as a specific practice lineage that it shares with Soto Zen. Doctrinal differences within it are very widespread, though. wwygas? From chanfu at gmail.com Mon Oct 3 15:08:14 2005 From: chanfu at gmail.com (Chan Fu) Date: Mon Oct 3 15:14:56 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Karma and capitalism In-Reply-To: <004201c5c839$d103deb0$2930cece@charlie> References: <005b01c5c7b8$f0649280$2930cece@charlie> <009c01c5c7cd$65f1dda0$1d369c04@Dan> <434137D9.9090807@cola.iges.org> <004201c5c839$d103deb0$2930cece@charlie> Message-ID: On 10/3/05, jkirk wrote: > > >> > >> > > You might want to reconsider taking up this gauntlet. The nature of > > Capitalism as a uniquely modern phenomenon that was completely > > inconceivable prior to the industrial revolution is not some kind of "ad > > hoc" theory based on "questionable distinctions". Marx and Smith (who > > agreed almost completely on matters of "pure" economics) were both quite > > clear in their belief that Capitalism was a new thing that had never > > existed before in human history - and that it was limited to those > > nations in which the industrial revolution had completely transformed > > "the means of production". India - like most of the world - has only > > experienced the pointy end of Capitalist stick - and that only as a > > result of its engulfment into the British Empire (and that, as > > previously stated, more than 10 centuries after the the spread of > > Buddhism along the Silk Road). > > > > - Curt > ========================== > Quite right--the evidence is rather incontestable. > Joanna I beg to differ. Capitalism is no more than a revitalization and reorganization of the feudal system. I believe Vic Stenger (http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/) in one of his papers referred to the "self"ishness that's inherent in it. Looking back into early American History, we find an odd mix of agrarian and feudal operatives that the industrial revolution used to create monopolies and exploited the very individualities that supposedly formed the idea of capitalism. Evolutionary economics is great fun. :-) From chanfu at gmail.com Mon Oct 3 15:17:37 2005 From: chanfu at gmail.com (Chan Fu) Date: Mon Oct 3 15:24:53 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Perhaps of interest... Message-ID: http://myweb.lmu.edu/tshanahan/EP-BIOSC.html From alex at chagchen.org Mon Oct 3 15:52:32 2005 From: alex at chagchen.org (Alex Wilding) Date: Mon Oct 3 23:25:01 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo References: <433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net><1128014197.4974.20.camel@localhost.localdomain><433C3AB0.6000206@nerim.net><433E8ED5.2050706@nerim.net><433F72A7.6020805@nerim.net><4340C7C4.4030207@nerim.net> Message-ID: <002501c5c8a2$dcfc3320$26d5869f@m4k8m7> Chan Fu wrote: > Humanity has been through many hard times and > survived. "Humanity" is an abstract idea, as empty as they come. Actual, individual human beings, otoh, (not to mention our less intellectual brothers and sisters in the animal world) have died of horrible diseases, starvation, being torn to shreds by armaments and by plain, aboninamble, cruel torture. (And other things - but you get my point.) If there is a bright side (like, for instance, my own life so far, which has, as it happens, been delightful) it is a shallow and hollow one. AW From bcarral at kungzhi.org Tue Oct 4 06:47:21 2005 From: bcarral at kungzhi.org (Benito Carral) Date: Tue Oct 4 06:55:04 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: References: <433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net> <1128014197.4974.20.camel@localhost.localdomain> <433C3AB0.6000206@nerim.net> <433E8ED5.2050706@nerim.net> <433F72A7.6020805@nerim.net> <4340C7C4.4030207@nerim.net> Message-ID: <1711943140.20051004144721@kungzhi.org> On Monday, October 3, 2005, Chan Fu wrote: > Humanity has been through many hard times and > survived. Perhaps it's because the universe just > laughs at that great big MYSELF and keeps going. I'm > sure if we (or it) managed to erase humanity, it > would reinvent us. Maybe with cute fuzzy ears. That's wishful thinking--humans beings have arrived here, but that doesn't mean that they will go further. Many species, as dinosaurs, have dissapeared for ever. Humans beings are not funny at all. Humanity is dangerous for a lot of different species and the Earth. The wise thing is to stop the threat--an urgent transformation of the global mentality is needed, otherwise we should be exterminated as a whole (and with a sigh of relief). The Earth seems to be ruled by wishful rules, so I have hope. If we need to go because we are too stupid (and I think so), we will go. The Buddha said that stupidity is the problem, it has always been, but human stupudity is not sustainable anymore. Best wishes, Beni From rhayes at unm.edu Tue Oct 4 09:22:24 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Tue Oct 4 09:25:08 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: <4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net> References: <1127942930.6308.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> <433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net> <617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org> <4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net> Message-ID: <1128439345.4561.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Mon, 2005-10-03 at 08:09 +0200, Joy Vriens wrote: > I am afraid that the Americans can't separate their nationalism and > religion. Nationalism IS the American religion. Saluting the flag is the principal sacrament. You can't even fish a coin out of your pocket without being reminded that Americans trust in God. But which God? The God that is on their side in crushing the spirit of infidels, that is, the people who do not share the vision of America as the new Jerusalem, the land from which the good news of the coming Kingdom of God (and Wal-Mart) will spread like a light to every nation on earth. This sort of rhetoric could already be found in the writings of the first pilgrims before their stockings got dry from the trans-Atlantic voyage. In the minds of an alarmingly large percentage of the US population ever since then, America without God is just another piece of real estate, and God without America is just another feeble wisp of poetic fancy. One can scarcely dream of anything more frightening than this vision, although it does have some pretty frightening cheap imitations around the world in the visions of such folks as Osama bin Ladin, and the Ayatullahs who brought us the glorious Islamic Republic of Iran a few decades ago, and some of the ultra-religious folks in Israel who still cling to the quaint idea that YHWH gave their ancestors the land and encouraged them (in Deuteronomy and some of the Psalms) to dash out the brains of the babies of the hapless people who were living there before them. There is a bumper sticker on the rear ends of several cars here in the USA that reads "Dear God, protect me from those who believe in you." I'd say more, but I need to go persuade my Reasoning and Critical Thinking class that as Americans they don't have a prayer of being either reasonable or critical, after which I go to my Buddhism class to persuade my students that as Americans they don't have a mantra of ever being Buddhists. It's all in a day's work. -- The Logging Chain of Loving Kindness From jkirk at spro.net Tue Oct 4 10:42:04 2005 From: jkirk at spro.net (jkirk) Date: Tue Oct 4 10:45:09 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddhism and capitalism Message-ID: <003201c5c902$8d913af0$2930cece@charlie> Since Richard has just reminded us of the true religion of America--nationalism and flag waving and we are God's own country--I want to suggest some reading for those of you who are immune to the wizard of Oz's existential maya-- the maya of the prevailing offical US world view-- a reading that includes nothing about god or religion but says a lot about the elites of the world who as we speak are busy protecting their own butts, on the basis of what Michael C. Ruppert calls "demand destruction." I hope that as Buddhists we can organize responses in our various communities to deal with the forthcoming problems, responses that will be useful and helpful because we believe in sharing and compassion. Every man for him or herself probably won't work. So look over the website, read his forthcoming talk in (the first public conference of any magnitude on peak oil. which I will include here as I just subbed to his research service) to be held in the NYC UU hall on Oct 5th. Hope this is not too long for the server to entertain. http://www.fromthewilderness.com/ http://www.petrocollapse.org/ Joanna ------------ Begin talk: GOVERNMENT, FINANCIAL, AND POLITICAL AWARENESS OF PEAK OIL PRIOR TO 2005 FIVE RULES FOR SURVIVAL OF THE COMING COLLAPSE (A Speech for the New York Petrocollapse Conference - October 5, 2005) by Michael C. Ruppert ? Copyright 2005, From The Wilderness Publications, www.fromthewilderness.com. All Rights Reserved. May be circulated, distributed or transmitted for non-profit purposes only. October 5, 2005 (FTW) - NEW YORK -- Most people who have come to this conference; indeed, perhaps even some of the presenters here today, have come with a serious misconception. That misconception is a belief that there is an urgent need to somehow make key decision makers and leaders of American and global life aware of the immediate problems of Peak Oil and Natural Gas. Nothing could be more off base. The world's key decision makers have been aware of and planning for this crisis for years. In fact, by understanding clearly that political, economic and business elites have been aware of Peak Oil and its deadly implications, we can see that remedial actions designed to save lives and minimize the effects of collapse can and will only be initiated by individuals working through and as part of local communities. There is a record - much too long to describe fully here - that official awareness of Peak Oil and its implications has been a distinct and well-articulated part of US political and economic thinking going back at least to 1977. I will give you just a few brief examples to make the point. Many of these examples are included in my book "Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil" (New Society, 2004). If you listen closely to these few examples you will understand that even though the term Peak Oil is rarely mentioned, it is exactly what is being described. In the same vein, it is foolish to believe that any governmental preparation for Peak Oil will be publicly labeled as such. Most preparations, so as to avoid panic and/or political risk, have been carefully concealed in other documents and legislation such as the PATRIOT Act and the Homeland Security Act. In my earlier presentation and throughout the day today, it should be growing clear to you that official preparations for Peak Oil have been underway for some time. And - as I document in "Rubicon" - they include the attacks of September 11th, 2001 and all US government foreign policy initiatives since then. [deleted-- his history of how long ago and who knew and reported on peak oil and consequences.] We are witnessing government response to Peak Oil now. In my earlier presentation I have made it clear that that response will include only measures which protect the financial elites and major corporations. They include: 1. Rationing 2. More Coal and Nuclear - Emphasis on Fisher-Tropsch Coal-to-Liquids Conversion. 3. Suspended Environmental and Drilling Restrictions 4. Protection of Critical Infrastructure 5. Strengthening and Reinforcing Domestic Military Operations - Suspension of Posse Comitatus 6. Suspension and Relaxation of Labor and Minimum Wage Laws. 7. Changing and Tightening the Bankruptcy Laws Allowing Fewer Distressed Consumers to Discharge Debts. 8. Allowing and Facilitating Population Reduction through Famine and Disease. 9. Strengthening and Giving More Power to FEMA. 10. Destroying Demand Through Economic Collapse and Allocating Scarce Resources - by Force if Necessary - to Protect the Interests of the Wealthiest Communities and Interests in the Country. Accordingly, I have developed five rules which should be used as a guide for all who understand Peak Oil, who appreciate both its imminence and significance, and who wish to do something to increase their chances for survival as our long emergency now begins: 1. There is no combination of alternative energy sources anywhere that will enable current consumption and growth to continue. 2. Even if there were, it takes 30 years and lots of capital investment to change an energy infrastructure. Peak Oil is here now. The current infrastructure will not be rebuilt or even well maintained. The return on that investment for the financial elites is "uncertain" and they will not spend any more than they have to on band aid solutions until the crash becomes apparent. 3. No government entity (federal or state) will do (or be able to do) anything to solve Peak Oil and energy shortages. The political system is utterly and irretrievably broken. 4. Until you change the way money works, you change nothing. It will be more profitable to let decline, starvation, wars, disease and famine occur than it will be to prevent them (Disaster Capitalism). 5. All real solutions will be place-based, local and originate at the grass roots, independent of government. What saves you and your family will be determined by what and who is in your own neighborhood and what kind of cooperation has been achieved there. These are stark and harsh words, I realize. But for many years now I and "From The Wilderness" have had an uncanny record - around 80% -- of accurately predicting future trends and events. We are today just weeks away from one of the largest economic crashes to ever hit the United States. It is a crash that has actually been encouraged for some time through reckless fiscal policy, soaring deficits both in Washington and in our balance of payments accounts, the unbridled and inexcusable inflation of the housing bubble, expansion of consumer credit and a negative net savings rate to name a few. It is in this way that massive demand destruction will be achieved to maintain a degree of broader global stability as Peak Oil begins to claim casualties as it already has in Zimbabwe and Indonesia. With the United States consisting of 5% of the world's population consuming 25% of the world's energy output, it has been clear for some time that America was the only profligate spender which mattered and which needed to be "adjusted" before broader global desperation measures could be implemented. With all of the sincerity and fervor I have; with every ounces of credibility I have established over these many long years of activism and painstakingly documented research, I urge all of you to take these warnings seriously and to take action now. Understand that the only productive efforts you can make are to look at your own lives and your own communities and to start taking the actions that will expand your options and increase your support bases there. Because I assure you that there is no one in Washington capable, and no one on Wall Street with even the slightest bit of concern, about how you will come out of this, except as a crippled vehicle - perhaps a bankrupt indentured servant - to maintain an economic paradigm that demands infinite growth and the sacrifice of everything that is human and good to achieve it, even human life itself. Even with as little time as now remains before reality hits, there are steps you can take, and which you can determine for yourself, which may make a difference in how you fare through this. But the only way to begin that process is to understand that no one, except perhaps your neighbors and your family, is going to do anything to help you and that this, has been the real plan for many, many years. Thank you. From joy.vriens at nerim.net Tue Oct 4 11:02:08 2005 From: joy.vriens at nerim.net (Joy Vriens) Date: Tue Oct 4 11:05:08 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: <1128439345.4561.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1127942930.6308.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> <433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net> <617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org> <4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net> <1128439345.4561.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <4342B590.2000901@nerim.net> Richard wrote: > Nationalism IS the American religion. Saluting the flag is the principal > sacrament. The military is its clergy and criticising it or doubting that all the fallen troops were sacrified for a good reason is sacrilege. Exporting freedom and having it guarded by armed forces is its charity... etc. As a European I should be am grateful for the sacrifices made during WWII, yet at the same time that shouldn't stop us from being critical about some decisions made and actions taken, in honour of those who gave their lives. So many gifts, so many strings... > I'd say more, but I need to go persuade my Reasoning and Critical > Thinking class... But don't Reasoning and Critical Thinking make unhappy citizens? (trying without conviction to get this conversation back to Buddhism). Joy From dlusthau at mailer.fsu.edu Tue Oct 4 11:40:20 2005 From: dlusthau at mailer.fsu.edu (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Tue Oct 4 11:45:12 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Karma and capitalism References: <005b01c5c7b8$f0649280$2930cece@charlie><009c01c5c7cd$65f1dda0$1d369c04@Dan> <434137D9.9090807@cola.iges.org> Message-ID: <177e01c5c90a$b1320b30$69309c04@Dan> Curt cites Marx and Smith as declaring capitalism "new" and unprecedented. That's the giddyness of misperceived novelty -- to refer to the Dylan biopic that prompted this whole discussion, it's the same as when Dylan says that he thought he was doing something, was onto something, that no one else had ever done before, which he now admits was an erroneous self-appraisal. In Marx's case, for instance, he was merely following Hegel in constructing a dialectic of history in which the East represented the "childhood" or infancy of human development; all meaningful progress and innovation, i.e., adulthood, resided only and exclusively in their own Europe. Every European "event", then, was momentous, not just a moment, and carried cosmic consequences in the evolution of the Geist. That idea, expanded and existentialiized, survives into Heidegger and beyond in the notion of the "event". Hegel's eurocentrism was simply wrong, as it is much easier to recognize today, and those who followed along -- for whatever reason -- were equally wrong. The cornerstone on Marx's theory of history, that dialectical necessity produces historico-economic reality, was equally wrong. Feudalism (however one wishes to understand that overused and ultimately amorphous term) did not produce capitalism out of necessity, and more obviously capitalism has not been the necessary producer of Communism (where so-called Communist revolutions occurred were in Peasant, not Capitalist societies, thus skipping a supposed *necessary* step). Mercantalism (whether in "pure" capitalist form or other configurations) has been ruling the world for sometime (powerfully articulated by Ned Beatty in the boardroom to Howard Beale in the film "Network," i.e., corporate institutions transcend nationalism). Had Marx studied India better, he might have predicted that the "revolution" would necessarily arise among the Peasants, not the capitalists. America is now struggling with whether to return to the theocratic rule at the top of the chart, and start all over again. During the mid-20th c., America had moved the hyphen from Priest-Ksatriya to Ksatriya-Merchant, which is why Eisenhower's farewell speech when leaving office included the famous line: "beware the military-Industrial complex." The hyphen is still in movement, so that when bin Laden struck at the old hyphen (Pentagon and World Trade Center), he was buying into a myth that was already becoming atavistic. (Note the only significant industrialization sought in the Muslim world is nuclear technology). In short, what was new in Marx's day was the Industrial Revolution, not "capitalism" per se, though the massive quantificatory changes introduced to society by industrialization had equally massive qualitative changes (marxist "alienation" rhetoric, etc.) -- the worst of these ameliiorated not by a communist revolution, but by trade unions and labor legislation (against sweat shops, child labor, etc.). Now that Republicans have successfully killed off the union movement (with a little help from the unions' own internal corruption and bickering), everything is in play. An alternate, but similar, historical model can be culled from the Indian Caste (varna) distinctions. 1. Priests (experts, mandarins, psychiatrists, economists, academics who advise Congress, etc.) 2. K.satriyas (Military, rulers, Politicians, etc.) 3. Merchants 4. Peasants, blue collar 5. Untouchables (Dalits) (migrant workers, etc.) Indian history, just like world history, has been a progression in which leadership moves down the list. At some hoary point in the past (perhaps), Brahmins were in charge. Since actual conquest and ruling fell to Ksatriyas, they made a pact with the Brahmins (usually); they would partronize and support the Brahmins, in return for having their reigns sanctified and justified (Henry VIII and the Protestant Reformation was a big break with that, only to resanctify a new type of Brahmin class). Rulers always depended on financing to conduct war, live high on the hog, maintain impressive ceremonies, impress their neighbors, etc., so the merchants became more and more important, e.g., their capital. The mechant class (oil companies, etc.) rule today, and get themselves elected by appealing to distracted envies and fears of the peasants who vote for them (keep them inundated with sports, "beauty" products, celebrity gossip, etc.) Curt also wrote: I am quite fascinated by this description of "basic capitalist theory" as being aimed at "the sublimation and redirection of desire for the general good...." Is this something that Adam Smith said? Yes, with a different vocabulary, which he drew from such political theorists as Hobbes and Spinoza. Smith's proposal was not Machievellian, in the sense that he was not advocating a deceitful usurpation of power and capital; it was Hobbesian, in that the goal was the advancement of the common good (which became Paine's "Common Sense"). If there is a course in the history of capitalism being taught near you by a non-ideologue (from any side), avail yourself of it. Dan Lusthaus From joy.vriens at nerim.net Tue Oct 4 13:02:44 2005 From: joy.vriens at nerim.net (Joy Vriens) Date: Tue Oct 4 13:05:10 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: On Dylan and Poetry In-Reply-To: <1529004845.20051003174645@kungzhi.org> References: <1127942930.6308.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1128005702.4806.24.camel@localhost.localdomain> <2cc63730eeb1a4a7627ab8dfcd9b601e@earthlink.net> <1128016760.6335.30.camel@localhost.localdomain> <3520ffae7c3103f1a3a2b7125a8e257a@earthlink.net> <1529004845.20051003174645@kungzhi.org> Message-ID: <4342D1D4.7070003@nerim.net> Benito Carral wrote: > I think that distraction as a final aspiration is a > quite postmodern thing, something with which Woody > Allen would agree. In fact, he has reportedly said, "I > feel that it's impossible really to be happy, and that > the best you can hope for is to be distracted" > (interviewed by Geoff Andrew)(1). "Pour ?tre heureux, il faut avoir un objet. Notre ?me est une suite d'id?es ; elle souffre quand elle n'est pas occup?e, comme si cette suite ?tait interrompue et qu'on mena??t son existence." Montesquieu. One needs an object in order to be happy. Our soul is a series of ideas ; it suffers when it hasn't an occupation, as if this series were interrupted and were to threaten its existence. From parisjm2004 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 4 13:19:25 2005 From: parisjm2004 at yahoo.com (Michael Paris) Date: Tue Oct 4 13:25:08 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: <1128439345.4561.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20051004191925.40200.qmail@web32607.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Then who does have a chance of ever being reasonable or critical, or a Buddhist? Michael --- "Richard P. Hayes" wrote: [snip] > > I'd say more, but I need to go persuade my Reasoning and Critical > Thinking class that as Americans they don't have a prayer of being > either reasonable or critical, after which I go to my Buddhism class > to persuade my students that as Americans they don't have a mantra of > ever being Buddhists. It's all in a day's work. __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From bcarral at kungzhi.org Tue Oct 4 13:36:30 2005 From: bcarral at kungzhi.org (Benito Carral) Date: Tue Oct 4 13:45:12 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: <4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net> References: <1127942930.6308.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> <433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net> <617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org> <4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net> Message-ID: <1359619694.20051004213630@kungzhi.org> On Monday, October 3, 2005, Joy Vriens wrote: > I was in Oviedo a couple of years ago for work. > Pleasant little town and lovely cider. I'm glad to know that you have enjoyed this city. I think it's a good place to live, as far as I'm concerned the only problem (an it'snot a little one) it's that there are not many interesting people out there. It's a boring and unwholesome globalized city. > The Anglosaxon (as us Latins like to call them) brand > of Christian religion seems to be a very militant > one. I was struck when walking into British > cathedrals to see so many statues and representations > of admirals, military symbols, allusions to national > victories etc. there. I got the same feeling the first time I visited the UK. Then I realized that we have a similar theme here in Asturias. I don't know if you have heard about Covadonga, it's a Catholic holy site where (it's said that) Don Pelayo defeated the Muslims and started the Spanish Reconquest. I don't know what it would have been better, a Catholic Spain or a Muslim one, what I know is that Catholicism was a heavy burden for us. I have always dreamed about what would have happened if Jews, Christians, and Muslims would have lived here at peace. It's seems to me that many people through history have used something they call "religion" in order to control citizens. They have used Buddhism, Christianism, Islam... But there is still some differences. If someone wears a Spanish flag in Spain, it will be regarded as a "fanatic," "fascist," and "undesirable" individual. Spaniards don't feel the colours, in fact, Spain is being disintegrated by nationalists. It's just that they want to cut the cake in order to rule over their little parcels (and get the money). So I feel alienated for several reasons and don't feel Spaniard at all nor nationalist in any of our variants. Best wishes, Beni From bcarral at kungzhi.org Tue Oct 4 13:50:15 2005 From: bcarral at kungzhi.org (Benito Carral) Date: Tue Oct 4 13:55:11 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: <4342B590.2000901@nerim.net> References: <1127942930.6308.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> <433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net> <617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org> <4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net> <1128439345.4561.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4342B590.2000901@nerim.net> Message-ID: <02556858.20051004215015@kungzhi.org> On Tuesday, October 4, 2005, Joy Vriens wrote: >> I'd say more, but I need to go persuade my Reasoning >> and Critical Thinking class... > But don't Reasoning and Critical Thinking make > unhappy citizens? (trying without conviction to get > this conversation back to Buddhism). I think this is really interesting, it has to do with the "hapiness myth." Why do most of people think that the goal of life is to be happy? I don't agree. In fact, I consider such a view a very dangerous one, and certainly unwholesome. As far as I know, the Buddha taugh how to end with dukkha. And that has little to do with most of people understand by happiness. I would say that, from the point of view of Early Buddhism, the goal was to have peace of mind. I suppose that an interesting question would be, "What do people mean when they say, 'happiness'?" Well, my two cents. Now it's dinner time. Best wishes, Beni From dlusthau at mailer.fsu.edu Tue Oct 4 13:54:20 2005 From: dlusthau at mailer.fsu.edu (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Tue Oct 4 13:55:14 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Theravada References: <433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net><1128014197.4974.20.camel@localhost.localdomain><433C3AB0.6000206@nerim.net><433E8ED5.2050706@nerim.net><433F72A7.6020805@nerim.net><4340C7C4.4030207@nerim.net> <6.2.3.4.2.20051003154206.03d12460@mailbag.com> Message-ID: <002d01c5c91d$698781d0$dc369c04@Dan> Bruce, Lance Cousins can probably provide more details on the Theravada take on this. I'm unclear what you mean by "lineage"? Do you mean ordination into one or another sectarian Buddhist school? I believe Lance is of the opinion that ordination, even for Mahayanists, was largely the same for all Buddhists in India, and that the discrepencies between the various vinaya prescriptions for ordination were minor or insignificant. If, on the other hand, you are asking whether there were different ideological lineages within Theravada, then, at least for the early period, the answer, as reflected in Buddhist sources, would be yes. Different disciples of Buddha had their own disciples, and schisms between them already during the time of the Buddha are recorded. After Buddha, some followed Ananda, some followed one or another of the other disciples (the names and stories vary across the literature, some of it relatively late). One or another of these schismed lineages eventually died out -- there are several texts that bemoan the loss of a tremendous amount of original Buddhavacana when the Ananda lineage (or Ananda himself) died. To what extent, if any, any of this involved differences in ordination procedures is unclear. Lamotte's _History of Indian Buddhism_ provides some discussion of this, but I haven't time now to hunt that down (be warned -- the index to the English edition is utterly useless and out of sync with the main text. Has anyone compiled a working index to this edition?) If, on a still further hand (in the imaginary world, we can have as many hands as we wish), you don't mean these distinct lineages as internal Theravada matters, but a Theravadin take on rival Buddhist sects, then again, Lance could give you a better account of that than I. If, on a still further hand (maybe that's why Indian deities have so many arms?), you are wondering whether the different sects each had their own ordination procedures, then the answer would be a qualified yes. The picture is somewhat murky, and something debated these days among some scholars, but my sense is that there was a generic set of ordinations that made one a monk or nun (of various degrees of initiation), with auxilliary ordinations for specific sects. So, for instance, those subsets of clerics who took vegetarianism as a rule, may have had an additional set of ordinations specifying those rules, administered by the "lineage" of that subset. We have good archeological evidence that Mahayanists and non-Mahayanists, e.g., lived together in the same monastic institutions (as well as literary evidence that certain monasteries were predominantly or even exclusively of one or another sect), but these institutions may have allowed for differentiations nonetheless, such as Mahayanists sleeping in different dorms/caves. At Nagarjunakonda, a partially preserved vihara has an entrance foyer with two chambers, one to the left and one to right, that one must pass to get to the main hall (in which the monks ate and probably studied). The one on the left contains a dharmacakra, i.e., a statue of the dharma-wheel; the one on the right has a statue of a Bodhisattva (I don't remember offhand which -- possibly Maitreya or Avalokitesvara). Obviously non-Mahayanists made obeisances upon entering in the left chamber, while Mahayanists availed themselves of the one on the right. Dan Lusthaus From curt at cola.iges.org Tue Oct 4 09:42:23 2005 From: curt at cola.iges.org (curt) Date: Tue Oct 4 14:10:11 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Karma and capitalism In-Reply-To: References: <005b01c5c7b8$f0649280$2930cece@charlie> <009c01c5c7cd$65f1dda0$1d369c04@Dan> <434137D9.9090807@cola.iges.org> <004201c5c839$d103deb0$2930cece@charlie> Message-ID: <4342A2DF.3070901@cola.iges.org> Chan Fu wrote: >I beg to differ. >Capitalism is no more than a revitalization >and reorganization of the feudal system. I believe >Vic Stenger (http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/) >in one of his papers referred to the "self"ishness that's >inherent in it. > Stenger is one of those intellectual midgets who tries to make a name for himself by cranking out cartoonish critiques of ideas that were more than adequately dealt with already by Voltaire some time ago. He is obsessed with critiquing religion - about which he knows absolutely nothing. His notion of Religion is narrowly defined by worst-case-scenario Christianity. In other words, the man wouldn't know subtely if it bit him in the arse. Why anyone would take his views on economics seriously is beyond me. In fact, I seriously doubt that anyone does. Besides, I never claimed that there weren't ninkompoops who peddled theories according to which Capitalism is nothing new. My claim was that the newness of Capitalism was not an idea of my own invention (and that simply to score debating points against Dan Lusthaus) but that it is rather an old idea quite clearly espoused by both Karl Marx and Adam Smith. - Curt From dlusthau at mailer.fsu.edu Tue Oct 4 14:44:02 2005 From: dlusthau at mailer.fsu.edu (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Tue Oct 4 14:45:12 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo References: <1127942930.6308.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> <433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net><617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org> <4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net> <1128439345.4561.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <004b01c5c924$5d6d3190$dc369c04@Dan> Richard writes... >the people who > do not share the vision of America as the new Jerusalem, the land from > which the good news of the coming Kingdom of God (and Wal-Mart) will > spread like a light to every nation on earth. This sort of rhetoric > could already be found in the writings of the first pilgrims before > their stockings got dry from the trans-Atlantic voyage. ...echoing a similar capitulation to the current revisionistic version of American history touted by the religious right reiterated last Sunday in the lead article in the New York Times Magazine. Yes, it's true the Pilgrims had an evangelical, even apocalyptic vision, and other groups over the course of American history have had similar visions. But this ignores a very significant "event" in the establishment of the American govt. and its constitution. The Pilgrims, like many other groups (Quakers, Mennonites, etc etc), came to the "New World" to escape religious persecution from the authorities back in the old country. Yet, most of these groups were no more tolerant of religions different from their own once they got here than were the govts. they had fled. So Catholics, Jews, and sundry varieties of Protestants were NOT welcome, and not allowed to settle in "New" Enland. Peter Styvesandt similarly attempted to bar Jews (and Catholics, etc.), until Jews filed legal appeals back in Holland compelling him to be more tolerant. And so on. By the time representatives of the colonies convened to hash out a Constitution, the de facto reality on the ground was that numerous religious groups had claimed wide swatches of territory for their own religion, and were loathe to share that with alternate religious persuasions. The Quakers, e.g., claimed the area called Pennsylvania, named after the Quaker William Penn, whose statue still sits atop City Hall in Philadelphia (with a city law forbidding any building to be built higher than Penn's hat). The only Buddhism in the mix was the paltry and neoplatonic sounding ruminations about India and China that attracted figures such as Jefferson and John Adams. In the 19th c. religious groups began to share territory more fully (except for the Mormons, who ghettoized themselves in Utah). So when the Constitution was forged, the compromise to settle the religious rivalries -- informed by the shared experience of all the disputants (common enemies make friends), was that (1) the govt. shall have no official religion, since that inevitably led to persecution of other religions, and (2) the govt. shall not persecute the practice of any religion. The govt. should be free FROM religion in order for the people to be free TO practice their own religions unhindered. This was a compromise reached because of the palpable urgency each experienced in the old country and the newly forming rifts emerging in their debates. Every revisionist attack on that brilliant and inviolable line between church and state established by the founding fathers not only threatens to undo the core of their vision, but, as point (1) indicates, threatens religion itself. The Buddhist response to revisionistic disinformation should be accurate recounting of the events themselves -- their causes and conditions, clearly explaining WHY the first amendment states what it states, and why it only works when one retains both sides of the equation. Dan Lusthaus From curt at cola.iges.org Tue Oct 4 14:51:58 2005 From: curt at cola.iges.org (curt) Date: Tue Oct 4 15:52:45 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: <02556858.20051004215015@kungzhi.org> References: <1127942930.6308.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> <433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net> <617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org> <4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net> <1128439345.4561.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4342B590.2000901@nerim.net> <02556858.20051004215015@kungzhi.org> Message-ID: <4342EB6E.6050902@cola.iges.org> Benito Carral wrote: > I think this is really interesting, it has to do >with the "hapiness myth." Why do most of people think >that the goal of life is to be happy? I don't agree. In >fact, I consider such a view a very dangerous one, and >certainly unwholesome. > > I have a friend who is a Buddhist nun and a Zen teacher, who was once asked whether or not she was really happy in her life as a nun. Her answer was "my life isn't about happiness." She is a wonderful person with a great spirit, and I think that I understand what she was saying - but personally I believe that this is a problematic way of expressing the Dharma in English. In the Sutra Spoken to the Kalamas, the Buddha advised against any arbitrary or unreliable criteria for accepting a teaching - rather he tells the Kalamas only "when you yourselves know that these things are good..." should one adhere to a teaching. After two thousand years of dualistic Christian brainwashing it can be hard to get past the old "if it feels good there must be something bad about it" mentality - but prior to Christianity all of the Ancient Philosophers upon which the "western" intellectual tradition is supposedly based taught that seeking what is truly Good leads to the only true happiness. Platonists even called their most sublimely ineffable first-principle "the Good". And they (the Platonists) also taught that one must know for oneself what is "Good" to really attain happiness (see especially Plato's Republic, for example - or Julia Annas' book The Virtue of Happiness for a contemporary scholar's take on this). Also, the Dalai Lama often expresses the Dharma in terms of both ending suffering and attaining happiness. I don't think he is just trying to please his audience when he says that - in fact I have the impression that the Dalai Lama pretty much means what he says quite sincerely - and that his understanding of traditional Buddhism is quite solid. So while some people might choose to avoid talk of "happiness", there are others who agree with the Dalai Lama and Plato in thinking that happiness, if properly understood, is the natural result of living our lives in a good way. - Curt From curt at cola.iges.org Tue Oct 4 15:15:38 2005 From: curt at cola.iges.org (curt) Date: Tue Oct 4 15:52:46 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: <02556858.20051004215015@kungzhi.org> References: <1127942930.6308.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> <433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net> <617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org> <4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net> <1128439345.4561.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4342B590.2000901@nerim.net> <02556858.20051004215015@kungzhi.org> Message-ID: <4342F0FA.9070007@cola.iges.org> Benito Carral wrote: > I think this is really interesting, it has to do >with the "hapiness myth." Why do most of people think >that the goal of life is to be happy? I don't agree. In >fact, I consider such a view a very dangerous one, and >certainly unwholesome. > > I got the title of Julia Annas' book wrong in my previous post - its "The Morality of Happiness". The publisher's page for the book (at http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Philosophy/EthicsMoralPhilosophy/~~/cHI9MTAmcGY9MCZzcz1hdXRob3IuYXNjJnNmPWFsbCZzZD1hc2Mmdmlldz11c2EmY2k9MDE5NTA5NjUyNQ== ) has abstracts for each chapter - here is the abstract for the first chapter, entitled "Making Sense of My Life as a Whole": "The entry-point for ethical reflection in ancient ethics is the question of how I ought to live. This develops into thoughts about my final end and the formal conditions that have to hold of it. The assumption that this is happiness raises issues about similarities and differences between modern notions of happiness and the ancient concept of happiness or eudaimonia." May all beings be happy - or if they prefer something else, may they get that. - Curt From rhayes at unm.edu Tue Oct 4 15:48:17 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Tue Oct 4 15:55:14 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: <004b01c5c924$5d6d3190$dc369c04@Dan> References: <1127942930.6308.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> <433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net> <617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org> <4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net> <1128439345.4561.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> <004b01c5c924$5d6d3190$dc369c04@Dan> Message-ID: <1128462497.30929.30.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Tue, 2005-10-04 at 16:44 -0400, Dan Lusthaus wrote: > Richard writes... > > >the people who > > do not share the vision of America as the new Jerusalem, the land from > > which the good news of the coming Kingdom of God (and Wal-Mart) will > > spread like a light to every nation on earth. This sort of rhetoric > > could already be found in the writings of the first pilgrims before > > their stockings got dry from the trans-Atlantic voyage. > > ...echoing a similar capitulation to the current revisionistic version of > American history touted by the religious right reiterated last Sunday in the > lead article in the New York Times Magazine. Actually, my source for this was Sidney Ahlstrom's A Religious History of the American People, considered by many the definitive work on the topic. Ahlstrom chronicles a movement of Christians in England who saw England as the land from which the light of the gospels would spread to all nations. When they moved to the Americas, they saw the new world as the New Jerusalem. This is pretty well attested. The religious right of our times, of course, has rediscovered that enthusiasm of the early Puritans and exploited it for their own purposes. > By the time representatives of the > colonies convened to hash out a Constitution, the de facto reality on the > ground was that numerous religious groups had claimed wide swatches of > territory for their own religion, and were loathe to share that with > alternate religious persuasions. That is not quite the case. Many of the swatches of land were de jure territories, but not de facto at all. A case in point was Pennsylvania, a land given by the British crown to Penn, the pacifist son of the admiral who conquered Jamaica. Penn by that time had become a Quaker. The Quakers were not welcome in many places in the Americas. Some states had laws advocating the death penalty for anyone who knowingly associated with or did business with Quakers, and there were a number of public executions in Boston in which Quaker women were whipped and then hanged in the public squares. Pennsylvania Quakers tended to be pretty tolerant of others, as a result of which Pennsylvania was rapidly populated by folks who were not tolerated elsewhere in the colonies. Famously Pennsylvania became the home of many German pietists and anabaptists, such as the followers of Menno Simons and Jakob Hutter. > The Buddhist response to revisionistic disinformation should be accurate > recounting of the events themselves -- their causes and conditions, clearly > explaining WHY the first amendment states what it states, and why it only > works when one retains both sides of the equation. This is no doubt excellent advice, but I can't help wondering what prompted you to feel a need to give us all this little lesson in history and the evolution of the constitution. Did you feel you were telling us something we didn't already know? Or were you writing this for the benefit of the multitudes of religious right Republicans who hang on every word we write here on buddha-l and model their lives on our sage advice? -- Richard Hayes Department of Philosophy University of New Mexico From bcarral at kungzhi.org Tue Oct 4 16:26:07 2005 From: bcarral at kungzhi.org (Benito Carral) Date: Tue Oct 4 16:35:16 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: <4342EB6E.6050902@cola.iges.org> References: <1127942930.6308.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> <433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net> <617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org> <4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net> <1128439345.4561.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4342B590.2000901@nerim.net> <02556858.20051004215015@kungzhi.org> <4342EB6E.6050902@cola.iges.org> Message-ID: <19910014655.20051005002607@kungzhi.org> On Tuesday, October 4, 2005, Curt wrote: > So while some people might choose to avoid talk of > "happiness", there are others who agree with the > Dalai Lama and Plato in thinking that happiness, if > properly understood, is the natural result of living > our lives in a good way. The problem with "happiness" is that it is an empty word, it can mean anything or nothing at all. As far as I have been able to explore, what most of people understand by "happiness" in our tragic globalized world is the absence of physical pain plus material comfort. Nowadays I tend to include interpersonal relationships--marriages statically last 11 years in Spain; when one becomes tired of his partner, he just chooses other--and mental wellbeing here--when one feels bad, he takes Prozac. So I wouldn't go so far as conclude that Plato, the Dalai Lama, and our fellow citizens are talking about the same reality when they say "happiness." In fact, one of the couple of things that I have learnt in my life is that people tend to use the same word to refer to completely different realities. So one of my favourite questions is, "What do you mean when you say x?" Now bringing my remarks to a more Buddhist arena, it's clear that Mahayana Buddhism emphasised attaining something instead of stoping dukkha--I'm not sure that the old Indian Buddha would agree with such an approach. I admit that it can be an useful rethoric, but it has been misused through history. It's my experience as a Buddhist teacher that many people in our world practice what they call "Buddhism" in order to attain enlightenment, to see the void, and a lot of more of strange things. Nowadays I always ask, "Why do you want to study Buddhism?" If they don't tell me that they want to stop dukkha, I ask them to look for another teacher. I have not deal yet with the question, "What a good way is?" How should we determine it? By its results? If so, what results would indicate that one has followed a good way? If not by the results, how should we recognize what a good way is? Best wishes, Beni From dlusthau at mailer.fsu.edu Tue Oct 4 16:38:05 2005 From: dlusthau at mailer.fsu.edu (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Tue Oct 4 16:45:13 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo References: <1127942930.6308.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> <433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net><617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org> <4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net><1128439345.4561.18.camel@localhost.localdomain><004b01c5c924$5d6d3190$dc369c04@Dan> <1128462497.30929.30.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <008c01c5c934$49a61270$dc369c04@Dan> Richard replies > > lead article in the New York Times Magazine. > > Actually, my source for this was Sidney Ahlstrom's A Religious > History of the American People, considered by many the definitive > work on the topic. Which, I have no doubt, was also the source behind the Times piece. That was just more recent and on my mind. > That is not quite the case. Many of the swatches of land were de jure > territories, but not de facto at all. Good point. >A case in point was Pennsylvania, [...] > populated by folks who were not tolerated elsewhere in the colonies. > Famously Pennsylvania became the home of many German pietists and > anabaptists, such as the followers of Menno Simons and Jakob Hutter. True, to some extent. The Quakers did tolerate some others (and became the new homeland for the Pennsylvania Dutch [actually Deutsch, i.e., German] and apple butter), but they were also intolerant of still others. They eventually even became intolerant of their own, leading to a division between the Eastern Quakers, and the more Protestantized variety (who live in different places from each other today, the latter in the Midwest, rather than PA). There was, among some groups, selective tolerance. >Did you feel you were telling us > something we didn't already know? Or were you writing this for the > benefit of the multitudes of religious right Republicans who hang on > every word we write here on buddha-l and model their lives on our sage > advice? Obviously the latter. The Ahlstrom et al. narrative is in danger of becoming a metonymy for the full American history, and is being manipulated that way. Lots of groups, with lots of stories and lots of motivations have crossed the oceans to resettle here, and the "New Jerusalem" narrative is only one of them ("there are eight million stories in the Naked City, This is one of them..."). Blanketing all of US history in that metonymy is reductive and dangerous. Geo. Washington, in one of his second term speeches, explicitly stated that "this is not a Christian nation." I'd prefer to see that rhetoric and its full discourse highlighted instead. That's what was encoded in the Constitution, not the New Jerusalem. Dan Lusthaus From bcarral at kungzhi.org Tue Oct 4 17:04:49 2005 From: bcarral at kungzhi.org (Benito Carral) Date: Tue Oct 4 17:05:12 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: <4342F0FA.9070007@cola.iges.org> References: <1127942930.6308.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> <433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net> <617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org> <4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net> <1128439345.4561.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4342B590.2000901@nerim.net> <02556858.20051004215015@kungzhi.org> <4342F0FA.9070007@cola.iges.org> Message-ID: <175455039.20051005010449@kungzhi.org> On Tuesday, October 4, 2005, Curt wrote: > I got the title of Julia Annas' book wrong in my > previous post - its "The Morality of Happiness". Thank you for the reference. Of course, it's quite interesting to know what history tell us about the evolution of the happiness idea. We can remember Socrates and his Greek _arete_ (virtue). He was "happy" choosing death. How many people would follow Socrates's example nowadays? We can also remember, for example, Sextus Empiricus's _ataraxia_ (undisturbed calm). It seems to me that "happiness" is a social construction. (I don't know if Ian Hacking says something about it in his book.) As I said in a previous post, "happiness" means a lot of different things for different people. The old Indian Buddha thought as an Indian, we think as Westerners (if we think at all). That's why I think that it's necessary to learn to think as an Indian in order to understand Buddhism. And that's why some Buddhist teachers hold views different from the old Indian guy's ones. Once I read (or heard--I don't remember where) a quote from a master, "Before enlightement, I was depressed. After enlightement, I'm still depressed." I use to say to my students, "Buddhas also cry," and they usually have a hard time trying to understand it--in their imagination, Buddhas can't cry. An interesting topic, indeed. Best wishes, Beni From chanfu at gmail.com Tue Oct 4 16:58:40 2005 From: chanfu at gmail.com (Chan Fu) Date: Tue Oct 4 17:05:16 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Karma and capitalism In-Reply-To: <4342A2DF.3070901@cola.iges.org> References: <005b01c5c7b8$f0649280$2930cece@charlie> <009c01c5c7cd$65f1dda0$1d369c04@Dan> <434137D9.9090807@cola.iges.org> <004201c5c839$d103deb0$2930cece@charlie> <4342A2DF.3070901@cola.iges.org> Message-ID: On 10/4/05, curt wrote: > Chan Fu wrote: > > >I beg to differ. > >Capitalism is no more than a revitalization > >and reorganization of the feudal system. I believe > >Vic Stenger (http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/) > >in one of his papers referred to the "self"ishness that's > >inherent in it. > > > Stenger is one of those intellectual midgets who tries to make a name > for himself by cranking out cartoonish critiques of ideas that were more > than adequately dealt with already by Voltaire some time ago. He is > obsessed with critiquing religion - about which he knows absolutely > nothing. His notion of Religion is narrowly defined by > worst-case-scenario Christianity. In other words, the man wouldn't know > subtely if it bit him in the arse. Why anyone would take his views on > economics seriously is beyond me. In fact, I seriously doubt that anyone > does. I wasn't aware that Vic ever had any "views on economics", but calling the Professor Emeritus of Physics and Astronomy, University of Hawaii, and Adjunct Professor of Philosophy, University of Colorado an "intellectual midget" doesn't seem very "buddhist". As I remember, his reference to "self"ishness was right in line with buddhist understanding. As far as religion goes, he tackles the idea of "god" (and creationism) from a physics p.o.v. rather than a philosophical or personal one. Does quite a good job, too. > Besides, I never claimed that there weren't ninkompoops who peddled > theories according to which Capitalism is nothing new. You're aware that in this statement, you're implying that you believe that "capitalism is new"? > My claim was that > the newness of Capitalism was not an idea of my own invention (and that > simply to score debating points against Dan Lusthaus) but that it is > rather an old idea quite clearly espoused by both Karl Marx and Adam Smith. And that you just reversed yourself here? Make up your mind. The "newness" of capitalism wasn't a Marx or Smith idea at all. It was practiced in many forms, long before either of them commented on it, Marx on the ethos and Smith on the economics. So, your point was...? From chanfu at gmail.com Tue Oct 4 17:14:51 2005 From: chanfu at gmail.com (Chan Fu) Date: Tue Oct 4 17:15:15 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: <19910014655.20051005002607@kungzhi.org> References: <433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net> <617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org> <4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net> <1128439345.4561.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4342B590.2000901@nerim.net> <02556858.20051004215015@kungzhi.org> <4342EB6E.6050902@cola.iges.org> <19910014655.20051005002607@kungzhi.org> Message-ID: On 10/4/05, Benito Carral wrote: > It's my experience as a Buddhist teacher that many > people in our world practice what they call "Buddhism" > in order to attain enlightenment, to see the void, and > a lot of more of strange things. Nowadays I always ask, > "Why do you want to study Buddhism?" If they don't tell > me that they want to stop dukkha, I ask them to look > for another teacher. Do they even know what that means? Disturbance, irritation, dejection, worry, despair, fear, dread, anguish, anxiety; vulnerability, injury, inability, inferiority; sickness, aging, decay of body and faculties, senility; pain/pleasure; excitement/boredom; deprivation/excess; desire/frustration, suppression; longing/aimlessness; hope/hopelessness; effort, activity, striving/repression; loss, want, insufficiency/satiety; love/lovelessness, friendlessness; dislike, aversion/attraction; parenthood/childlessness; submission/rebellion; decision/indecisiveness, vacillation, uncertainty? If they do ask, do you tell them that it's like trying to stop time? Do you tell them that impermanence is, itself, impermanent? That without it, they would just be a handful of gravel? That with it, they are still no better than the same handful of gravel? What do you tell them, Benito? How do you stop dukkha? From bcarral at kungzhi.org Tue Oct 4 17:43:10 2005 From: bcarral at kungzhi.org (Benito Carral) Date: Tue Oct 4 17:45:12 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: References: <433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net> <617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org> <4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net> <1128439345.4561.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4342B590.2000901@nerim.net> <02556858.20051004215015@kungzhi.org> <4342EB6E.6050902@cola.iges.org> <19910014655.20051005002607@kungzhi.org> Message-ID: <252603687.20051005014310@kungzhi.org> On Wednesday, October 5, 2005, Chan Fu wrote: > Do you tell them that impermanence is, itself, > impermanent? Of course, in fact we were speaking about that some weeks ago. > What do you tell them, Benito? How do you stop > dukkha? I use to start explaining them the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Noble Path. Then I invite them to work on sila while teach them how to observe their breath and practice metta-bhavana. That uses to be keep them busy for some time after which they usually discover that they want something different and try with another teacher or school. Best wishes, Beni From bcarral at kungzhi.org Tue Oct 4 17:45:57 2005 From: bcarral at kungzhi.org (Benito Carral) Date: Tue Oct 4 17:55:16 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: References: <433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net> <617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org> <4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net> <1128439345.4561.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4342B590.2000901@nerim.net> <02556858.20051004215015@kungzhi.org> <4342EB6E.6050902@cola.iges.org> <19910014655.20051005002607@kungzhi.org> Message-ID: <1721611422.20051005014557@kungzhi.org> On Wednesday, October 5, 2005, Chan Fu wrote: >> Nowadays I always ask, "Why do you want to study >> Buddhism?" If they don't tell me that they want to >> stop dukkha, I ask them to look for another teacher. > Do they even know what that means? I don't worry to much about that. If they say me, "I feel bad and want to live a peaceful life," it's enough. If they are looking for something else, I know that there are a lot of good teachers out there willing to help them. Best wishes, Beni From chanfu at gmail.com Tue Oct 4 18:03:02 2005 From: chanfu at gmail.com (Chan Fu) Date: Tue Oct 4 18:05:17 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: <1721611422.20051005014557@kungzhi.org> References: <617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org> <4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net> <1128439345.4561.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4342B590.2000901@nerim.net> <02556858.20051004215015@kungzhi.org> <4342EB6E.6050902@cola.iges.org> <19910014655.20051005002607@kungzhi.org> <1721611422.20051005014557@kungzhi.org> Message-ID: On 10/4/05, Benito Carral wrote: > On Wednesday, October 5, 2005, Chan Fu wrote: > > >> Nowadays I always ask, "Why do you want to study > >> Buddhism?" If they don't tell me that they want to > >> stop dukkha, I ask them to look for another teacher. > > > Do they even know what that means? > > I don't worry to much about that. If they say me, "I > feel bad and want to live a peaceful life," it's > enough. If they are looking for something else, I know > that there are a lot of good teachers out there willing > to help them. > > Best wishes, > > Beni It's enough. be well, cf From chanfu at gmail.com Tue Oct 4 17:56:35 2005 From: chanfu at gmail.com (Chan Fu) Date: Tue Oct 4 18:05:21 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: <252603687.20051005014310@kungzhi.org> References: <617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org> <4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net> <1128439345.4561.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4342B590.2000901@nerim.net> <02556858.20051004215015@kungzhi.org> <4342EB6E.6050902@cola.iges.org> <19910014655.20051005002607@kungzhi.org> <252603687.20051005014310@kungzhi.org> Message-ID: On 10/4/05, Benito Carral wrote: > On Wednesday, October 5, 2005, Chan Fu wrote: > > > Do you tell them that impermanence is, itself, > > impermanent? > > Of course, in fact we were speaking about that some > weeks ago. > > > What do you tell them, Benito? How do you stop > > dukkha? > > I use to start explaining them the Four Noble Truths > and the Eightfold Noble Path. Then I invite them to > work on sila while teach them how to observe their > breath and practice metta-bhavana. That uses to be keep > them busy for some time after which they usually > discover that they want something different and try > with another teacher or school. > > Best wishes, > > Beni Haha - it's very hard to calm them down, quiet those noisy minds, isn't it? I don't know how to teach perseverance. It's even harder to bring them back from the dead so they've mastered that and can use mind with equinamity. Thank you for trying, though, Beni - even one is worth it. be well, cf From rhayes at unm.edu Tue Oct 4 18:59:29 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P Hayes) Date: Tue Oct 4 19:05:15 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo Message-ID: <5886262.1128473969266.JavaMail.rhayes@unm.edu> Dan Lusthaus wrote: >True, to some extent. The Quakers did tolerate some others (and became the >new homeland for the Pennsylvania Dutch [actually Deutsch, i.e., German] and >apple butter), but they were also intolerant of still others. They >eventually even became intolerant of their own, leading to a division >between the Eastern Quakers, and the more Protestantized variety (who live >in different places from each other today, the latter in the Midwest, rather >than PA). You have now jumped ahead some two hundred years, to the mid-nineteenth century, the time of the so-called Holiness movement. It was then that evangelical Quakers abandoned the older Qualer principles of the silent meeting of worship and the pacifist testimony and developed an ordained clergy and such oddball innovations as hymns and altars. This evangelical wing was not warmly received by traditional Quakers, but they were certainly not persecuted or shunned. When one considers that Richard Nixon was from this evangelical branch of the Quakers, it is not surprising that the paficist Quakers felt the evangelicals were not speaking to their condition. But it would be going too far to say that there was intolerance on the part of either branch toward the other. The relations between the two branches of Quakers were never as frosty as the relations between followers of Shinran and followers of Nichiren, or as the relations between traditional dGe-lugs-pas and the followers of NKT. If you want to see some real hostility, you'll do better to look at Buddhists than at Quakers. ------------------------ Richard Hayes Department of Philosophy University of New Mexico Office: 525 Humanities Phone: 277-8232 From jinavamsa at yahoo.com Tue Oct 4 19:51:44 2005 From: jinavamsa at yahoo.com (Mitchell Ginsberg) Date: Tue Oct 4 19:55:13 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Pennsylvania and crying Buddhas Message-ID: <20051005015144.48488.qmail@web60012.mail.yahoo.com> Thank you all for these interesting postings. (It's been a quiet few days here.) ;o) >From Pennsylvania (where I was born, in Philadelphia, The City of Philos, aka Brotherly Love, just a few blocks in fact from the statue of William Penn at city's center, which btw for several decades now has had a number of buildings looking down on the pigeons on top of Penn's Quaker hat) with its Quaker history and background, to the idea that Buddhas also cry (but presumably do not laugh) and be depressed (but perhaps never happy?), I wonder what sorts of consciousness would be underlying that asymmetry. I mean, if we can cry and can laugh, that seems easy; if we cannot cry and cannot laugh, that seems doable (although a bit cramped a life space to live in); but how to be open only to crying but not to laughing, to be capable of depression but not joy? It's enough to ask which Buddhism that would be? (just wondering aloud), Mitchell ==================== http://www.geocities.com/jinavamsa/mentalhealth.html with links to my home page, info on The Inner Palace (3rd ed.) and The Far Shore (3rd ed.), further links to psychotherapy, to my current teaching, to the Insight Practice (Vipassana), Chishtiyya (Sufi), Creative Solutions for Peace, and Nasrudin discussion groups, and to the Collective Dharma Insight project. __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From jkirk at spro.net Tue Oct 4 20:52:37 2005 From: jkirk at spro.net (jkirk) Date: Tue Oct 4 20:55:15 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Pennsylvania and crying Buddhas References: <20051005015144.48488.qmail@web60012.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <001c01c5c957$d8558c30$2930cece@charlie> but > how to be open only to crying but not to laughing, to > be capable of depression but not joy? It's enough to > ask which Buddhism that would be? (just wondering > aloud), > > Mitchell ======== Hi Mitchell, I seem to have missed something. What texts claim that Buddhas only cry but don't laugh? or are capable only of depression not joy? To give only one instance, many of the Japanese Zen monk poets were certainly capable of both and wrote about it. One of them loved playing games with the local kids. Others loved hanging out under cherry blossom trees and wrote about it as an experience of joy. And soon..... Best, Joanna From dlusthau at mailer.fsu.edu Wed Oct 5 03:54:05 2005 From: dlusthau at mailer.fsu.edu (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Wed Oct 5 03:55:38 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo References: <5886262.1128473969266.JavaMail.rhayes@unm.edu> Message-ID: <009501c5c992$c16f9250$1f1b9c04@Dan> I wrote: >>They > >eventually even became intolerant of their own, leading to a division to which Richard replied: > You have now jumped ahead some two hundred years, to the mid-nineteenth > century, That's what the word "eventually" means. If you prefer to stay within the 18th c., then consider: from http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/rcah/html/ah_072800_quakers.htm Although the reality fell short of Penn's utopian hopes, it still succeeded mightily in the opinion of immigrants and posterity. Ambition, envy, and avarice produced thirty years of tumultuous politics in the new province and left Penn convinced that his experiment had failed. But at the same time, Pennsylvania gained a reputation as the "best poor man's country," free of feudal elites, established churches, tithes, discriminatory oaths, high taxes, compulsory military service, and war. While Pennsylvania prospered, Quakers prospered more than others. They always composed the majority of the elite merchants of colonial Philadelphia as well as the most prosperous farmers of the eastern counties. Although at odds with each other politically, Quakers nevertheless dominated the government of Pennsylvania. By 1740 Quaker politicians had become sufficiently anxious about their ever-declining proportion of the population and their more aggressive political enemies that they closed ranks and formed possibly the most formidable Whig political organization in colonial America, the Quaker party. Ironically, political hegemony and social and economic preeminence raised dissenting voices among Friends, and in the 1750s they determined to reverse the direction the Society had taken since 1682. They believed that Quaker participation in government had brought with it intolerable compromises in such Quaker beliefs as pacifism and that many Friends, especially wealthy ones, had assimilated "worldly" secular behavior. After another generation there would be nothing left of Quakerism but the name, lamented one dissenter. To restore the integrity of the Society, reformers insisted on strict enforcement of all its mores, especially endogamy, and in the violence brought to Pennsylvania by the French and Indian War, they demanded that Quakers resign from public office rather than become bellicose. On the social front they moved quickly against deviancy, expelling more than one in five Friends by 1775, but not until the more intense public crisis of the Revolution did all Friends leave public office and the Holy Experiment completely end. ----(end quote) In Pennsylvania, especially in the western part of the state, war with the French and Indians (the other side of Penn's generosity in endeavoring to purchase rather than take Indian land -- some Indians didn't want to play along, and allied with the French led to massacres of British and Colonists, which led to the colonists, including Quakers, vanquishing both, so that even the so-called peaceful Indians left) along with the internal bickering noted above ended with loss of hegemony, as noted above. One might even conclude that their experiment in tolerance led to their own failure. But I'd like to go back to an earlier question, which is why did I raise all this, since fleeing religious persecution, the background of the first amendment, etc. are all "well known." Unfortunately what I have seen in college classrooms, especially in the South and Missouri, but also here in Boston, is that this history, which was well-known to those eductated some decades ago, is no longer well-known, and in many places not taught at all. In many places in this country, students learn in Church *and* school that this is a Christian nation, founded by Christian fathers who wanted a more Christian nation, and the founding fathers not only put God's name on the currency, but in the Pledge of Allegiance (they are often shocked to learn the Pledge is a 20th c invention, and the phrase "under God" wasn't added until 1956 during the height of the McCarthy era). In fact, when that allegedly well-known narrative of how the first amendment came to be what it is is presented to them, jaws drop and heads shake in resistant disbelief. Maybe education is still better in New Mexico. I don't know. One way to find out would be to have your Critically thinking students parse and historically contextualize the first amendment. You might be shocked to learn what they don't know. It's not just Darwin that is being excluded from the classroom. Buddhists also have their tiffs and failed social experiments. Dan Lusthaus From ralf.steckel at online.ms Wed Oct 5 04:45:20 2005 From: ralf.steckel at online.ms (ralf.steckel@online.ms) Date: Wed Oct 5 07:20:43 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Marx and Buddhism Message-ID: <232318765@web.de> Dear List, for the whole discussion about Marx and Buddhism (not for this message, i'm replying) there comes one quotation in my mind: Who in youth isn't a communist doesn't have heart. Who in age still is a communist doesn't have reason. -Oscar Heiler, German actor and comedian (deceased) Buddhist discussion forum schrieb am 30.09.05 20:27:40: > > On Fri, 2005-09-30 at 00:23 -0400, curt wrote: > > > > Capitalism > > is completely incompatible with Buddhism, by the way, and the only sound > > critique of Capitalism that there is is Marx's. So one way or the other, > > Marx the atheist and Buddha the agnostic must be somehow reconciled. > > This reconciliation has already occurred in the writings of Bhikkhu > Buddhadasa. > His writings reinforced my deeply held conviction that any Buddhist who > is not a communist (not to be confused with being a Communist) is really > just fooling around. > > Richard > > > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From stephen.hopkins at ukonline.co.uk Wed Oct 5 09:56:24 2005 From: stephen.hopkins at ukonline.co.uk (Stephen Hopkins) Date: Wed Oct 5 09:05:24 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] 17th Karmapa In-Reply-To: <009501c5c992$c16f9250$1f1b9c04@Dan> Message-ID: Denizens - Interesting piece here from Tuesday October 4th Guardian about, as they put it, 'the fight for title of 17th karmapa': http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1584238,00.html Steve Hopkins From rhayes at unm.edu Wed Oct 5 08:58:56 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Wed Oct 5 09:05:27 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: <009501c5c992$c16f9250$1f1b9c04@Dan> References: <5886262.1128473969266.JavaMail.rhayes@unm.edu> <009501c5c992$c16f9250$1f1b9c04@Dan> Message-ID: <1128524337.4553.26.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Wed, 2005-10-05 at 05:54 -0400, Dan Lusthaus wrote: > One way to find out would be to have your Critically thinking students > parse and > historically contextualize the first amendment. You might be shocked to > learn what they don't know. For the past several weeks in my critical thinking classe we have been reading various literature on Intelligent Design theory, and we have been reviewing the principal supreme court cases since around 1968 (or whenever Epperson v Arkansas was decided). Just now I am reading student essays on the topic. Most of the students are writing awful essays (because no one has taught grammar in grammar school since about 1963), but at least the majority of them are showing signs of having some understanding of the First Amendment. A few, however, are managing to shock me with claims that not allowing Intelligent Design to be taught in Biology 101 classes is a flagrant violation of the First Amendment and an egregious (okay, okay, that's MY word) abridgement of the freedom of speech. There are several right wing students in my class. They all sit together on the (you guessed it) right side of the room. One of them holds up his cell phone and aims it at me, I presume so that someone on the other end can get a load of all the liberal crap I am forcing down their throats. (I assume he's working for Stephen Lane or some other watchdog.) In addition to the right wing ideologues I have a whole bus- load of born-again Christians, whose political and social views, and whose intellectual capacities, cover a surprisingly broad spectrum. As I think I have mentioned before, there was an interfaith event in Albuquerque a few months ago at which one of the ministers of Albuquerque's biggest and fastest-growing megachurch told us all that the purpose of the establishment clause of the First Amendment was to protect Christian churches from the government, and that liberal revisionists (like Dan Lusthaus and I) are busy rewriting history and trying to make gullible uninformed people believe that the First Amendment was meant to keep churches from taking over government. He was quickly shot down by a brilliant ACLU lawyer, but it was plain to see the megachurch minister was not about to believe anything a Jewish lawyer had to say about the constitution of the United States. As Dorothy said to her faithful pooch, "This isn't Canada, Todo." And because it isn't Canada, it is much more difficult to teach critical thinking here, and immeasurably more difficult to teach Buddhism. Still, I try. And the more I try, the more I fail. Not being of a temperament that gives in easily to discouragement, I have nevertheless found my experiment in trying to educate Americans quite unsettling and profoundly disheartening. My hat goes off to those of you who have been doing this all along, while I was safely ensconced in Toronto and Montreal. -- Richard Hayes *** "When a stupid man does something is is ashamed of, he always says it is his duty." -- George Bernard Shaw From jpeavler at mindspring.com Wed Oct 5 09:11:50 2005 From: jpeavler at mindspring.com (Jim Peavler) Date: Wed Oct 5 09:15:28 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: <5886262.1128473969266.JavaMail.rhayes@unm.edu> References: <5886262.1128473969266.JavaMail.rhayes@unm.edu> Message-ID: <9c1bbf534b2068b52b81af07dba1aaf4@mindspring.com> On Oct 4, 2005, at 6:59 PM, Richard P Hayes wrote: > > If you want to see some real hostility, you'll do > better to look at Buddhists than at Quakers. > I depend on the good ol' Baptists for true hostility (or Scots presbyters). Small town in western Missouri named "Quarrels". There is a sign outside of town, of which I took a photograph, advertising "Quarrels Baptist Church". My idea of truth in advertising. From jpeavler at mindspring.com Wed Oct 5 09:08:27 2005 From: jpeavler at mindspring.com (Jim Peavler) Date: Wed Oct 5 09:15:34 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: <1128462497.30929.30.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1127942930.6308.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> <433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net> <617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org> <4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net> <1128439345.4561.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> <004b01c5c924$5d6d3190$dc369c04@Dan> <1128462497.30929.30.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: On Oct 4, 2005, at 3:48 PM, Richard P. Hayes wrote: > On Tue, 2005-10-04 at 16:44 -0400, Dan Lusthaus wrote: > >> The Buddhist response to revisionistic disinformation should be >> accurate >> recounting of the events themselves -- their causes and conditions, >> clearly >> explaining WHY the first amendment states what it states, and why it >> only >> works when one retains both sides of the equation. >> I used to be amazed at the number of people who argue about "rights" and "amendments" and "the constitution" who have never even read the damned thing from end to end, and who don't have the slightest idea of what is actually in it. I think it is quite appropriate, if one is going to discuss American society and politics to remind folks of the Constitution and what it says. So it's OK for Dan to remind us I think. The good news (gospel) is that our newest nominee for the Supreme Court spends her off hours performing Christian Ministry to folks in prison (Can't be Republicans because they don't go to prison). Nothing wrong with that of course, so long as she doesn't perform Christian Ministry from the bench. From jkirk at spro.net Wed Oct 5 10:18:18 2005 From: jkirk at spro.net (jkirk) Date: Wed Oct 5 10:25:25 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Marx and Buddhism References: <232318765@web.de> Message-ID: <005801c5c9c8$6620e080$2930cece@charlie> My reply to Herr Heiler: Marxists are not necessarily, and today rather rarely, communists. Some Marxists are also Buddhists. Joanna =============== > > Dear List, > > for the whole discussion about Marx and Buddhism (not for this message, > i'm replying) there comes one quotation in my mind: > > Who in youth isn't a communist doesn't have heart. > Who in age still is a communist doesn't have reason. > > -Oscar Heiler, German actor and comedian (deceased) From horowitz at chass.utoronto.ca Wed Oct 5 13:37:55 2005 From: horowitz at chass.utoronto.ca (Gad Horowitz) Date: Wed Oct 5 10:35:26 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Marx and Buddhism References: <232318765@web.de> <005801c5c9c8$6620e080$2930cece@charlie> Message-ID: <000701c5c9e4$4a9a9ba0$7dee6480@chass> AND--what is meant by "communist" in that quote? ----- Original Message ----- From: "jkirk" To: "Buddhist discussion forum" Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2005 9:18 AM Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] Marx and Buddhism > My reply to Herr Heiler: > Marxists are not necessarily, and today rather rarely, communists. > Some Marxists are also Buddhists. > Joanna > =============== > > > > Dear List, > > > > for the whole discussion about Marx and Buddhism (not for this message, > > i'm replying) there comes one quotation in my mind: > > > > Who in youth isn't a communist doesn't have heart. > > Who in age still is a communist doesn't have reason. > > > > -Oscar Heiler, German actor and comedian (deceased) > > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From jkirk at spro.net Wed Oct 5 12:02:42 2005 From: jkirk at spro.net (jkirk) Date: Wed Oct 5 12:05:30 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Karen Armstrong was in Boise last night Message-ID: <00bc01c5c9d6$fb5679e0$2930cece@charlie> Posted by Joanna She's the author of _The Battle for God_, about the causes of the rise of fundamentalism world-wide. She was invited to Ketchum ID in September, when the Dalai Lama was here, to moderate an interfaith discussion after his public talks. "It was her first meeting with the Tibetan spiritual leader, and it left a strong impression. 'We were in the presence of a very holy man, completely without ego," she said. "We really should all lighten up a bit because so much of our pomposity comes from egotism and a sense of our own righteousness.'" >From a local article and interview with her, see http://www.idahostatesman.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051002/NEWS04/510020314&SearchID=73222442394537 What is your next project? I've got a new book coming out in the spring. It's a history of the Axial Age, a period from 900 to 200 B.C., when all the world's major religions came into being at much the same time. It shows what the religions have in common, how profoundly similar they are, right across the board, how none of them are particularly interested in doctrines or beliefs or metaphysics. They're interested in behavior and, above all, they emphasize the importance of compassion and nonviolence. The book is also a kind of critique of the way we are religious today, because very often people like Buddha or Jesus would be rather astonished at the kind of religions that are going on in their name. This is the kind of religiosity, for example, that they wanted to get rid of. Does your knowledge of so many of the world's religions make you optimistic or pessimistic about the future? I'm trying very hard to be optimistic because it's very dangerous to be pessimistic. Pessimism and despair lead to nihilistic terrorism. We must keep optimistic. It's very hard, but we have to keep optimistic. The alternative is unthinkable. Increasingly now, more groups are going to have powers of destruction that were previously the preserve only of the nation-states (political units of organization). Nineteen men with box cutters and penknives brought the United States to its knees. It's only a matter of time before one of these groups gets a nuclear weapon. This is catastrophic. We have got to sort these problems out. From rhayes at unm.edu Wed Oct 5 12:03:42 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Wed Oct 5 12:05:34 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: References: <1127942930.6308.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> <433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net> <617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org> <4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net> <1128439345.4561.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> <004b01c5c924$5d6d3190$dc369c04@Dan> <1128462497.30929.30.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1128535423.5617.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Wed, 2005-10-05 at 09:08 -0600, Jim Peavler wrote: > I used to be amazed at the number of people who argue about "rights" > and "amendments" and "the constitution" who have never even read the > damned thing from end to end, and who don't have the slightest idea of > what is actually in it. Now that's a hell of a way to talk about our president. > I think it is quite appropriate, if one is going to discuss American > society and politics to remind folks of the Constitution and what it > says. So it's OK for Dan to remind us I think. Yes, I also think it's a fine thing to do. I just needed to be reassured that he didn't think I was one of those strict constructionists who seem to believe that the American constitution is something like the Napoleonic code in that whatever it doesn't explicity say one can do (such as have an abortion or be a Buddhist) ought somehow to remain illegal for all eternity. It is pretty fascinating to me that we find in this country a convergence between Biblical literalists and constitutional literalists. If any of these literalistic American folks become Buddhists, we're in for it. There will be no theaters, no music, no taverns, no cosmetics, no discussions of war or politics or other frivolous topics, no sporting events, no restaurants open before or after noon and no weddings allowed. Smoking would be allowed, though, since it doesn't say in the precepts that tobacco is not allowed. Watching corpses decompose would become America's main spectator sport. (Some reprobates would probably find a way to bet on which corpse in a field of corpses decomposed faster. The Republican Party would, after all, need to have gambling revenues to support its programs of keeping society free of gambling.) I'm pretty confident we'd all be praying for the Taliban to come along and drag us kicking and screaming into the seventh century. > The good news (gospel) is that our newest nominee for the Supreme Court > spends her off hours performing Christian Ministry to folks in prison > (Can't be Republicans because they don't go to prison). Nothing wrong > with that of course, so long as she doesn't perform Christian Ministry > from the bench. Amen to that, Brother Jim. Hallelujah and praise Jesus. -- My Unitarian Jihad Name (http://tinyurl.com/6valr ) is: The Logging Chain of Loving Kindness You can get your own at http://homepage.mac.com/whump/ujname.html From joy.vriens at nerim.net Wed Oct 5 12:24:11 2005 From: joy.vriens at nerim.net (Joy Vriens) Date: Wed Oct 5 12:25:28 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: <1128524337.4553.26.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <5886262.1128473969266.JavaMail.rhayes@unm.edu> <009501c5c992$c16f9250$1f1b9c04@Dan> <1128524337.4553.26.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <43441A4B.5070301@nerim.net> Richard P. Hayes wrote: > They all > sit together on the (you guessed it) right side of the room. One of them > holds up his cell phone and aims it at me, I presume so that someone on > the other end can get a load of all the liberal crap I am forcing down > their throats. You can't be serious! He must be recording it on an MP3 player for notes... Please tell me this is irony! From joy.vriens at nerim.net Wed Oct 5 12:28:38 2005 From: joy.vriens at nerim.net (Joy Vriens) Date: Wed Oct 5 12:35:29 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: <1359619694.20051004213630@kungzhi.org> References: <1127942930.6308.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> <433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net> <617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org> <4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net> <1359619694.20051004213630@kungzhi.org> Message-ID: <43441B56.7080303@nerim.net> Benito Carral wrote: > I > have always dreamed about what would have happened if > Jews, Christians, and Muslims would have lived here at > peace. It was one of the most creative periods in the European history of thought. > It's seems to me that many people through history > have used something they call "religion" in order to > control citizens. They have used Buddhism, > Christianism, Islam... But there is still some > differences. If someone wears a Spanish flag in Spain, > it will be regarded as a "fanatic," "fascist," and > "undesirable" individual. Spaniards don't feel the > colours, in fact, Spain is being disintegrated by > nationalists. It's just that they want to cut the cake > in order to rule over their little parcels (and get the > money). Same thing for the Netherlands. Nationalism is considered a disease, was... Even the once tolerant Netherlands are changing quite dramatically and becoming intolerant. From joy.vriens at nerim.net Wed Oct 5 12:32:18 2005 From: joy.vriens at nerim.net (Joy Vriens) Date: Wed Oct 5 12:35:34 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: <02556858.20051004215015@kungzhi.org> References: <1127942930.6308.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> <433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net> <617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org> <4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net> <1128439345.4561.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4342B590.2000901@nerim.net> <02556858.20051004215015@kungzhi.org> Message-ID: <43441C32.3010504@nerim.net> Benito Carral wrote: > I think this is really interesting, it has to do > with the "hapiness myth." Why do most of people think > that the goal of life is to be happy? I don't agree. Because you are a realist ;-) > In > fact, I consider such a view a very dangerous one, and > certainly unwholesome. Especially if you decide to make others share in your happiness and make them happy even against their will. > As far as I know, the Buddha taugh how to end with > dukkha. And that has little to do with most of people > understand by happiness. Well, he did go on a bit sometimes about describing the end of dukkha as peace, bliss and what not more. > I would say that, from the > point of view of Early Buddhism, the goal was to have > peace of mind. I disagree, immortality was there goal. Becoming a god amongst gods. > I suppose that an interesting question would be, > "What do people mean when they say, 'happiness'?" > Well, my two cents. Now it's dinner time. That's one of my main ingredients for happiness. Bon appetito. From joy.vriens at nerim.net Wed Oct 5 13:06:13 2005 From: joy.vriens at nerim.net (Joy Vriens) Date: Wed Oct 5 13:15:31 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] 17th Karmapa In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43442425.8020103@nerim.net> Stephen Hopkins wrote: > Denizens - > > Interesting piece here from Tuesday October 4th Guardian about, as they put > it, 'the fight for title of 17th karmapa': > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1584238,00.html A decade ago Mr Rinpoche enthroned a bespectacled boy named Tenzin Chentse, whose parents, he said, were Tibetan refugees. The boy was later named Thaye Dorje. When Mr Rinpoche tried to bring him to Sikkim, there was a melee and the boy spent the next few weeks under the guard of 300 monks. Mr Rinpoche was subsequently barred from entering Sikkim. Thanks for a good laugh, Mr. Rinpoche... Rinpoche happens to be the most common Tibetan "family name". From Bshmr at aol.com Wed Oct 5 13:45:06 2005 From: Bshmr at aol.com (Bshmr@aol.com) Date: Wed Oct 5 13:45:30 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] NPR, TotN Message-ID: <1f8.1392dae7.30758742@aol.com> The first hour of NPR's Talk of the Nation on Wednesday, 2005/10/05 was on: _http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4946306_ (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4946306) Conservatives Call for Equal Time on Campus Some Republicans in Congress are calling for an Academic Bill of Rights that would require dissenting viewpoints be heard in college classrooms. They say it would correct a long-standing lean to the left on American college campuses. ** I appreciate the new/temp host but damn subtlety has limits which can be approached at the very least. NPR as imitation VOA is tiring. Richard Basham -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20051005/5f849629/attachment.html From chanfu at gmail.com Wed Oct 5 14:41:48 2005 From: chanfu at gmail.com (Chan Fu) Date: Wed Oct 5 14:45:29 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] NPR, TotN In-Reply-To: <1f8.1392dae7.30758742@aol.com> References: <1f8.1392dae7.30758742@aol.com> Message-ID: On 10/5/05, Bshmr@aol.com wrote: > > The first hour of NPR's Talk of the Nation on Wednesday, 2005/10/05 was on: > > http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4946306 > > Conservatives Call for Equal Time on Campus > > Some Republicans in Congress are calling for an Academic Bill of Rights that > would require dissenting viewpoints be heard in college classrooms. They say > it would correct a long-standing lean to the left on American college > campuses. > > ** > > I appreciate the new/temp host but damn subtlety has limits which can be > approached at the very least. NPR as imitation VOA is tiring. NPR tries hard, but it's still federally funded - at least until its funding is cut to buy more arms and support the religious war(s). So any deference to reason must be carefully thought out and presented as blandly as possible. A very large percentage of media bandwidth in the US is now owned and operated by the religious right. When NPR is shut down, which it may well be, those will be the remaining "voices" of America. From rhayes at unm.edu Wed Oct 5 16:39:58 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Wed Oct 5 16:45:33 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: <43441A4B.5070301@nerim.net> References: <5886262.1128473969266.JavaMail.rhayes@unm.edu> <009501c5c992$c16f9250$1f1b9c04@Dan> <1128524337.4553.26.camel@localhost.localdomain> <43441A4B.5070301@nerim.net> Message-ID: <1128551999.5617.56.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Wed, 2005-10-05 at 20:24 +0200, Joy Vriens wrote: > You can't be serious! He must be recording it on an MP3 player for notes... > Please tell me this is irony! Yes, it was a half-serious joke, a sort of mock paranoia. The background of it is that there is a well-known right-wing talk show host in the USA named Sean Hannity who has encouraged students to report professors who are too liberal, and he has said on the air that students should record what their overly liberal professors are saying so that they can use it as evidence of their professor's liberal bias. Also there is a website called www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org that is advocating a Students Bill of Rights, which would guarantee that every student be allowed to hear what they call "dissenting views". The subtext is the claim that the overwhelming majority of professors are social and political liberals, that liberals are intolerant of any kind of disagreement with their positions and that students who hold conservative views are in serious danger of failing their classes if they dare to state their real opinions about things. I have seen it said specifically about my university that 83% of all professors whose political affiliations are known are registered Democrats, 11% are registered Republicans and 6% are Green or independents. It is also reported that over 50% of the departments on this campus do not have a single registered Republican, and that 100% of the Faculty of Law are registered Democrats. These statement are nearly meaningless, of course, because the vast majority of people do not make their political affiliation public knowledge. Nevertheless, the local chapter of college Republicans is making a great deal of noise about the "atmosphere of fear" that allegedly prevails in classrooms dominated by liberal professors and that Republican students are living in constant fear that if they let their views be known, they will be ridiculed in class, denied letters of recommendation, disqualified from scholarships, and prevented from getting jobs. There are editorials every week in the student newspaper complaining about the tyranny of liberal professors. One of my colleagues told a joke in his class, and a complaint was lodged against him. Here's the joke: \begin{joke} In a daily briefing in the White House, an aide reported to George Bush that three Brazilians had been killed in an accident. Bush grew quite alarmed and said "Oh my God, that's terrible." All his aides were surprised by the force of his consternation. Then Bush said "How many is a brazilian, anyway?" \end{joke} A stupid joke, no doubt. But worthy of being reported? You decide. In an atmosphere such as the one that is being created on some campuses in this country, it is of course a joke when I say that a student is pointing his cell phone at me so that Sean Hannity can hear me saying that Intelligent Design is not science and therefore should not be taught in a biology class. But like most jokes, it is funny partly because there is a recognizable grain of truth in it. Speaking of which, did you hear the one about the Buddhist at the hot dog stand? -- My Unitarian Jihad Name (http://tinyurl.com/6valr ) is: The Logging Chain of Loving Kindness You can get your own at http://homepage.mac.com/whump/ujname.html From chanfu at gmail.com Wed Oct 5 17:17:51 2005 From: chanfu at gmail.com (Chan Fu) Date: Wed Oct 5 17:25:36 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: <1128551999.5617.56.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <5886262.1128473969266.JavaMail.rhayes@unm.edu> <009501c5c992$c16f9250$1f1b9c04@Dan> <1128524337.4553.26.camel@localhost.localdomain> <43441A4B.5070301@nerim.net> <1128551999.5617.56.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: On 10/5/05, Richard P. Hayes wrote: > On Wed, 2005-10-05 at 20:24 +0200, Joy Vriens wrote: > > > You can't be serious! He must be recording it on an MP3 player for notes... > > Please tell me this is irony! > > Yes, it was a half-serious joke, a sort of mock paranoia. The background > of it is that there is a well-known right-wing talk show host in the USA > named Sean Hannity who has encouraged students to report professors who > are too liberal, and he has said on the air that students should record > what their overly liberal professors are saying so that they can use it > as evidence of their professor's liberal bias. > > Also there is a website called www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org that > is advocating a Students Bill of Rights, which would guarantee that > every student be allowed to hear what they call "dissenting views". The > subtext is the claim that the overwhelming majority of professors are > social and political liberals, that liberals are intolerant of any kind > of disagreement with their positions and that students who hold > conservative views are in serious danger of failing their classes if > they dare to state their real opinions about things. > > I have seen it said specifically about my university that 83% of all > professors whose political affiliations are known are registered > Democrats, 11% are registered Republicans and 6% are Green or > independents. It is also reported that over 50% of the departments on > this campus do not have a single registered Republican, and that 100% of > the Faculty of Law are registered Democrats. These statement are nearly > meaningless, of course, because the vast majority of people do not make > their political affiliation public knowledge. Nevertheless, the local > chapter of college Republicans is making a great deal of noise about the > "atmosphere of fear" that allegedly prevails in classrooms dominated by > liberal professors and that Republican students are living in constant > fear that if they let their views be known, they will be ridiculed in > class, denied letters of recommendation, disqualified from scholarships, > and prevented from getting jobs. There are editorials every week in the > student newspaper complaining about the tyranny of liberal professors. > > One of my colleagues told a joke in his class, and a complaint was > lodged against him. Here's the joke: > > \begin{joke} > In a daily briefing in the White House, an aide reported to George Bush > that three Brazilians had been killed in an accident. Bush grew quite > alarmed and said "Oh my God, that's terrible." All his aides were > surprised by the force of his consternation. Then Bush said "How many is > a brazilian, anyway?" > \end{joke} > > A stupid joke, no doubt. But worthy of being reported? You decide. > > In an atmosphere such as the one that is being created on some campuses > in this country, it is of course a joke when I say that a student is > pointing his cell phone at me so that Sean Hannity can hear me saying > that Intelligent Design is not science and therefore should not be > taught in a biology class. But like most jokes, it is funny partly > because there is a recognizable grain of truth in it. > > Speaking of which, did you hear the one about the Buddhist at the hot > dog stand? If you tell it here, I'll send the Great Unavoidable Binary of Infinite Enlightenment to your IP address. OMG! A threat! I'm now a terrorist!!! > My Unitarian Jihad Name (http://tinyurl.com/6valr ) is: > The Logging Chain of Loving Kindness > You can get your own at http://homepage.mac.com/whump/ujname.html copycat. http://www.campusprogress.org/ Horowitz watch. A bill is already in the Ohio legislature, but no matter. Pythons are taking over Florida and with global warming, they'll soon be in Ohio. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/06/0603_040603_invasivespecies.html From jkirk at spro.net Wed Oct 5 18:35:36 2005 From: jkirk at spro.net (jkirk) Date: Wed Oct 5 18:35:32 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] NPR, TotN References: <1f8.1392dae7.30758742@aol.com> Message-ID: <003401c5ca0d$decbf020$2930cece@charlie> > > NPR tries hard, but it's still federally funded - at least > until its funding is cut to buy more arms and support > the religious war(s). So any deference to reason must > be carefully thought out and presented as blandly as > possible. A very large percentage of media bandwidth > in the US is now owned and operated by the religious > right. When NPR is shut down, which it may well be, > those will be the remaining "voices" of America. ======================== Except in those few communities scattered here and there that are gearing up to create their won local radio stations and programming. A politically progressive one is in the works for Boise, Idaho, red state, of all places. Joanna From chanfu at gmail.com Wed Oct 5 18:50:37 2005 From: chanfu at gmail.com (Chan Fu) Date: Wed Oct 5 18:55:33 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] NPR, TotN In-Reply-To: <003401c5ca0d$decbf020$2930cece@charlie> References: <1f8.1392dae7.30758742@aol.com> <003401c5ca0d$decbf020$2930cece@charlie> Message-ID: On 10/5/05, jkirk wrote: > > > > > NPR tries hard, but it's still federally funded - at least > > until its funding is cut to buy more arms and support > > the religious war(s). So any deference to reason must > > be carefully thought out and presented as blandly as > > possible. A very large percentage of media bandwidth > > in the US is now owned and operated by the religious > > right. When NPR is shut down, which it may well be, > > those will be the remaining "voices" of America. > ======================== > Except in those few communities scattered here and there that are gearing up > to create their won local radio stations and programming. A politically > progressive one is in the works for Boise, Idaho, red state, of all places. > Joanna Hi, Jo - More info, please. It could almost happen here. From bcarral at kungzhi.org Wed Oct 5 20:28:41 2005 From: bcarral at kungzhi.org (Benito Carral) Date: Wed Oct 5 20:35:40 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: <43441C32.3010504@nerim.net> References: <1127942930.6308.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> <433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net> <617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org> <4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net> <1128439345.4561.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4342B590.2000901@nerim.net> <02556858.20051004215015@kungzhi.org> <43441C32.3010504@nerim.net> Message-ID: <401926149.20051006042841@kungzhi.org> On Wednesday, October 5, 2005, Joy Vriens wrote: >> I think this is really interesting, it has to do >> with the "hapiness myth." Why do most of people >> think that the goal of life is to be happy? I don't >> agree. > Because you are a realist ;-) Hahaha. People usually tend to say that I'm a pessimist, although I don't tend to agree with such a view. :-) Today I was talking with a friend for some hours. I explained him my view on Western society and why I'm leaving Oviedo in some months to live a completely different life that he doesn't understand. As a concluding remark, he said, "I suppose we are still in the game because we don't have guts to shot ourselves." Well, it sounds as pessimistic, but I also offered him an alternative. Chan Fu said in other post that he doesn't know how to teach perseverance. I have learnt something about that. When my students lost interest in Dharma, it usually is because they have forgotten why they started to practice in the first place. They forget about dukkha because they don't feel so bad as before. So I think that they key to persevere in Dharma is to be aware of both individual and collective dukkha. So I think that not losing oneself in impermanent amusements is not to be a pessimist but a realist guy. But I don't worry too much about labels, because who decides what a pessimist or realist is. And most important, does it matter? >> As far as I know, the Buddha taugh how to end with >> dukkha. And that has little to do with most of >> people understand by happiness. > Well, he did go on a bit sometimes about describing > the end of dukkha as peace, bliss and what not more. But you know that such comments in early suttas are very scanty and they don't seem to represent his general message. Today I have asked to two different individuals what they understand by happiness. One told me that happiness is feeling good and that he feels good following G-d's way. The other one said that happiness is not feeling bad and feeling good sometimes, and a good way to achieve it, she said, is to be entertained. Now I'm writing a book and will keep asking the question in order to include the answers. It's clear that "happiness" can be many different things. What did the old Indian Buddha have in mind? "Both formerly & now, it is only dukkha that I describe, and the cessation of dukkha." SN XXII.86 And how did he understand dukkha? "Birth is dukkha, aging is dukkha, death is dukkha; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair are dukkha; association with the unbeloved is dukkha; separation from the loved is dukkha; not getting what is wanted is dukkha. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are dukkha." SN LVI.11 >> I would say that, from the point of view of Early >> Buddhism, the goal was to have peace of mind. > I disagree, immortality was there goal. Becoming a > god amongst gods. I have to disagree here. :-) If we talk about Early Buddhism, it's clear that the goal is a "definitive suicide" as I like to call it. The Indian Buddha didn't want to be reborn again. That was the goal, one shared by many fellows then. So it was just the opposite of inmortality. In addition, inmortality of what if everything is impermanent? > That's one of my main ingredients for happiness. Bon > appetito. Thank you very much. :-) Best wishes, Beni From bcarral at kungzhi.org Wed Oct 5 20:39:47 2005 From: bcarral at kungzhi.org (Benito Carral) Date: Wed Oct 5 20:45:35 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: <43441B56.7080303@nerim.net> References: <1127942930.6308.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> <433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net> <617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org> <4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net> <1359619694.20051004213630@kungzhi.org> <43441B56.7080303@nerim.net> Message-ID: <1479321719.20051006043947@kungzhi.org> On Wednesday, October 5, 2005, Joy Vriens wrote: > Same thing for the Netherlands. Nationalism is > considered a disease, was... Even the once tolerant > Netherlands are changing quite dramatically and > becoming intolerant. You know the old saying, "Divide and you will win." I can see US Government behind this nationalism boom, and I can see corporations behind US Government. Maybe they don't feel good about our cows not being fed with Monsanto's poison. Best wishes, Beni From bcarral at kungzhi.org Wed Oct 5 21:01:36 2005 From: bcarral at kungzhi.org (Benito Carral) Date: Wed Oct 5 21:05:35 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Pennsylvania and crying Buddhas In-Reply-To: <20051005015144.48488.qmail@web60012.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20051005015144.48488.qmail@web60012.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1475982863.20051006050136@kungzhi.org> On Wednesday, October 5, 2005, Mitchell Ginsberg wrote: > I mean, if we can cry and can laugh, that seems easy; > if we cannot cry and cannot laugh, that seems doable > (although a bit cramped a life space to live in); but > how to be open only to crying but not to laughing, to > be capable of depression but not joy? It's enough to > ask which Buddhism that would be? (just wondering > aloud), I think that buddhas have a very different sense of humor, so they don't laugh with average jokes. Some months ago, while I was dining at the living room, someone was watching a sitcom. There was a room with two men and a woman, and the woman said, "Between both of you I don't know whom the child I'm waiting is." And the one at the living room started to laugh aloud. I never knew what the funny thing was. So I think that most of laugh is stupid and that that's why buddhas don't tend to practice it. I don't know many buddhas who are comedians. Well, now that I mention it, I don't know many buddhas. Best wishes, Beni From bcarral at kungzhi.org Wed Oct 5 21:23:28 2005 From: bcarral at kungzhi.org (Benito Carral) Date: Wed Oct 5 21:25:37 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: References: <617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org> <4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net> <1128439345.4561.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4342B590.2000901@nerim.net> <02556858.20051004215015@kungzhi.org> <4342EB6E.6050902@cola.iges.org> <19910014655.20051005002607@kungzhi.org> <252603687.20051005014310@kungzhi.org> Message-ID: <352290776.20051006052328@kungzhi.org> On Wednesday, October 5, 2005, Chan Fu wrote: > Haha - it's very hard to calm them down, quiet those > noisy minds, isn't it? I don't know how to teach > perseverance. Yes, perseverance and commitment are not common nowadays. I think that it has to do with the wild search of new excitements. ("Everything familiar enough is boring, so let's look for something new." And boredom has much to do with lack of concentration.) Then if we talk about Dharma, the lack of awareness about dukkha is a key factor, I think. So nowadays I tend to show my students a lot of different forms of individual and collective dukkha. But then they tend to think that I'm a pessimist and go to look for a more optimistic teacher. :-) > Thank you for trying, though, Beni - even one is > worth it. That's right. And for some mysterious reason, a couple of students keep attending my classes through the years. Best wishes, Beni From joy.vriens at nerim.net Wed Oct 5 23:24:07 2005 From: joy.vriens at nerim.net (Joy Vriens) Date: Wed Oct 5 23:25:36 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: <1128551999.5617.56.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <5886262.1128473969266.JavaMail.rhayes@unm.edu> <009501c5c992$c16f9250$1f1b9c04@Dan> <1128524337.4553.26.camel@localhost.localdomain> <43441A4B.5070301@nerim.net> <1128551999.5617.56.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <4344B4F7.8000800@nerim.net> Richard P. Hayes wrote: > Yes, it was a half-serious joke, a sort of mock paranoia. A couple of years ago, I would have simply laughed about your joke, reassuring myself that we weren't living in such an absurd world, but this time I felt the need to ask. Perhaps the times are so serious that you might consider using emoticons?... > Speaking of which, did you hear the one about the Buddhist at the hot > dog stand? A communist buddhist or a capitalist one? (I forget the standard sanskrit translation of those school something- vada?) From joy.vriens at nerim.net Thu Oct 6 00:06:40 2005 From: joy.vriens at nerim.net (Joy Vriens) Date: Thu Oct 6 00:15:38 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: <401926149.20051006042841@kungzhi.org> References: <1127942930.6308.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> <433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net> <617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org> <4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net> <1128439345.4561.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4342B590.2000901@nerim.net> <02556858.20051004215015@kungzhi.org> <43441C32.3010504@nerim.net> <401926149.20051006042841@kungzhi.org> Message-ID: <4344BEF0.5050801@nerim.net> Benito Carral wrote: >>>I think this is really interesting, it has to do >>>with the "hapiness myth." Why do most of people >>>think that the goal of life is to be happy? I don't >>>agree. > > >>Because you are a realist ;-) > > > Hahaha. People usually tend to say that I'm a > pessimist, although I don't tend to agree with such a > view. :-) I call it lucidity. > Today I was talking with a friend for some hours. I > explained him my view on Western society and why I'm > leaving Oviedo in some months to live a completely > different life that he doesn't understand. You are referring to your Conversion project, you mentioned a while ago? > As a > concluding remark, he said, "I suppose we are still in > the game because we don't have guts to shot ourselves." > Well, it sounds as pessimistic, but I also offered him > an alternative. That does sound pessimistic. I am an optimist like you in that I will try to find alternatives. > Chan Fu said in other post that he doesn't know how > to teach perseverance. I have learnt something about > that. When my students lost interest in Dharma, it > usually is because they have forgotten why they started > to practice in the first place. They forget about > dukkha because they don't feel so bad as before. So I > think that they key to persevere in Dharma is to be > aware of both individual and collective dukkha. Yes, while trying to avoid making it into a self fulfilling prophecy. We are what we think, remember. > So I think that not losing oneself in impermanent > amusements is not to be a pessimist but a realist guy. If I could lose myself in impermanent amusements, I would be amusing myself all the time. But I am too much of a natural Jansenist, to be able to do that. We Buddhists are second category humans, we shouldn't forget that. It is those who can amuse themselves that are superior human beings, not us. > But I don't worry too much about labels, because who > decides what a pessimist or realist is. And most > important, does it matter? No, it's only something that becomes evident through comparisons, and who needs comparisons to be? >>>As far as I know, the Buddha taugh how to end with >>>dukkha. And that has little to do with most of >>>people understand by happiness. > > >>Well, he did go on a bit sometimes about describing >>the end of dukkha as peace, bliss and what not more. > > > But you know that such comments in early suttas are > very scanty and they don't seem to represent his > general message. Frankly, I don't know what *his* general message is. But end of dukkha is an excellent lowest common denominator of Buddhism in general. > Today I have asked to two different individuals what > they understand by happiness. One told me that > happiness is feeling good and that he feels good > following G-d's way. The other one said that happiness > is not feeling bad and feeling good sometimes, and a > good way to achieve it, she said, is to be entertained. I agree with her, if by being entertained she doesn't necessarily mean superficial amusement. I am rereading "Le sentiment d'exister" by Fran?ois Flahault (I mentioned it earlier on this list), who says that our lives are constructed on nothingness (n?ant). BTW There is an excellent quote by Pierre Nicole that I will post here if I find it back. Anyway, the construction of our life, the weaving of all the threads that constitutes our life is nothing else than entertainment, a sort of escape from the nothingness. Check out anguttara IV, 414 (reference by LVP) if you are interested in happiness. I found it in another sutta on Access too, but forgot which one. It's a teaching by Sariputta. >>>I would say that, from the point of view of Early >>>Buddhism, the goal was to have peace of mind. >>I disagree, immortality was there goal. Becoming a >>god amongst gods. > I have to disagree here. :-) If we talk about Early > Buddhism, it's clear that the goal is a "definitive > suicide" as I like to call it. Sariputta and Moggallana were looking for immortality. That is why they joined the Buddha. See http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/vinaya/mv1-23-5.html. Also somewhere in the Mahavagga the Buddha declared he has attained immortality and that he has opened the gates of immortality. If you talk about *early* Buddhism, immortality is the goal. * The Indian Buddha didn't > want to be reborn again. They wanted to escape temporal existence, not atemporal. > That was the goal, one shared > by many fellows then. So it was just the opposite of > inmortality. In addition, inmortality of what if > everything is impermanent? You probably know the famous quote "There is, O monks, an unborn, an unbecome, an unmade, an unconditioned; if, O monks, there were not here this unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned, there would not here be an escape from the born, the become, the made, the conditioned. But because there is an unborn,...therefore there is an escape from the born...." UDANA viii, 3 Joy From joy.vriens at nerim.net Thu Oct 6 00:42:16 2005 From: joy.vriens at nerim.net (Joy Vriens) Date: Thu Oct 6 00:45:39 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: <1479321719.20051006043947@kungzhi.org> References: <1127942930.6308.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> <433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net> <617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org> <4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net> <1359619694.20051004213630@kungzhi.org> <43441B56.7080303@nerim.net> <1479321719.20051006043947@kungzhi.org> Message-ID: <4344C748.4000202@nerim.net> Benito Carral wrote: > You know the old saying, "Divide and you will win." > I can see US Government behind this nationalism boom, > and I can see corporations behind US Government. Maybe > they don't feel good about our cows not being fed with > Monsanto's poison. Divide et impera. I am not sure it is something intentional. In times of crisis, people simply withdraw in what's familiar to them and thend to close off from the rest. That corporations and national governments are responsible for the crisis is highly probable. What's this Monsanto's poison? I watched this very interesting documentary about breasts (yes a documentary), and apparently British and American women seem to have the biggest breasts. Not due to implants etc. but due to the more liberal legislations for the use of hormones in meat. Joy From dlusthau at mailer.fsu.edu Thu Oct 6 00:55:57 2005 From: dlusthau at mailer.fsu.edu (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Thu Oct 6 01:05:39 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo References: <1127942930.6308.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> <433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net><617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org> <4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net><1359619694.20051004213630@kungzhi.org> <43441B56.7080303@nerim.net> <1479321719.20051006043947@kungzhi.org> Message-ID: <003c01c5ca43$01172200$c8369c04@Dan> >> Even the once tolerant > > Netherlands are changing quite dramatically and > > becoming intolerant. > > I can see US Government behind this nationalism boom, > and I can see corporations behind US Government. Maybe Beni, you can't tell the ropes from the snakes. The change in Holland has nothing to do with the US and everything to do with domestic perceptions of domestic Islam (ditto Britain's recent culture shock -- Canada will join those shocked ranks soon). The Theo van Gogh assassination (and the death threats against a woman Muslim Dutch legislator who collaborated with him on the film he was killed for -- the threat was stuck on a note with a knife to his chest), the unrepentent savagery masquerading as religious zealotry, the intricate webs of terrorist cells and plots continually being uncovered there, the belligerent lack of remorse and additional threats uttered by van Gogh's murderer in court, etc., the increasing belligerance coupled with rejection of Dutch mores or any assimlilational compromise, etc. -- all that profoundly shocked the Dutch, who prior to that didn't want to believe that people could be that messed up, much less represent a cultural matrix that is generating an endless supply of likeminded jihadists for whom killing film-makers and Muslim women espousing reform in the contemporary Islamic treatment of women is more important than their own life. They make the more rabid anti-abortionists in this country look like uncommitted, procrastinating amateurs. That the Dutch have no better response than right wing nationalism is disturbing, but that their concern and anxiety is legitimate is also unquestionable. The problem of Islam in Europe is real. As Bat Yaor has warned, if Europe doesn't wake up, it will *be* the Muslim world in less than 20 years (like Kashmir, Bali soon, etc.). It's a war of hegemony. IThat's a deeper identity question than mere nationalism, as a Buddhist might point out. Europe's liberal openness (if that ever really was anything more than rhetoric used by Europeans to try to shame non-Europeans who weren't as "enlightened" as they were) is already passe. France, Britain, Netherlands, et al. are rethinking where to draw the line, and how to enforce it. Just as the western european communists had to finally come to terms (in the 60s and 70s, for goodness sake) with the fact that Stalin was not a good guy, contemporary leftists are going to have to come to terms with the fact that all evil doesn't begin and end in the USA, or even the current miserable administration. The US didn't blow up a bunch of people in Bali a few days ago, and the target was not Americans (the only Americans wounded in that were natives revisiting the homeland on vacation). It is Muslims undermining the Hindu remnant of that country. Don't let them distract you with the false rhetoric they've learned is so effective at neutralizing critical scrutiny of who they are and what they are doing. (And if anti-US diatribes don't work, there is always the ubiquitous antisemitic/anti-Israel line to fall back on). Let me put it this way: unless people on the left begin to recognize the reality of the problem of Islam and devote some creative energy to dealing with that (enlisting and empowering moderate Muslims would be a start), the only ones who will be dealing with it are the Bushes and right wing demagogues. As long as the left thinks the way to solve the problem is to join the jihadists in their anti-American choruses (as if that somehow immunizes them from being the target of the next attack -- it doesn't), the problem will only get worse, and those in the middle will continue moving to the right. Dan From jehms at xs4all.nl Thu Oct 6 02:04:43 2005 From: jehms at xs4all.nl (Erik Hoogcarspel) Date: Thu Oct 6 02:05:46 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: <003c01c5ca43$01172200$c8369c04@Dan> References: <1127942930.6308.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> <433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net><617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org> <4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net><1359619694.20051004213630@kungzhi.org> <43441B56.7080303@nerim.net> <1479321719.20051006043947@kungzhi.org> <003c01c5ca43$01172200$c8369c04@Dan> Message-ID: <4344DA9B.8040908@xs4all.nl> Dan Lusthaus schreef: >Let me put it this way: unless people on the left begin to recognize the >reality of the problem of Islam and devote some creative energy to dealing >with that (enlisting and empowering moderate Muslims would be a start), the >only ones who will be dealing with it are the Bushes and right wing >demagogues. As long as the left thinks the way to solve the problem is to >join the jihadists in their anti-American choruses (as if that somehow >immunizes them from being the target of the next attack -- it doesn't), the >problem will only get worse, and those in the middle will continue moving to >the right. > > > I think this is hopelessly na?ve. Just nagging about bad guys who don't understand it all and the treat of the great ennemy. Dan, people just do what they think is right and people are shortsighted or even nothing less than stupid sometimes. If you want to understand what's going on you must see this first and then read Macchiavelli and apply a little but of sociology. It's clear that there are fanatics who blow themselves to pieces in restaurants, but the everage Muslim is just some one who wants food and safety. If you however look at the lifestories of these fanatics you may understand that nobody invents himself and decides to become a terrorist or a gangmember, which is not very different. You may ask yourself what would be the smartest move: building many huge prisons and raising a hugy army or helping the poor to live a decent life. The last thing might be the best solution to the problem and even has the advantage of being more in line wiht the Brahmavihara's. -- Groet Erik www.xs4all.nl/~jehms From joy.vriens at nerim.net Thu Oct 6 02:10:38 2005 From: joy.vriens at nerim.net (Joy Vriens) Date: Thu Oct 6 02:15:40 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: <003c01c5ca43$01172200$c8369c04@Dan> References: <1127942930.6308.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> <433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net><617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org> <4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net><1359619694.20051004213630@kungzhi.org> <43441B56.7080303@nerim.net> <1479321719.20051006043947@kungzhi.org> <003c01c5ca43$01172200$c8369c04@Dan> Message-ID: <4344DBFE.8030202@nerim.net> Dan Lusthaus wrote: > The problem of Islam in Europe is real. As Bat Yaor has > warned, if Europe doesn't wake up, it will *be* the Muslim world in less > than 20 years (like Kashmir, Bali soon, etc.). It's a war of hegemony. Islam in itself shouldn't be a problem. Islamist terrorism is. Islamist proselytism can be considered a problem, but then so should any other form of proselytism be considered a problem. What I find worrying is that there isn't much of a reaction of rejection from more moderate muslims about others hijacking their religion. And even if Islam itself were the problem, then I am not sure that direct confrontation, a sort of war, a new sort of war as some called it, is the solution. > The US didn't blow up a bunch of people in Bali a > few days ago, and the target was not Americans (the only Americans wounded > in that were natives revisiting the homeland on vacation). The logic of terrorism is condemnable, but it is implacable. In a democracy everyone is responsible. It are the people that elect their governments. And so everyone is responsible for the policy conducted by it. If those, more or less elected, that are in power and in charge can't be targeted by terrorism because of their most efficient protection, than those who are less protected become targets. This principle is not a new one, it has been invented when the Total war concept was introduced and generally accepted and used. Attempts have been made to attenuate it by introducing the notions of "collateral damage" and "deplored unintended civilian victims", but it's easy to see through this propaganda. I personally can't see the difference between Hiroshima and Bali as far as the method is concerned. There is an enormous difference of scale of course, but that is only because the Bali terrorists didn't have the same means. > Let me put it this way: unless people on the left begin to recognize the > reality of the problem of Islam and devote some creative energy to dealing > with that (enlisting and empowering moderate Muslims would be a start), the > only ones who will be dealing with it are the Bushes and right wing > demagogues. Unless people focus directly on terrorist/Total war behaviour regardless by what side it is carried out and condemn it outright and stop thinking of it in terms of sides, there will be no end to this problem. And you are right, if moderate muslims don't take their responsibility, Islam itself will become a problem. > As long as the left thinks the way to solve the problem is to > join the jihadists in their anti-American choruses (as if that somehow > immunizes them from being the target of the next attack -- it doesn't), the > problem will only get worse, and those in the middle will continue moving to > the right. I don't know if there is much of a left left. The opposition seems to focus more on being against or in favour of a globalised free market with less and less State intervention as far as welfare and social rights are concerned. The "anti-Americanism" is not directed against America and Americans as such. It is against the intentional undermining of the role of the UN, against the refusal to give power to an environmental policy (Kyoto), the International Court of Justice, the non respect of the Genevian Convention, Human rights, the Death penalty, the self-attributed Messianic role of the religious right, the undermining of democracy and democratic rights in the US itself, etc etc. As much as moderate muslims have the obligation to save Islam from Islamist extremism, moderate Americans have the obligation to save what the Western world loved about America. Wakey wakey. Listen to Al Gore http://www.buzzflash.com/alerts/05/10/ale05154.html Joy From dlusthau at mailer.fsu.edu Thu Oct 6 03:34:31 2005 From: dlusthau at mailer.fsu.edu (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Thu Oct 6 03:35:41 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo References: <1127942930.6308.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> <433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net><617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org> <4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net><1359619694.20051004213630@kungzhi.org> <43441B56.7080303@nerim.net> <1479321719.20051006043947@kungzhi.org><003c01c5ca43$01172200$c8369c04@Dan> <4344DA9B.8040908@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <00bb01c5ca59$2aa93700$c8369c04@Dan> >You may > ask yourself what would be the smartest move: building many huge prisons > and raising a hugy army or helping the poor to live a decent life. Eric, If this were a different kind of email list, we could devote some time to enumerating and debunking the ten most common fallacies (or 25 most common, or 100 most common) mindlessly and inappropriately reiterated to prevent insight and thinking (and blame someone else). I included a few in the last message (blame everything on the USA [a fallacy Richard engages in about once a week], blame it on the Jews/Zionists/Israelis, blame it on the right wing, blame it on the left wing, blame it on anyone who is not the actual agent of the action, etc.). To that list we can add this worn out notion, borrowed from the sociology that blames all crime on poverty. White collar crooks have to blame it on their parents, or society, or govt entrapment, or Columbian drug lords, whatever. Bin Laden not only has more money than the collective readership of this list, but more money than all readers of this list from the three times (past, present, and future, i.,e. past subscribers, present subscribers and future subscribers) will earn, inherit, collect, steal, borrow, and think about for their entire lives, put together. Poverty was never his problem. Nor was it Arafat's (about whom similar claims of wealth could be made). Nor Bin Laden's leadership. Nor many of those active in the European cells, who are usually at minimum middle class, and often highly educated. That the legitimately poor and miserable can be exploited by those people is a secondary issue, not the cause. Hell, Britain puts them on the dole just for making it over the border (a policy that is being reexamined). Economics is only one of many factors, not the key element. It's the Saudis and Kuwaitis, etc., who have been funding this. Impoverish and isolate them -- and blow them up a bit -- like the evil US did with Qaddafi, and the song changes. Exercise number one: mindfulness, sm.rti, which means listen to what they say carefully. What do they want? A hallal chicken in every pot, or hegemony? You don't cure t.r.s.naa for hegemony by trying to pay it off, by nurturing it; nor by underestimating it. They are not victims of American imperialism, but of the bankrupt political culture of the Muslim world (rich and poor Muslim countries alike). On the other hand, if you really believe what you said, you should be 150% behind Bush's invasion of Iraq, since that has been one of the goals for creating a decent nation in post-Saddam Iraq (the "beacon of democracy" spiel). For some reason, there are people -- most not even Iraqis -- who would rather kill women, children, clerics in their mosques, and anyone else who gets in *their* way, rather than allow a decent infrastructure to be built that would provide a decent living for Iraqi citizens. Ponder that long and hard, my friend. Dan Lusthaus From dlusthau at mailer.fsu.edu Thu Oct 6 04:43:13 2005 From: dlusthau at mailer.fsu.edu (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Thu Oct 6 04:45:41 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo References: <1127942930.6308.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> <433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net><617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org> <4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net><1359619694.20051004213630@kungzhi.org> <43441B56.7080303@nerim.net> <1479321719.20051006043947@kungzhi.org><003c01c5ca43$01172200$c8369c04@Dan> <4344DBFE.8030202@nerim.net> Message-ID: <00c701c5ca62$e5c7f5e0$c8369c04@Dan> Joy, > What I find worrying is that there isn't much of a reaction of rejection > from more moderate muslims about others hijacking their religion. I share your concern about this. I'm not so sure they actually feel the religion is being hijacked, as much as that a certain group -- unfavorably received by most Westerners -- reflect badly on them, sort of like an embarrassing relative. Since the first they do after disclaiming that all Muslims are terrorists (true but trivial) is to vent a long list of grievances against the West, Western policies, etc., it's clear they don't get the point (hiding behind the next fallacy to add to our list; see below). > And even if Islam itself were the problem, then I am not sure that > direct confrontation, a sort of war, a new sort of war as some called > it, is the solution. One of the problems is no one seems to have a clue about how to deal with it. Violent confrontation tends to steel their resolve and reinforce their paranoia, while appeasement, self-flaggelation, and not holding them responsible for their actions just encourages and envigorates them. Islam per se, in the abstract, is not the problem. Much of contemporary Islamic culture, especially political culture, is. For Wahhabis, as is well-known, Sufism is not Islam. Nor are Shiites Muslims, etc. All Muslim nations agree that Kurds should just disappear from the face of the earth (and take the damn Bahais and Parsees with them). and so on. One might look to Sikh history for a preview of what the European wake-up call might be like. Sikhs were initially universalists, anti-sectarian, pacifistic, etc. A few generations of dealing with Muslims (back before there was a US to blame for everything), and suddenly everyone's last name was Singh (lion -- signifying a martial attitude), and a carrying a dagger at all times became one the mandatory religious duties of every male. > The logic of terrorism is condemnable, but it is implacable. In a > democracy everyone is responsible. It are the people that elect their > governments. Here you move into another fallacy we could add to the list: Terrorism is a political statement, merely a horrible means to a justifiable ends. There is a reason that in Iraq, Bali, Tel Aviv, Paris, London, New York, Los Angeles, Chechniya, etc., the targets are not political leaders, but innocent civilians. That's why it's called terrorism. It's not that the leaders are protected behind Pope-mobiles (although that is becoming an increasing reality), but because ordinary people, innocents, are their intended targets. They are not surrogates, they ARE the targets. Why do you think that is? The statement being made is always about hegemony -- and preferably that they should have their "right" to do terror with impunity guaranteed by the World Community [the PLO set the precedent for that; the more innocent people they killed, the more the world insisted their demands should be met, and the less was expected of them in return]. To the terrorists it wouldn't matter if a Democrat or a Republican was in the White House -- 9/11 was originally conceived during Clinton's presidency; nor whether Labor or Conservatives ruled from 10 Downing St [the British Jihadists have said explicitly the goal is to have a Muslim -- meaning one sharing their own Jihadist values -- living at that address], and so on. How any of us votes is largely irrelevant. Do you think the jihadist movement would have evaporated with a Gore victory in 2000? Algeria is a splendid, if somewhat ignored history lesson for all this. While the French were debating among themselves whether to stay or leave, the left blamed the de Gaullists for everything (much in the way Eric was suggesting I was wrong-headed), the right insisted that anything less than a hardline was giving comfort to the enemy and unpatriotic, while the "intellectuals" delighted in the paradox that the Algerians made clear that should the elections the French insisted take place before they withdraw result in an Algerian slate triumphing, the first thing the new Algerian leadership would do -- they promised -- would be to abolish democracy. Should we stay, even as imperialists, for their own good, or leave the country to them, even though they promise to make everything worse once we're gone? -- that was the parlor chat. The Algerians were true to their word. The first thing they did was abolish democracy, and the country has been a mess ever since. Hundreds of thousands have died, killed by the govt. Every time a popular protest movement begins to emerge, everyone even marginally involved or just in the wrong place is killed. A couple of decades back they killed 25,000 in less than a week, since protests were starting to mass publicly. In Syria Assad senior racked up big numbers as well, as did Saddam H in Iraq (part of that contemporary "culture" I referred to). Pol Pot was a short-lived amateur compared to these guys, yet Syria sits on the Security Council and Libya heads the UN committee on human rights. Is there any wonder that some people are cynical about the UN? Tunisia has had relatively benign and tolerant leadership for many decades, yet jihadists from Tunisia, Algeria, etc., crisscross Europe and Asia looking for ways to kill people most horrendously. So it's not simply economics, nor simply oppressive regimes (since non-repressive regimes also engender terrorists who take their show on the road), nor simply any of the "usual suspects." France couldn't figure out what to do with Algeria then, and it still can't figure out what to about Islam today. And instead of figuring out what went wrong then and how it might have been done differently, when it does come up in discussion, it simply reiterates the old slogans (blame the DeGaullists, blame the... -- blame anybody but the Algerians). For this list, however, the history lesson should go back to the days when the Silk Road, from Iran to China and everything in between was Buddhist. And then came the Muslims. Then read the Tibetan apocalyptic literature (Kalacakra, etc.) about what happens to Muslims during the apocalypse. > I don't know if there is much of a left left. Nicely phrased! If, however, you are having trouble recognizing huge ethical distinctions between Hiroshima and Bali, then we are all in trouble and the age of Mappo has arrived. If the distinction escapes you, please have a long talk with any Koreans, Chinese, Burmese, Filipinos, etc. you know. They will explain it to you. Dan Lusthaus From joy.vriens at nerim.net Thu Oct 6 07:09:30 2005 From: joy.vriens at nerim.net (Joy Vriens) Date: Thu Oct 6 07:15:46 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: <00c701c5ca62$e5c7f5e0$c8369c04@Dan> References: <1127942930.6308.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> <433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net><617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org> <4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net><1359619694.20051004213630@kungzhi.org> <43441B56.7080303@nerim.net> <1479321719.20051006043947@kungzhi.org><003c01c5ca43$01172200$c8369c04@Dan> <4344DBFE.8030202@nerim.net> <00c701c5ca62$e5c7f5e0$c8369c04@Dan> Message-ID: <4345220A.5040309@nerim.net> Dan Lusthaus wrote: Quite a lot of points of agreement, some disagreements > One might look to Sikh history for a preview of what the European wake-up > call might be like. Sikhs were initially universalists, anti-sectarian, > pacifistic, etc. A few generations of dealing with Muslims (back before > there was a US to blame for everything), and suddenly everyone's last name > was Singh (lion -- signifying a martial attitude), and a carrying a dagger > at all times became one the mandatory religious duties of every male. ...what the European wake-up call might be like... What a nightmare, I prefer my current dream. The whole survival of the fittest program must have been misspent on me. I don't understand how the result of such fine project could be me. No, if my life were to turn into a battle, I would decline the offer and leave my place to fitter/eager ones than me. Not even Krishna could talk me into doing "my duty". >>The logic of terrorism is condemnable, but it is implacable. In a >>democracy everyone is responsible. It are the people that elect their >>governments. > > > Here you move into another fallacy we could add to the list: Terrorism is a > political statement, merely a horrible means to a justifiable ends. There is > a reason that in Iraq, Bali, Tel Aviv, Paris, London, New York, Los Angeles, > Chechniya, etc., the targets are not political leaders, but innocent > civilians. Not so sure. I think that if they could pick between innocent civilians and a political leader they wouldn't hesitate. In the US, they did target the WTC and the Pentagon although they could have easily gone for a more civilian target. Innocent civilans are not systematically targeted, although they often are (the Beslan school hostage was absolute horror). > That's why it's called terrorism. It's not that the leaders are > protected behind Pope-mobiles (although that is becoming an increasing > reality), but because ordinary people, innocents, are their intended > targets. They are not surrogates, they ARE the targets. Yet it is not ordinary people that can make political decisions. They are targeted in order to put those who have political power under pressure, through public opinion. The simple killing of some bunches of innocent civilians is not the objective of terrorism. They want to spread terror. Why? Just for the sake of it? Just like you made distinctions between groups of muslim culture, we should distinguish between different types of terrorism. They are terrorists in that they use the same horrible methods, but they don't have all the same objectives. The statement of one of the London metro bombers clearly linked his decision to become a terrorist to the British presence in Iraq. Whether that is the bottom line of his thought we don't know, but that is what he is rappoerted to have himself stated. > Why do you think > that is? The statement being made is always about hegemony -- and preferably > that they should have their "right" to do terror with impunity guaranteed by > the World Community [the PLO set the precedent for that; the more innocent > people they killed, the more the world insisted their demands should be met, > and the less was expected of them in return]. I don't think this was an invention of the PLO, using violence to terrorise or to force political decisions is as old as the world. > To the terrorists it wouldn't > matter if a Democrat or a Republican was in the White House -- 9/11 was > originally conceived during Clinton's presidency; nor whether Labor or > Conservatives ruled from 10 Downing St [the British Jihadists have said > explicitly the goal is to have a Muslim -- meaning one sharing their own > Jihadist values -- living at that address], and so on. How any of us votes > is largely irrelevant. Do you think the jihadist movement would have > evaporated with a Gore victory in 2000? No, Clinton bombed the El-Shifa plant in Sudan while Al Gore was his vice-president. > Algeria is a splendid, if somewhat ignored history lesson for all this. As an aside, it would be if it weren't still a taboo subject in France. The historian Pascal Blanchard tries with his latest book "La fracture coloniale" (http://www.algeria-watch.org/fr/article/div/livres/fracture_coloniale.htm) to open a general debate, but so far without too much success. > While the French were debating among themselves whether to stay or leave, > the left blamed the de Gaullists for everything (much in the way Eric was > suggesting I was wrong-headed), the right insisted that anything less than a > hardline was giving comfort to the enemy and unpatriotic, while the > "intellectuals" delighted in the paradox that the Algerians made clear that > should the elections the French insisted take place before they withdraw > result in an Algerian slate triumphing, the first thing the new Algerian > leadership would do -- they promised -- would be to abolish democracy. > Should we stay, even as imperialists, for their own good, or leave the > country to them, even though they promise to make everything worse once > we're gone? -- that was the parlor chat. The Algerians were true to their > word. The first thing they did was abolish democracy, and the country has > been a mess ever since. Hundreds of thousands have died, killed by the govt. > Every time a popular protest movement begins to emerge, everyone even > marginally involved or just in the wrong place is killed. A couple of > decades back they killed 25,000 in less than a week, since protests were > starting to mass publicly. In Syria Assad senior racked up big numbers as > well, as did Saddam H in Iraq (part of that contemporary "culture" I > referred to). Pol Pot was a short-lived amateur compared to these guys, yet > Syria sits on the Security Council and Libya heads the UN committee on human > rights. Is there any wonder that some people are cynical about the UN? Beni mentioned the Divide et impera principle. It has been very (un)skilfully used for colonialistic and other geopolitical purposes. It is obvious that by the simple withdrawal (under pressure and after new supplementary wounds had been opened) of the federating common ennemy, those divisions wouldn't simply disappear. > Tunisia has had relatively benign and tolerant leadership for many decades, > yet jihadists from Tunisia, Algeria, etc., crisscross Europe and Asia > looking for ways to kill people most horrendously. So it's not simply > economics, nor simply oppressive regimes (since non-repressive regimes also > engender terrorists who take their show on the road), nor simply any of the > "usual suspects." No it isn't, but the Jihad culture feeds on economics, oppressive regimes, humiliation, gang culture etc. etc. and uses anything that has federating power. > France couldn't figure out what to do with Algeria then, > and it still can't figure out what to about Islam today. It has created an Islamic Council, with members elected from various Islamic communities and tries to stimulate the appearance of a French Islamic Church so to speak. The objective is that only French imams under the authority of the council will have the right to preach. Whether that will work?... Meanwhile it tries to keep the public republican places free from religion. > For this list, however, the history lesson should go back to the days when > the Silk Road, from Iran to China and everything in between was Buddhist. > And then came the Muslims. Then read the Tibetan apocalyptic literature > (Kalacakra, etc.) about what happens to Muslims during the apocalypse. Do you consider Kalacakra a Tibetan invention? Open question. Fact is that it is put forward as one of the spearhead teachings of Tibetan Buddhism and that is quite worrying. > If, however, you are having trouble recognizing huge ethical distinctions > between Hiroshima and Bali, then we are all in trouble and the age of Mappo > has arrived. If the distinction escapes you, please have a long talk with > any Koreans, Chinese, Burmese, Filipinos, etc. you know. They will explain > it to you. If I look at a victim of Bali or Hiroshima, victims of intended actions purposely committed by other humans, I don't see a difference. They probably won't either. The only ethical decision I can make, is that never will I participate in either action or will allow it to be carried out in my name. If that ethical decision of me brings on the age of Mappo, which I doubt, so be it. Such a small action followed by such use consequences. It reminds me of the law of Karma. ;-) Joy From bcarral at kungzhi.org Thu Oct 6 07:20:08 2005 From: bcarral at kungzhi.org (Benito Carral) Date: Thu Oct 6 07:25:44 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: <003c01c5ca43$01172200$c8369c04@Dan> References: <1127942930.6308.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> <433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net><617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org> <4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net><1359619694.20051004213630@kungzhi.org> <43441B56.7080303@nerim.net> <1479321719.20051006043947@kungzhi.org> <003c01c5ca43$01172200$c8369c04@Dan> Message-ID: <121958993.20051006152008@kungzhi.org> On Thursday, October 6, 2005, Dan Lusthaus wrote: >>> Even the once tolerant Netherlands are changing >>> quite dramatically and becoming intolerant. >> I can see US Government behind this nationalism >> boom, and I can see corporations behind US >> Government. Maybe > Beni, you can't tell the ropes from the snakes. Maybe that's because I'm a stupid leftist. There is also the possibility that you were not able to read the irony in my words. Who knows? > The change in Holland has nothing to do with the US > and everything to do with domestic perceptions of > domestic Islam (ditto Britain's recent culture shock > -- Leaving aside that I was talking about Europe and not only Holland, are you sure that it has nothing to do with the US? And then you talk about the role of perceptions? Come on, Dan, you can't be serious. (Even the most basic Huayan follower could habe said you that everything is related somehow.) Best wishes, Beni From rhayes at unm.edu Thu Oct 6 09:05:54 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Thu Oct 6 09:15:49 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: <4344B4F7.8000800@nerim.net> References: <5886262.1128473969266.JavaMail.rhayes@unm.edu> <009501c5c992$c16f9250$1f1b9c04@Dan> <1128524337.4553.26.camel@localhost.localdomain> <43441A4B.5070301@nerim.net> <1128551999.5617.56.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4344B4F7.8000800@nerim.net> Message-ID: <1128611155.4561.12.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Thu, 2005-10-06 at 07:24 +0200, Joy Vriens wrote: > A couple of years ago, I would have simply laughed about your joke, > reassuring myself that we weren't living in such an absurd world, but > this time I felt the need to ask. Perhaps the times are so serious that > you might consider using emoticons?... If we have to resort to using emoticons, the terrorists will have won. -- Richard Hayes Department of Philosophy University of New Mexico From jpeavler at mindspring.com Thu Oct 6 09:18:12 2005 From: jpeavler at mindspring.com (Jim Peavler) Date: Thu Oct 6 09:25:45 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: <1128551999.5617.56.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <5886262.1128473969266.JavaMail.rhayes@unm.edu> <009501c5c992$c16f9250$1f1b9c04@Dan> <1128524337.4553.26.camel@localhost.localdomain> <43441A4B.5070301@nerim.net> <1128551999.5617.56.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: On Oct 5, 2005, at 4:39 PM, Richard P. Hayes wrote: > The background > of it is that there is a well-known right-wing talk show host in the > USA > named Sean Hannity who has encouraged students to report professors who > are too liberal, and he has said on the air that students should record > what their overly liberal professors are saying so that they can use it > as evidence of their professor's liberal bias. > > Also there is a website called www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org that > is advocating a Students Bill of Rights, which would guarantee that > every student be allowed to hear what they call "dissenting views". The > subtext is the claim that the overwhelming majority of professors are > social and political liberals, that liberals are intolerant of any kind > of disagreement with their positions and that students who hold > conservative views are in serious danger of failing their classes if > they dare to state their real opinions about things. This is a big deal in Colorado and in Missouri and in Illinois, where I still have friends professing. A question one naturally asks is: How many serious conservatives decide to take low paying jobs teaching philosophy, literature, linguistics, sociology, science, music, art, languages, etc.? The answer is "damned few". Colorado University found it could not find a "fair" number of even conservative political science professors if they went out looking for them. The whole movement, while extremely dangerous, particularly when added to the religious right's attack on the materialist- or enlightenment-based "elite", is a cynical sham. In my opinion they know damned well what they are doing and will manipulate any incident they can discover that could be in the slightest degree construed to be "liberal". Sadly most politically oriented programs on radio or TV are strongly behind their position. The so-called "liberal press" is another of their fictions. From jkirk at spro.net Thu Oct 6 09:20:01 2005 From: jkirk at spro.net (jkirk) Date: Thu Oct 6 09:25:50 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo References: <1127942930.6308.49.camel@localhost.localdomain><433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net><617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org><4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net><1359619694.20051004213630@kungzhi.org><43441B56.7080303@nerim.net><1479321719.20051006043947@kungzhi.org> <003c01c5ca43$01172200$c8369c04@Dan> Message-ID: <002401c5ca89$6beef580$2930cece@charlie> There is now a small movement among highly educated young immigrant and citizen Muslims in this country to oppose jihadism and to create assimilational spaces for Muslims in the US cultural milieu. There is also a sizeable group of Muslim immigrants from South Asia with similar views--e.g., "modernize Islam or forget it." As for Dan's summary of the jihad in the EU, I agree. The Dutch woke up later than France or Germany to the terrorist cells and the plots in their midst because they were so determined to be ultra-multi-culti, to the limit, politically holier even than the other EU countries. Canada was moving on that track too, until the Canadian Muslim Congress came out against permitting sharia law in Ontario to decide matters of family law, a Muslim enablement that was being touted by a government official of multi-culti persuasion. Finally, Ontario premier Dalton McGuinty declared against this idea and, in fact, decided to get rid of all special religious courts in Ontario as subverting the law of the land: McGuinty rules out use of sharia law in Ontario CTV.ca News Staff 9/12/05 Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty says there will be no sharia law in his province and that he will move to ban all faith-based arbitrations.Seeking to end months of debate, McGuinty said he would not let his province become the first Western government to allow the use of Islamic law to settle family disputes and that the boundaries between church and state would become clearer by banning religious arbitration completely."There will be no Shariah law in Ontario. There will be no religious arbitration in Ontario. There will be one law for all Ontarians," McGuinty told The Canadian Press.The proposal to let Ontario residents use Islamic law for settling family disputes drew protests Thursday in Canada and at some of its diplomatic sites across Europe.Ontario, the most populous province in Canada, has allowed Catholic and Jewish faith-based tribunals to settle family law matters such as divorce on a voluntary basis since 1991. The practice got little attention until Muslim leaders demanded the same rights.Officials had to decide whether to exclude one religion, or whether to scrap the religious family courts altogether.McGuinty said such courts "threaten our common ground," and promised his Liberal government would introduce legislation as soon as possible to outlaw them in Ontario."Ontarians will always have the right to seek advice from anyone in matters of family law, including religious advice," he said. "But no longer will religious arbitration be deciding matters of family law." Just hours before McGuinty's announcement, a group including prominent Canadian author Margaret Atwood and actress Shirley Douglas issued an open letter to the premier on behalf of the No Religious Arbitration Coalition. Homa Arjomand, a women's rights activist, [and a Muslim] was elated after hearing the announcement [as was the Canadian Muslim Congress]. Joanna ============= From: "Dan Lusthaus" > Beni, you can't tell the ropes from the snakes. The change in Holland has > nothing to do with the US and everything to do with domestic perceptions > of > domestic Islam (ditto Britain's recent culture shock -- Canada will join > those shocked ranks soon). The Theo van Gogh assassination (and the death > threats against a woman Muslim Dutch legislator who collaborated with him > on > the film he was killed for -- the threat was stuck on a note with a knife > to > his chest), the unrepentent savagery masquerading as religious zealotry, > the > intricate webs of terrorist cells and plots continually being uncovered > there, the belligerent lack of remorse and additional threats uttered by > van > Gogh's murderer in court, etc., the increasing belligerance coupled with > rejection of Dutch mores or any assimlilational compromise, etc. -- all > that > profoundly shocked the Dutch, who prior to that didn't want to believe > that > people could be that messed up, much less represent a cultural matrix that > is generating an endless supply of likeminded jihadists for whom killing > film-makers and Muslim women espousing reform in the contemporary Islamic > treatment of women is more important than their own life. They make the > more > rabid anti-abortionists in this country look like uncommitted, > procrastinating amateurs............... > From jkirk at spro.net Thu Oct 6 09:32:09 2005 From: jkirk at spro.net (jkirk) Date: Thu Oct 6 09:35:49 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo References: <1127942930.6308.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> <433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net><617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org> <4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net><1359619694.20051004213630@kungzhi.org> <43441B56.7080303@nerim.net> <1479321719.20051006043947@kungzhi.org><003c01c5ca43$01172200$c8369c04@Dan> <4344DBFE.8030202@nerim.net> Message-ID: <002c01c5ca8b$1df7a140$2930cece@charlie> > I don't know if there is much of a left left. The opposition seems to > focus more on being against or in favour of a globalised free market with > less and less State intervention as far as welfare and social rights are > concerned. The "anti-Americanism" is not directed against America and > Americans as such. It is against the intentional undermining of the role > of the UN, against the refusal to give power to an environmental policy > (Kyoto), the International Court of Justice, the non respect of the > Genevian Convention, Human rights, the Death penalty, the self-attributed > Messianic role of the religious right, the undermining of democracy and > democratic rights in the US itself, etc etc. > > As much as moderate muslims have the obligation to save Islam from > Islamist extremism, moderate Americans have the obligation to save what > the Western world loved about America. Wakey wakey. Listen to Al Gore > http://www.buzzflash.com/alerts/05/10/ale05154.html > > Joy ================ Right Joy---Well-put-----I agree with your justified expansion of the argument. The US has lots to answer for, having little to do with religion. Political responses can't be boiled down to just "us vs. them". Joanna From curt at cola.iges.org Thu Oct 6 09:14:44 2005 From: curt at cola.iges.org (curt) Date: Thu Oct 6 09:59:42 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] teaching creationism In-Reply-To: <1128551999.5617.56.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <5886262.1128473969266.JavaMail.rhayes@unm.edu> <009501c5c992$c16f9250$1f1b9c04@Dan> <1128524337.4553.26.camel@localhost.localdomain> <43441A4B.5070301@nerim.net> <1128551999.5617.56.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <43453F64.1070609@cola.iges.org> Here is a tentative reading list for a class (that exists only in my mind) on "Creation and Cosmology": Required reading: Plato's Timaeus the Popol Vuh the Rig Veda (selections) Chandogya Upanishad the book of Genesis "The Peyote Hunt" by Barbara Myerhoff (Huichol cosmology) Paradise Lost Ovid's Metamorphoses (selections) Cicero "On the Nature of the Gods" (selections) Lucretius' "On the Nature of the Universe" Hesiod's "Theogeny" Plutarch "Isis and Osiris" The Epic of Gilgamesh Koran (selections) The Book of Mormon (selections) Supplemental reading: Elaine Pagels "Adam Eve and the Serpent" Isaac Asimov "The Universe" "The Roman Cult of Mithras" by Manfred Claus "Primitive Mythology" by Joseph Campbell "Creation Myths" by Marie Loise von Franz "Shamanism" by Mircea Eliade "The Things That Were Said of Them" by Asatchaq et al (selections - Inuit cosmology) Inherit the Wind H.L. Mencken on Religion "The Enlightenment: The Rise of Modern Paganism" by Peter Gay To the "supplemental" list I need to add some "apologetic" works in defense of "Intelligent Design". Whatever. I figure most of the "born-agains" won't make it through the Timaeus anyway. And I suppose we could throw in something about the Buddha dodging the question. - Curt From jhubbard at email.smith.edu Thu Oct 6 09:16:26 2005 From: jhubbard at email.smith.edu (Jamie Hubbard) Date: Thu Oct 6 10:00:54 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Pennsylvania and crying Buddhas In-Reply-To: <1475982863.20051006050136@kungzhi.org> References: <20051005015144.48488.qmail@web60012.mail.yahoo.com> <1475982863.20051006050136@kungzhi.org> Message-ID: <43453FCA.4040503@email.smith.edu> Benito Carral wrote: > I don't know many buddhas who are comedians. Well, now that I mention > it, I don't know many buddhas. So, I take it that you know some Buddhas--how many Buddhas do you know? Care to give up their names? And how do you know them when you see/meet them? IOW, what are the characteristics of a Buddha that you work with in order to recognize them? BTW, I am entirely serious about this-- I am offering a seminar on "Buddhahood 101" next semester, and the question of just what constitutes Buddhahood is the entire topic, all of which is somewhat in service of answering the question of whether or not anybody is a Buddha these days. I ask this to just about everybody, and Bhante Gunaratana answered just the other day that he hasn't met any Buddhas, then quickly qualified himself to say that he has met some that he considers arhats. . . unfortunately, there wasn't time to find out what he meant, much less who these folks were. I am not myself sure of my own answer-- I certainly have never met any Buddhas as described, for example, by John Mackransky in his "Buddhahood Embodied." I guess I first need to decide what I think a Buddha is--hence the seminar :) . . . In any case, yours and others comments would be great! Jamie From jkirk at spro.net Thu Oct 6 09:58:12 2005 From: jkirk at spro.net (jkirk) Date: Thu Oct 6 10:05:45 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo References: <5886262.1128473969266.JavaMail.rhayes@unm.edu><009501c5c992$c16f9250$1f1b9c04@Dan><1128524337.4553.26.camel@localhost.localdomain><43441A4B.5070301@nerim.net><1128551999.5617.56.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <005c01c5ca8e$c1d1b500$2930cece@charlie> From: "Jim Peavler" A question one naturally asks is: How > many serious conservatives decide to take low paying jobs teaching > philosophy, literature, linguistics, sociology, science, music, art, > languages, etc.? The answer is "damned few". Colorado University found > it could not find a "fair" number of even conservative political > science professors if they went out looking for them. ============= That's because most of them go to work for the CIA, the NSA, et al. Good-paying jobs all. Joanna From leedillion at gmail.com Thu Oct 6 10:24:53 2005 From: leedillion at gmail.com (Lee Dillion) Date: Thu Oct 6 10:25:51 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] teaching creationism In-Reply-To: <43453F64.1070609@cola.iges.org> References: <5886262.1128473969266.JavaMail.rhayes@unm.edu> <009501c5c992$c16f9250$1f1b9c04@Dan> <1128524337.4553.26.camel@localhost.localdomain> <43441A4B.5070301@nerim.net> <1128551999.5617.56.camel@localhost.localdomain> <43453F64.1070609@cola.iges.org> Message-ID: <809daec80510060924u82c460alb387eff71c6238ea@mail.gmail.com> On 10/6/05, curt wrote: > > Here is a tentative reading list for a class (that exists only in my > mind) on "Creation and Cosmology": > Nice list Curt. Here deep from the red state of Idaho, the president of University of Idaho just issued a statement on ID/creationism stating: "I write to articulate the University of Idaho's position with respect to evolution: This is the only curriculum that is appropriate to be taught in our bio-physical sciences. As an academic scientific community and a research extensive land-grant institution, we affirm scientific principles that are testable and anchored in evidence. At the University of Idaho, teaching of views that differ from evolution may occur in faculty-approved curricula in religion, sociology, philosophy, political science or similar courses. However, teaching of such views is inappropriate in our life, earth, and physical science courses or curricula." For many of us who are University faculty and staff, we aren't sure this is the fight we would have picked given tight budgets and other educational issues, but I have to appreciate his willingness to stake out a position that is sure to cause significant backlash. After all, how many university presidents are willing to tackle the angry bear because of an idea.? -- Lee Dillion -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20051006/680ea133/attachment.html From rhayes at unm.edu Thu Oct 6 11:52:36 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Thu Oct 6 11:55:48 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: <00bb01c5ca59$2aa93700$c8369c04@Dan> References: <1127942930.6308.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> <433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net> <617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org> <4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net> <1359619694.20051004213630@kungzhi.org> <43441B56.7080303@nerim.net> <1479321719.20051006043947@kungzhi.org><003c01c5ca43$01172200$c8369c04@Dan> <4344DA9B.8040908@xs4all.nl> <00bb01c5ca59$2aa93700$c8369c04@Dan> Message-ID: <1128621156.4783.55.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Thu, 2005-10-06 at 05:34 -0400, Dan Lusthaus wrote: > If this were a different kind of email list, we could devote some time to > enumerating and debunking the ten most common fallacies (or 25 most common, > or 100 most common) mindlessly and inappropriately reiterated to prevent > insight and thinking (and blame someone else). I included a few in the last > message (blame everything on the USA [a fallacy Richard engages in about > once a week] There are two flaws with your claim, Dan. First, it is not a fallacy to see something as a causal factor when in fact it is a causal factor. Saying that what is arguably the most influential country in the world has been a factor in a global political situation is not necessarily fallacious. Secondly, I am quite confident you could not find even one instance of my blaming anything, let alone everything, on the USA. > bin Laden not only has more money than the collective readership of this > list, but more money than all readers of this list from the three times > (past, present, and future, i.,e. past subscribers, present subscribers and > future subscribers) will earn, inherit, collect, steal, borrow, and think > about for their entire lives, put together. Poverty was never his problem. Bin Ladin, the last I heard, had never blown himself up. He is not a terrorist. He is, like George W. Bush, a rich ideologue with astonishingly simplistic and shallow thinking who manages to talk others into dying for the causes he imagines are important. OK, OK, I take it back. Bin Ladin and Bush can both be described as terrorists in the sense that they are major factors in the continuing practice of unwarranted violence that makes almost everyone's lives more unstable, insecure and filled with dukkha. The Buddha, I am quite confident, would find both of them lacking in wisdom and compassion. -- Richard Hayes *** "Above all things, take heed in judging one another, for in that ye may destroy one another... and eat out the good of one another."-- George Fox From l.k.starner at larc.nasa.gov Thu Oct 6 11:58:40 2005 From: l.k.starner at larc.nasa.gov (Lawrence K. Starner) Date: Thu Oct 6 12:05:51 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: <1128551999.5617.56.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: Where's the Buddhist content in this other than a trivial line at the end? -- Larry Starner ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------ > -----Original Message----- > From: buddha-l-bounces@mailman.swcp.com > [mailto:buddha-l-bounces@mailman.swcp.com]On Behalf Of Richard P. Hayes > Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2005 6:40 PM > To: Buddhist discussion forum > Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo > > > On Wed, 2005-10-05 at 20:24 +0200, Joy Vriens wrote: > > > You can't be serious! He must be recording it on an MP3 player > for notes... > > Please tell me this is irony! > > Yes, it was a half-serious joke, a sort of mock paranoia. The background > of it is that there is a well-known right-wing talk show host in the USA > named Sean Hannity who has encouraged students to report professors who > are too liberal, and he has said on the air that students should record > what their overly liberal professors are saying so that they can use it > as evidence of their professor's liberal bias. > > Also there is a website called www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org that > is advocating a Students Bill of Rights, which would guarantee that > every student be allowed to hear what they call "dissenting views". The > subtext is the claim that the overwhelming majority of professors are > social and political liberals, that liberals are intolerant of any kind > of disagreement with their positions and that students who hold > conservative views are in serious danger of failing their classes if > they dare to state their real opinions about things. > > I have seen it said specifically about my university that 83% of all > professors whose political affiliations are known are registered > Democrats, 11% are registered Republicans and 6% are Green or > independents. It is also reported that over 50% of the departments on > this campus do not have a single registered Republican, and that 100% of > the Faculty of Law are registered Democrats. These statement are nearly > meaningless, of course, because the vast majority of people do not make > their political affiliation public knowledge. Nevertheless, the local > chapter of college Republicans is making a great deal of noise about the > "atmosphere of fear" that allegedly prevails in classrooms dominated by > liberal professors and that Republican students are living in constant > fear that if they let their views be known, they will be ridiculed in > class, denied letters of recommendation, disqualified from scholarships, > and prevented from getting jobs. There are editorials every week in the > student newspaper complaining about the tyranny of liberal professors. > > One of my colleagues told a joke in his class, and a complaint was > lodged against him. Here's the joke: > > \begin{joke} > In a daily briefing in the White House, an aide reported to George Bush > that three Brazilians had been killed in an accident. Bush grew quite > alarmed and said "Oh my God, that's terrible." All his aides were > surprised by the force of his consternation. Then Bush said "How many is > a brazilian, anyway?" > \end{joke} > > A stupid joke, no doubt. But worthy of being reported? You decide. > > In an atmosphere such as the one that is being created on some campuses > in this country, it is of course a joke when I say that a student is > pointing his cell phone at me so that Sean Hannity can hear me saying > that Intelligent Design is not science and therefore should not be > taught in a biology class. But like most jokes, it is funny partly > because there is a recognizable grain of truth in it. > > Speaking of which, did you hear the one about the Buddhist at the hot > dog stand? > > -- > My Unitarian Jihad Name (http://tinyurl.com/6valr ) is: > The Logging Chain of Loving Kindness > You can get your own at http://homepage.mac.com/whump/ujname.html > > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l > From rhayes at unm.edu Thu Oct 6 12:18:27 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Thu Oct 6 12:25:46 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] RE: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1128622708.4783.67.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Thu, 2005-10-06 at 13:58 -0400, Lawrence K. Starner wrote: > Where's the Buddhist content in this other than a trivial line at the end? It was written by a Buddhist who appreciates that all things are interconnected and that therefore no subject under the sun is not in one way or another Buddhist. It has been weeks since I saw anything narrowly about Buddhism discussed on buddha-l. It might not hurt for all of us to strive to remember that buddha-l used to be much more narrow in its scope and that we could, if we so chose, become narrow-minded yet again. -- Richard Hayes Department of Philosophy, University of New Mexico *** "One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors." -- Plato From leedillion at gmail.com Thu Oct 6 12:20:21 2005 From: leedillion at gmail.com (Lee Dillion) Date: Thu Oct 6 12:25:49 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43456AE5.3040405@gmail.com> Hi Larry: There is content and then there is method. Perhaps this is Richard's subtle Buddhist way of getting others who disagree with his content to breathe and meditate? Lee Lawrence K. Starner wrote: > Where's the Buddhist content in this other than a trivial line at the end? From l.k.starner at larc.nasa.gov Thu Oct 6 13:03:58 2005 From: l.k.starner at larc.nasa.gov (Lawrence K. Starner) Date: Thu Oct 6 13:05:46 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: <43456AE5.3040405@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi, Lee: Can't say. This list was beginning to sound like a political forum. -- Larry ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Lee Dillion wrote on Thursday, October 06, 2005 2:20 PM > > Hi Larry: > > There is content and then there is method. Perhaps this is Richard's > subtle Buddhist way of getting others who disagree with his content to > breathe and meditate? > > Lee > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- > Lawrence K. Starner wrote: > > Where's the Buddhist content in this other than a trivial line > at the end? > From jinavamsa at yahoo.com Thu Oct 6 12:59:01 2005 From: jinavamsa at yahoo.com (Mitchell Ginsberg) Date: Thu Oct 6 13:05:48 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Pennsylvania and crying Buddhas In-Reply-To: <200510060328.j963SIpa012686@ns1.swcp.com> Message-ID: <20051006185901.42568.qmail@web60017.mail.yahoo.com> hello Benito, and all, On Wednesday, October 5, 2005, Mitchell Ginsberg wrote: > I mean, if we can cry and can laugh, that seems easy; > if we cannot cry and cannot laugh, that seems doable > (although a bit cramped a life space to live in); but > how to be open only to crying but not to laughing, to > be capable of depression but not joy? It's enough to > ask which Buddhism that would be? (just wondering > aloud), I think that buddhas have a very different sense of humor, so they don't laugh with average jokes. Some months ago, while I was dining at the living room, someone was watching a sitcom. There was a room with two men and a woman, and the woman said, "Between both of you I don't know whom the child I'm waiting is." And the one at the living room started to laugh aloud. I never knew what the funny thing was. So I think that most of laugh is stupid and that that's why buddhas don't tend to practice it. I don't know many buddhas who are comedians. Well, now that I mention it, I don't know many buddhas. Best wishes, Beni ====== That sounds like a joke you just made here, Beni! ... Buster Keaton deadpan style, or would that be Jack Benny style (ditto), as he's more verbal... To add the Buddhist touch: Are there any jokes in any of the Mahayana or Vajrayana or Chinese or ... texts of Buddhism? Do any roshis or rinpoches ever tell jokes (some might be jokes, but that's another matter)? Are they ever caught chuckling at a sitcom? Mitchell ==================== http://www.geocities.com/jinavamsa/mentalhealth.html with links to my home page, info on The Inner Palace (3rd ed.) and The Far Shore (3rd ed.), further links to psychotherapy, to my current teaching, to the Insight Practice (Vipassana), Chishtiyya (Sufi), Creative Solutions for Peace, and Nasrudin discussion groups, and to the Collective Dharma Insight project. __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From richard.nance at gmail.com Thu Oct 6 13:46:26 2005 From: richard.nance at gmail.com (Richard Nance) Date: Thu Oct 6 13:55:48 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Pennsylvania and crying Buddhas In-Reply-To: <20051006185901.42568.qmail@web60017.mail.yahoo.com> References: <200510060328.j963SIpa012686@ns1.swcp.com> <20051006185901.42568.qmail@web60017.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Mitchell Ginsberg wrote: > To add the Buddhist touch: Are there any jokes in any > of the Mahayana or Vajrayana or Chinese or ... texts > of Buddhism? Ronald M. Davidson has made some interesting comments on the use of humor in tantric literature. See his _Indian Esoteric Buddhism_ (Columbia University Press, 2002), pp. 277-290. Best wishes, R. Nance From l.k.starner at larc.nasa.gov Thu Oct 6 13:59:05 2005 From: l.k.starner at larc.nasa.gov (Lawrence K. Starner) Date: Thu Oct 6 14:05:48 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Pennsylvania and crying Buddhas In-Reply-To: <20051006185901.42568.qmail@web60017.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Mitchell wrote: Do any roshis or rinpoches ever tell > jokes (some might be jokes, but that's another > matter)? Are they ever caught chuckling at a sitcom? > --------------------------------------------------------------------- I've often wondered about this. Of course, we've all seen the joviality of the Dalai Lama. But does equanimity, etc., carry with it the loss or lessening of one's sense of humor, frivolity, silliness, or just plain having fun for no real reason? -- Larry From rhayes at unm.edu Thu Oct 6 14:15:27 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Thu Oct 6 14:15:48 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: <43456AE5.3040405@gmail.com> References: <43456AE5.3040405@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1128629727.4783.80.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Thu, 2005-10-06 at 12:20 -0600, Lee Dillion wrote: > There is content and then there is method. Perhaps this is Richard's > subtle Buddhist way of getting others who disagree with his content to > breathe and meditate? My guess is that everyone is either dead or breathing without any encouragement from me. You are right, however, that it is never far from my mind to encourage people to meditate on the causes of dukkha and on how it might be eliminated. Given that we live in a world in which there is a lot of dukkha that could be eliminated if people thought about it and then acted on it, and given that a lot of that eliminable dukkha is promoted by the choices that we make collectively and severally, it never seems off-topic to me to talk about education, politics and other institutionalized forms of promoting greed, hatred and delusion. -- Richard Hayes *** "Books are useless to us until our inner book opens; then all other books are good so far as they confirm our book." (Swami Vivekananda) From RonLeifer at aol.com Thu Oct 6 14:18:41 2005 From: RonLeifer at aol.com (RonLeifer@aol.com) Date: Thu Oct 6 14:25:53 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Pennsylvania and crying Buddhas Message-ID: <104.6a7d14e7.3076e0a1@aol.com> In a message dated 10/6/05 4:08:45 PM Eastern Daylight Time, l.k.starner@larc.nasa.gov writes: > Are they ever caught chuckling at a sitcom? > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > I've often wondered about this. Of course, we've all seen the joviality of > the Dalai Lama. But does equanimity, etc., carry with it the loss or > lessening of one's sense of humor, frivolity, silliness, or just plain > having fun for no real reason? > > -- Larry > > I know for a fact that some (unnamed) Lamas enjoy wrestling, westerns, and some sitcoms. They don't get love stories. (s) Ron Leifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20051006/25bb3a25/attachment-0001.htm From rhayes at unm.edu Thu Oct 6 14:39:49 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Thu Oct 6 14:45:47 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] teaching creationism In-Reply-To: <43453F64.1070609@cola.iges.org> References: <5886262.1128473969266.JavaMail.rhayes@unm.edu> <009501c5c992$c16f9250$1f1b9c04@Dan> <1128524337.4553.26.camel@localhost.localdomain> <43441A4B.5070301@nerim.net> <1128551999.5617.56.camel@localhost.localdomain> <43453F64.1070609@cola.iges.org> Message-ID: <1128631189.4783.101.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Thu, 2005-10-06 at 11:14 -0400, curt wrote: > Here is a tentative reading list for a class (that exists only in my > mind) on "Creation and Cosmology" I would wish to add to that list Brian Swimme and Thomas Berry's thought-provoking book The Universe Story. A shorter, but no less thought-provoking, piece by Berry is his address to Harvard Divinity School in 1996 (http://ecoethics.net/ops/univers.htm) in which he speaks of the shortcomings of the modern university, the inadequacies of a legal system that has as its principal frame of reference the deeply flawed US Constitution, the institutionalized greed of international corporations and the failure of churches to address the most pressing issues of our time. (The churches are criticized for failing to realize that God's primary form of revelation is the world of nature, not a bunch of sentences in a book.) It's a beautifully thought out and eloquent diatribe that every educator on the planet Earth should be required to read. The tone is more gentle in many ways but every bit as compelling as Ralph Waldo Emerson's trenchant address to Harvard Divinity School a century and a half earlier. If one is looking for intelligent versions of Intelligent Design, Swimme and Berry are a good place to start. (You can get a clear-worded introduction at http://ecoethics.net/ops/tucker.htm). Theirs is not the two-dimensional presentation of Christian Fundamentalists whose agenda is to smuggle the Bible into biology classes, but the combined work of a physicist specializing in gravitational field theory and a Jesuit who spent his life studying not only Christian theology but the religions and philosophies of India. While it is pretty obvious that Berry owes a big debt to neo-Vedanta and to some of the later forms of Buddhism, it is also obvious that he is prepared to be every bit as critical of institutionalized Buddhism as he is of the US constitution (the document, not the battleship) and of traditional Catholicism and Puritanism. -- Dh. Dayamati Albuquerque, New Mexico From rhayes at unm.edu Thu Oct 6 15:10:38 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Thu Oct 6 15:15:49 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Pennsylvania and crying Buddhas In-Reply-To: <20051006185901.42568.qmail@web60017.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20051006185901.42568.qmail@web60017.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1128633039.4783.132.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Thu, 2005-10-06 at 11:59 -0700, Mitchell Ginsberg wrote: > To add the Buddhist touch: Are there any jokes in any > of the Mahayana or Vajrayana or Chinese or ... texts > of Buddhism? What does something have to have to qualify as a joke? There is no doubt that the Pali canon is full of satire, parody and spoofery meant to entertain as well as to edify. Surely the narrative episodes in the Vimalakirti are meant to be wildly funny. Even the Lotus Sutra has narrative that was surely intended to provoke laughter in its audience. > Do any roshis or rinpoches ever tell jokes Like you, I have sat through hundreds of dharma talks, and I would say that one of the most prevalent features of the majority of them is a liberal use of humor, wit and irony. But jokes as such are relatively rare, perhaps because the joke is one of the most crude and witless forms of humor, and most people giving dharma talks are operating at a higher level of sophistication than most jokers. > Are they ever caught chuckling at a sitcom? Years ago I met an academic couple whose son had become a Buddhist monk. They were not at all sure what to make of it, because they were both secular humanists who tended to see religion as a descent into blind faith and sanctimony. They spent many a dark hour worrying about their son, the monk. One day, after a few years in the monastery, he went home for a visit. On the first night of his stay at home he joined his parents in watching some sitcom on TV. He laughed until tears were rolling down his cheeks, just as he had done when he was younger. The mother then began to cry with joy and relief and exclaimed "Thank God, you're still our son!" Maybe by the time their son made the rank of rinpoche, he finally lost the ability to see anything funny in a sitcom, but I'd like he could appreciate a more refined form of humor. There is a Buddhist abhidhamma treatise that has an elaborate discussion of laughter. What it says is that Buddhas and other arahants can smile without parting their lips, but they would never do anything as unseemly as showing their teeth while smiling, let alone something as utterly unrefined as slapping a knee, rocking back and forth, wheezing, whooping, snorting, cackling, giggling or ejecting coffee or other hot liquids through the nostrils onto a keyboard. Smiling slightly without parting my lips is about the full extent of my response to such fellows as Seinfeld and Robin Williams. This could lure me into thinking I had made the grade as an arahant, if it were not for the fact that Lili Tomlin can make me pee my pants and laugh so hard that I need CPR and require the services of a fleet of ambulances. -- Dh. Dayamati Albuquerque, New Mexico From leedillion at gmail.com Thu Oct 6 15:24:35 2005 From: leedillion at gmail.com (Lee Dillion) Date: Thu Oct 6 15:25:52 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: <1128629727.4783.80.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <43456AE5.3040405@gmail.com> <1128629727.4783.80.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <809daec80510061424w64baa055x4664dabb062b764e@mail.gmail.com> On 10/6/05, Richard P. Hayes wrote: > > On Thu, 2005-10-06 at 12:20 -0600, Lee Dillion wrote: > > > There is content and then there is method. Perhaps this is Richard's > > subtle Buddhist way of getting others who disagree with his content to > > breathe and meditate? > > My guess is that everyone is either dead or breathing without any > encouragement from me. I'm not sure. I've heard rumors that there are people who appear alive, but don't know the taste of fresh air. You are right, however, that it is never far from > my mind to encourage people to meditate on the causes of dukkha and on > how it might be eliminated. Given that we live in a world in which there > is a lot of dukkha that could be eliminated if people thought about it > and then acted on it, and given that a lot of that eliminable dukkha is > promoted by the choices that we make collectively and severally, it > never seems off-topic to me to talk about education, politics and other > institutionalized forms of promoting greed, hatred and delusion. Ahh. Well, commercial TV in the US does a fine job of broadcasting that all by itself. Your true evil genius is in getting others who think like you to become attached to the silly idea that we could actually do something about it. Struggling with the inevitable disappointment is truly awakening. -- Lee Dillion -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20051006/3469a951/attachment.htm From dlusthau at mailer.fsu.edu Thu Oct 6 15:44:54 2005 From: dlusthau at mailer.fsu.edu (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Thu Oct 6 15:45:54 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo References: <1127942930.6308.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> <433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net><617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org> <4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net><1359619694.20051004213630@kungzhi.org> <43441B56.7080303@nerim.net><1479321719.20051006043947@kungzhi.org><003c01c5ca43$01172200$c8369c04@Dan><4344DA9B.8040908@xs4all.nl> <00bb01c5ca59$2aa93700$c8369c04@Dan> <1128621156.4783.55.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <008901c5cabf$30ff5010$bc369c04@Dan> > There are two flaws with your claim, Dan. First, it is not a fallacy to > see something as a causal factor when in fact it is a causal factor. > Saying that what is arguably the most influential country in the world > has been a factor in a global political situation is not necessarily > fallacious. The sun is the most important causal factor affecting planet earth and the solar system (which is why we call it "solar" system). Therefore Bush and all his policies are the sun's fault. Bush never did a thing or had a thought without the sun around somewhere, affecting not only Dubya but all his neocon gremlins as well. Maybe we differ on this, Richard, but I not only consider that "causal" argument fallacious, it's just downright silly. >Secondly, I am quite confident you could not find even one > instance of my blaming anything, let alone everything, on the USA. I'll let the buddha-l archives speak for the past. For the future, perhaps, when/if that fallacy is committed, I will post a short message to the list simply stating "causal fallacy." > > Bin Ladin, the last I heard, had never blown himself up. The suicidals are the pawns, the expendible foot soldiers. The terrorists are the ones doing the planning. (As you recognize before ending your message). The fallacious misapplication of the theory of equality (Bush = Bin Laden, Hiroshima = Bali), even aside from the misguided moral relativism and the ignoring of context, can now be added to the list of fallacies. A visiting Zen teacher gave a talk at the Cambridge Zen center last Spring (founded near Harvard by DT Suzuki and others back in the 50s, though it is now affiliated with Korean Son). Talking about his time in Korea he explained that generally he found Koreans very friendly and accepting, except this one fellow, who repeatedly slashed him with a knife. He gave all sorts of hair-raising details in his lengthy recounting of his many encounters with that fellow. He told us he carries the physical scars from those encounters today. The punchline was that the fellow was a surgeon who treated him for a serious illness while there. He just left out a few contextualizing details, and the story sounded like a slasher movie. One doesn't study surgeons to stage a revival of West Side Story. Even in the Huayan universe. Popular dumbed-down Huayan might sound like everything is the same because everything shares causal connections with everything else, but the dumb-downers usually get bored with eyes glazing over when they try to work through the actual Huayan lists of types of causal relations, in which everything is *not* the same (which is one of the things each unique thing shares in common with every other unique thing). Mindless conflation and false equalization is not what Huayan is about. Dan Lusthaus From jkirk at spro.net Thu Oct 6 16:24:25 2005 From: jkirk at spro.net (jkirk) Date: Thu Oct 6 16:25:49 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Pennsylvania and crying Buddhas References: <20051006185901.42568.qmail@web60017.mail.yahoo.com> <1128633039.4783.132.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <001801c5cac4$b5c9a8e0$2930cece@charlie> > > There is a Buddhist abhidhamma treatise that has an elaborate discussion > of laughter. What it says is that Buddhas and other arahants can smile > without parting their lips, but they would never do anything as unseemly > as showing their teeth while smiling, let alone something as utterly > unrefined as slapping a knee, rocking back and forth, wheezing, > whooping, snorting, cackling, giggling or ejecting coffee or other hot > liquids through the nostrils onto a keyboard. > ============= Well well, this required behavior of overt expression of risibility is identical to the display rules of the same for married women and virgins in those days, such signifying purity and self-control. (This comment is reading the culture backwards, haven't found any Buddhist texts on female manners to back me up.) Courtesans could be more expressive. These laughter rules, if true (and not a, um, joke?) seem to reflect one of several ways whereby Buddhist texts proscribed displays reflecting excess testosterone. Joanna From jpeavler at mindspring.com Thu Oct 6 17:14:05 2005 From: jpeavler at mindspring.com (Jim Peavler) Date: Thu Oct 6 17:15:51 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: <008901c5cabf$30ff5010$bc369c04@Dan> References: <1127942930.6308.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> <433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net><617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org> <4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net><1359619694.20051004213630@kungzhi.org> <43441B56.7080303@nerim.net><1479321719.20051006043947@kungzhi.org><003c01c5ca43$01172200$c8369c04@Dan><4344DA9B.8040908@xs4all.nl> <00bb01c5ca59$2aa93700$c8369c04@Dan> <1128621156.4783.55.camel@localhost.localdomain> <008901c5cabf$30ff5010$bc369c04@Dan> Message-ID: On Oct 6, 2005, at 3:44 PM, Dan Lusthaus wrote: > The sun is the most important causal factor affecting planet earth and > the > solar system (which is why we call it "solar" system). Therefore Bush > and > all his policies are the sun's fault. Bush never did a thing or had a > thought without the sun around somewhere, affecting not only Dubya but > all > his neocon gremlins as well. The sun, in fact, is the cause of the hurricane Katrina. Wouldn't it have been wonderful of Brownie had blamed the sun instead of everybody and everything else. From chanfu at gmail.com Thu Oct 6 17:15:05 2005 From: chanfu at gmail.com (Chan Fu) Date: Thu Oct 6 17:15:53 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Pennsylvania and crying Buddhas In-Reply-To: <001801c5cac4$b5c9a8e0$2930cece@charlie> References: <20051006185901.42568.qmail@web60017.mail.yahoo.com> <1128633039.4783.132.camel@localhost.localdomain> <001801c5cac4$b5c9a8e0$2930cece@charlie> Message-ID: On 10/6/05, jkirk wrote: > > > > There is a Buddhist abhidhamma treatise that has an elaborate discussion > > of laughter. What it says is that Buddhas and other arahants can smile > > without parting their lips, but they would never do anything as unseemly > > as showing their teeth while smiling, let alone something as utterly > > unrefined as slapping a knee, rocking back and forth, wheezing, > > whooping, snorting, cackling, giggling or ejecting coffee or other hot > > liquids through the nostrils onto a keyboard. > > > ============= > Well well, this required behavior of overt expression of risibility is > identical to the display rules of the same for married women and virgins > in those days, such signifying purity and self-control. (This comment is > reading the culture backwards, haven't found any Buddhist texts on > female manners to back me up.) Courtesans could be more expressive. > These laughter rules, if true (and not a, um, joke?) seem to reflect one > of several ways whereby Buddhist texts proscribed displays > reflecting excess testosterone. > Joanna I recently told Joy this story, which seems to fit here: AC (Ajahn Chah) was a full-fledged comedian. One time, I went to visit and he was out in the woods with a bunch of villagers, so I came and sat by him while he made holy water with which to bless them. While he was sprinkling them with it, using a palm frond, he turned to me and said (sotta voce), "They just come here to get a bath." Another time, we were walking and I asked, "What about all this?". He took out his teeth (he had false teeth years before I knew him) and said, "These can't bite by themselves". I cracked up laughing (samsara is harmless by itself) and he put them back in his mouth and smiled. Later, back at the ranch (his khuti), he settled down for a munch of betel nut (he was addicted). When he had prepared the leaf, nut, lime and was about to put it in his mouth, I said, "Watch out for those teeth!" and he laughed so hard that he sneezed. Never dropped the folded mix, though. From chanfu at gmail.com Thu Oct 6 17:20:44 2005 From: chanfu at gmail.com (Chan Fu) Date: Thu Oct 6 17:27:03 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] teaching creationism In-Reply-To: <1128631189.4783.101.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <5886262.1128473969266.JavaMail.rhayes@unm.edu> <009501c5c992$c16f9250$1f1b9c04@Dan> <1128524337.4553.26.camel@localhost.localdomain> <43441A4B.5070301@nerim.net> <1128551999.5617.56.camel@localhost.localdomain> <43453F64.1070609@cola.iges.org> <1128631189.4783.101.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: On 10/6/05, Richard P. Hayes wrote: > On Thu, 2005-10-06 at 11:14 -0400, curt wrote: > > > Here is a tentative reading list for a class (that exists only in my > > mind) on "Creation and Cosmology" > > I would wish to add to that list Brian Swimme and Thomas Berry's > thought-provoking book The Universe Story. A shorter, but no less > thought-provoking, piece by Berry is his address to Harvard Divinity > School in 1996 (http://ecoethics.net/ops/univers.htm) in which he speaks > of the shortcomings of the modern university, the inadequacies of a > legal system that has as its principal frame of reference the deeply > flawed US Constitution, the institutionalized greed of international > corporations and the failure of churches to address the most pressing > issues of our time. (The churches are criticized for failing to realize > that God's primary form of revelation is the world of nature, not a > bunch of sentences in a book.) > > It's a beautifully thought out and eloquent diatribe that every educator > on the planet Earth should be required to read. The tone is more gentle > in many ways but every bit as compelling as Ralph Waldo Emerson's > trenchant address to Harvard Divinity School a century and a half > earlier. It's a good argument for ecological understanding and the need for legislative action in that direction, but that's all it is. The "need for the divine to express itself", among other things, is gratuitous and unnecessary. Certainly, the health - mental and existential - of humanity depends on the notion and understanding of GAIA (see Gribbin, "Deep Simplicity"), but Berry offers no realistic solutions or even methodologies to arrive at such solutions. His silly recommendation that the US Constitution should protect the earth is just that - silly. A full definition of the earth as a persona would be necessary and simply wasn't available. Perhaps educators' reading of Berry's diatribe matters less than America's deeper understanding of the science he proposes. Institutionalized (whatever) just doesn't work - humanity's been on that merry-go-round long enough. But Berry doesn't tell us how to get off it. That's something we need to figure out for ourselves. The Constitution allows that, which is all it can do. In any case, the situation has become obvious and no poll yet has shown whether the incredibly (or even credibly) wealthy in America are members of the "Fuck the planet, I need more money, let God sort it out" genre. It would be somewhat interesting to determine whether the Christian right, evangelical and otherwise, are the majority caretakers and managers of this economy (read, "richest"). But that question is probably moot. Berry's paper serves little except evangelism for ecological thought, and the results of greed - that's not a bad thing. But there are far more important and useful things available for educators to illustrate the obvious precipice and suggest means and ways to back off from it. As for our legislature, well, that's a whole 'nother problem, in't it...? After all, they represent...umm...who they are? Here in my green-land, simplicity, economy and parsimony are not just actions, but principles. You're in an excellent location for solar power, Richard, and the technology has significantly improved. So what are you doing about it? What's the community doing about it? A solar UNM would be quite a wonderful thing - you could take Berry on a tour ;) The myth of a Buddhist principle of inaction is a farce, a coward's way of avoiding the responsibility of intelligent life. Stepping up to karma means investing whatever you have in the right direction. And it's not like the right direction isn't as plain as the face in the mirror (lit by flourescent light, of course). Oops - was I evangelizing? Sorry! ;) cf From chanfu at gmail.com Thu Oct 6 17:29:48 2005 From: chanfu at gmail.com (Chan Fu) Date: Thu Oct 6 17:35:52 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: References: <1359619694.20051004213630@kungzhi.org> <43441B56.7080303@nerim.net> <1479321719.20051006043947@kungzhi.org> <003c01c5ca43$01172200$c8369c04@Dan> <4344DA9B.8040908@xs4all.nl> <00bb01c5ca59$2aa93700$c8369c04@Dan> <1128621156.4783.55.camel@localhost.localdomain> <008901c5cabf$30ff5010$bc369c04@Dan> Message-ID: On 10/6/05, Jim Peavler wrote: > > On Oct 6, 2005, at 3:44 PM, Dan Lusthaus wrote: > > The sun is the most important causal factor affecting planet earth and > > the > > solar system (which is why we call it "solar" system). Therefore Bush > > and > > all his policies are the sun's fault. Bush never did a thing or had a > > thought without the sun around somewhere, affecting not only Dubya but > > all > > his neocon gremlins as well. > > > The sun, in fact, is the cause of the hurricane Katrina. Wouldn't it > have been wonderful of Brownie had blamed the sun instead of everybody > and everything else. Actual, it isn't any more the "cause" of meteorological phenomena than this planet's own existence, or the presence of water or an atmosphere. If y0u need to blame something, blame the second law of thermodynamics. Which, for all we know, might be the only true God. From mike at lamrim.org.uk Thu Oct 6 18:25:28 2005 From: mike at lamrim.org.uk (Mike Austin) Date: Thu Oct 6 18:35:50 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] RE: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: <1128622708.4783.67.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1128622708.4783.67.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: In message <1128622708.4783.67.camel@localhost.localdomain>, Richard P. Hayes writes >It might not hurt for all of us to strive to remember that >buddha-l used to be much more narrow in its scope and that we could, if >we so chose, become narrow-minded yet again. Not 'narrow-minded', but 'focussed'. I exercise my choice by repeatedly hitting the 'next' button if I see certain 'key words' in the post, such as 'Bush', 'Dylan' etc. -- Metta Mike Austin From franzmetcalf at earthlink.net Thu Oct 6 18:27:50 2005 From: franzmetcalf at earthlink.net (Franz Metcalf) Date: Thu Oct 6 18:37:02 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Pennsylvania and crying Buddhas In-Reply-To: <43453FCA.4040503@email.smith.edu> References: <20051005015144.48488.qmail@web60012.mail.yahoo.com> <1475982863.20051006050136@kungzhi.org> <43453FCA.4040503@email.smith.edu> Message-ID: <24e78ef6e76be19254468780bf7067fc@earthlink.net> Jamie, You ask--as always--tough questions. For me, this question of what constitutes Buddhahood has remained central to my intellectual and existential path for over twenty years now...and yet I have very few clues as to any answers. I have a feeling Buddhahood is like pornography: hard to define, but you know it when you see it. My current (in the sense of "present," but also "fluid and muddy") thinking is influenced by a few primary sources. Here are the three that come to mind: 1) Doogen Zenji's seeming definition of Buddhas as those who embody the Buddha way *right now in this moment*. I particularly love comments like When Buddhas are truly Buddhas they do not necessarily notice that they are Buddhas. However, they are actualized Buddhas, who go on actualizing Buddhas. (Genjoo Kooan 2) and There is a simple way to become a Buddha: When you refrain from unwholesome actions, are not attached to birth and death, and are compassionate toward all sentient beings, respectful to seniors and kind to juniors, not excluding or desiring anything, with no designing thoughts or worries, you will be called a Buddha. Do not seek anything else. (Birth and Death 5) 2) The notion, as put forth by John Holt (_Discipline: The Canonical Buddhism of the Vinayapitaka_, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1981), that following the Vinaya is embodying Buddhahood. Indeed, that following the rules, adapting the habitus of the monk, removes the ahamkaara and its intentionality. One ceases to create karma and eventually achieves kilesa-nirodha. That's pretty close to Buddhahood. I imagine these are the sort of people Bhante Gunaratana was thinking of as arhats (yes, I know, only "close" to being Buddhas, but, from a Theravada perspective, this is as close as one can get these days, no?) 3) D. W. Winnicott's psychodynamic ideas on human development, including his vision of the interpersonal nature of our psyches and thus the apotheosis of the person in relationships of love and play. (I realize this is not Buddhism per se, but for me it articulates, from a different perspective, the freedom I see in some highly advanced contemporary Zen practitioners. Are they "Buddhas"? Not all the time, certainly, but they don't seem to care about the word "Buddhahood," and if they don't, why should I? [Perhaps because they've got something I want, perhaps because I'm an incurable egghead, that's why; but those are my problems and need not detain you.]) Best wishes for what will no doubt be a rich seminar, Franz From bcarral at kungzhi.org Thu Oct 6 20:04:31 2005 From: bcarral at kungzhi.org (Benito Carral) Date: Thu Oct 6 20:05:53 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: <4344DBFE.8030202@nerim.net> References: <1127942930.6308.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> <433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net><617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org> <4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net><1359619694.20051004213630@kungzhi.org> <43441B56.7080303@nerim.net> <1479321719.20051006043947@kungzhi.org> <003c01c5ca43$01172200$c8369c04@Dan> <4344DBFE.8030202@nerim.net> Message-ID: <521073541.20051007040431@kungzhi.org> On Thursday, October 6, 2005, Joy Vriens wrote: > Islam in itself shouldn't be a problem. Islamist > terrorism is. Islamist proselytism can be considered > a problem, but then so should any other form of > proselytism be considered a problem. What I find > worrying is that there isn't much of a reaction of > rejection from more moderate muslims about others > hijacking their religion. For me, this rises an interesting related question, what to do about globalized liberal forces trying to hijack old religions? What to do about that specific proselytism that is trying to establish a single individualist thought around the world? What to do about those who think that rejecting assimilation is a clear sign of hostility? Are not destroying cultures and traditional lifestyles terrorist acts? I agree that proselytism must be avoided (and societies respected). When someone (as "mainstrean western thought" or "terrorists") tries to change others's lifestyles through force or propaganda, that someone is inviting problems. Best wishes, Beni From bcarral at kungzhi.org Thu Oct 6 20:11:09 2005 From: bcarral at kungzhi.org (Benito Carral) Date: Thu Oct 6 20:15:52 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: <003c01c5ca43$01172200$c8369c04@Dan> References: <1127942930.6308.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> <433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net><617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org> <4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net><1359619694.20051004213630@kungzhi.org> <43441B56.7080303@nerim.net> <1479321719.20051006043947@kungzhi.org> <003c01c5ca43$01172200$c8369c04@Dan> Message-ID: <259555498.20051007041109@kungzhi.org> On Thursday, October 6, 2005, Dan Lusthaus wrote: > Let me put it this way: unless people on the left > begin to recognize the reality of the problem of > Islam and devote some creative energy to dealing with > that (enlisting and empowering moderate Muslims would > be a start) [...] Dan, let me ask you what you mean by "moderate Muslims." What are you thinking about here? What would be the result of enlisting and empowering such moderate Muslims? I would appreciate you developing this. Best wishes, Beni From bcarral at kungzhi.org Thu Oct 6 20:43:36 2005 From: bcarral at kungzhi.org (Benito Carral) Date: Thu Oct 6 20:45:53 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: <002401c5ca89$6beef580$2930cece@charlie> References: <1127942930.6308.49.camel@localhost.localdomain><433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net><617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org><4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net><1359619694.20051004213630@kungzhi.org><43441B56.7080303@nerim.net><1479321719.20051006043947@kungzhi.org> <003c01c5ca43$01172200$c8369c04@Dan> <002401c5ca89$6beef580$2930cece@charlie> Message-ID: <1102159989.20051007044336@kungzhi.org> On Thursday, October 6, 2005, jkirk wrote: > There is also a sizeable group of Muslim immigrants > from South Asia with similar views--e.g., "modernize > Islam or forget it." As far as I know traditional Islam doesn't presuppose terrorists, so I can't understand such rethoric of "modernize it or forget it." Why should Muslims reform Islam if they don't want to do it? In order to westernize it, to globalize it? I'm a traditionalist who believe in pacific pluralism, so I would never support a "modernize it or forget it" politics. Best wishes, Beni From bcarral at kungzhi.org Thu Oct 6 20:37:16 2005 From: bcarral at kungzhi.org (Benito Carral) Date: Thu Oct 6 20:45:55 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: <4345220A.5040309@nerim.net> References: <1127942930.6308.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> <433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net><617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org> <4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net><1359619694.20051004213630@kungzhi.org> <43441B56.7080303@nerim.net> <1479321719.20051006043947@kungzhi.org><003c01c5ca43$01172200$c8369c04@Dan> <4344DBFE.8030202@nerim.net> <00c701c5ca62$e5c7f5e0$c8369c04@Dan> <4345220A.5040309@nerim.net> Message-ID: <1667485633.20051007043716@kungzhi.org> On Thursday, October 6, 2005, Joy Vriens wrote: >> If, however, you are having trouble recognizing huge >> ethical distinctions between Hiroshima and Bali, >> then we are all in trouble and the age of Mappo has >> arrived. If the distinction escapes you, please have >> a long talk with any Koreans, Chinese, Burmese, >> Filipinos, etc. you know. They will explain it to >> you. > If I look at a victim of Bali or Hiroshima, victims > of intended actions purposely committed by other > humans, I don't see a difference. They probably won't > either. The only ethical decision I can make, is that > never will I participate in either action or will > allow it to be carried out in my name. I agree. As far as I know, the Old Indian guy taugh us not to kill any sentient being and didn't differentiate between "good" and "bad" individuals in this respect. Having said that, I must admit that if someone would try to kill someone from my family, I would not hesitate a second in using the necessary counter-force. It seems that I'm irremediably caught in samsara, so I will try to use this knowledge in an useful way. Best wishes, Beni From bcarral at kungzhi.org Thu Oct 6 21:14:11 2005 From: bcarral at kungzhi.org (Benito Carral) Date: Thu Oct 6 21:15:53 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Pennsylvania and crying Buddhas In-Reply-To: <43453FCA.4040503@email.smith.edu> References: <20051005015144.48488.qmail@web60012.mail.yahoo.com> <1475982863.20051006050136@kungzhi.org> <43453FCA.4040503@email.smith.edu> Message-ID: <723427947.20051007051411@kungzhi.org> On Thursday, October 6, 2005, Jamie Hubbard wrote: >> I don't know many buddhas who are comedians. Well, >> now that I mention it, I don't know many buddhas. > So, I take it that you know some Buddhas--how many > Buddhas do you know? I'm an ironic, so I was writing following my non-buddha nature. Maybe I have met a few buddhas in my life and I have failed in recognizing them, and it's quite probable given that I don't consider myself a buddha. What I know that I have met are some quite special individuals as the late Jydin or Thich Nhat Hanh? > BTW, I am entirely serious about this-- I am offering > a seminar on "Buddhahood 101" next semester, and the > question of just what constitutes Buddhahood is the > entire topic, all of which is somewhat in service of > answering the question of whether or not anybody is a > Buddha these days. It's a quite interesting question and I'm not specially original here. Some times I'm in an early Buddhist mood and would say that a buddha is someone who has fully transformed greed in non-attachment, hatred in peace, and stupidity in wisdom. Other times I'm in a Prajnaparamita-Chan mood and would say that a buddha is someone who knows that there is no one who helps nor anyone to be helped but ceaselessly tries to help everyone to live in a peaceful way. I love family life so I think Vimalakirti is closer to my idea of buddha than the Old Indian guy. Anyway, when everything else falls apart, I think that the Old Indian guy's way is one of the best. My two cents. Best wishes, Beni From jinavamsa at yahoo.com Thu Oct 6 22:32:30 2005 From: jinavamsa at yahoo.com (Mitchell Ginsberg) Date: Thu Oct 6 22:37:04 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Pennsylvania and crying Buddhas In-Reply-To: <200510061629.j96GTauj023516@ns1.swcp.com> Message-ID: <20051007043230.33619.qmail@web60011.mail.yahoo.com> hello Jamie and all, Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 11:16:26 -0400 From: Jamie Hubbard Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] Re: Pennsylvania and crying Buddhas So, I take it that you know some Buddhas--how many Buddhas do you know? Care to give up their names? And how do you know them when you see/meet them? IOW, what are the characteristics of a Buddha that you work with in order to recognize them? BTW, I am entirely serious about this-- I am offering a seminar on "Buddhahood 101" next semester, and the question of just what constitutes Buddhahood is the entire topic, all of which is somewhat in service of answering the question of whether or not anybody is a Buddha these days. I ask this to just about everybody, and Bhante Gunaratana answered just the other day that he hasn't met any Buddhas, then quickly qualified himself to say that he has met some that he considers arhats. . . unfortunately, there wasn't time to find out what he meant, much less who these folks were. I am not myself sure of my own answer-- I certainly have never met any Buddhas as described, for example, by John Mackransky in his "Buddhahood Embodied." I guess I first need to decide what I think a Buddha is--hence the seminar :) . . . In any case, yours and others comments would be great! Jamie ========== I notice that Beni spoke of not knowing many buddhas and you asked about how many Buddhas he knew. Ditto with comments from Gunaratana (with his addendum about knowing some arahats). So, if we take the distinction between buddha and Buddha (capitalization in English) seriously, I have found that in Theravada contexts, buddha is usually taken to be referring specifically to one of the eon-buddhas, that is *the* buddha for any given age. Since we are still in the age of Shakyamuni Buddha (to refer to Siddhattha Gotama by another name/epithet), to know a buddha would be to know this individual. Arahats are those whose psychological processes have been cleared of certain sorts of unskilfulness (as per various discourses and stock phrases/definitions). So in that way, to talk of arahats in a Theravada context is somewhat parallel to speaking of buddhas in other Buddhist traditions. Of course, when we have oneupmanship coming into play (where buddhas are more buddha than arahats and so forth), then the field gets to be pretty messy. While a buddha is a buddha (someone who has woken up is someone who has woken up), what this indicators of this may be (from the silly long ears to the more psychological lack of agitated confusion) do vary from text to text. What is your tentative read on all of this, before your class starts? Best of luck coming to a set of readings that can help here, and some ideas of paths to encourage discussion in your course! Mitchell ==================== http://www.geocities.com/jinavamsa/mentalhealth.html with links to my home page, info on The Inner Palace (3rd ed.) and The Far Shore (3rd ed.), further links to psychotherapy, to my current teaching, to the Insight Practice (Vipassana), Chishtiyya (Sufi), Creative Solutions for Peace, and Nasrudin discussion groups, and to the Collective Dharma Insight project. __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From jinavamsa at yahoo.com Thu Oct 6 22:43:52 2005 From: jinavamsa at yahoo.com (Mitchell Ginsberg) Date: Thu Oct 6 22:45:56 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Pennsylvania and crying Buddhas In-Reply-To: <200510062029.j96KTlfE028329@ns1.swcp.com> Message-ID: <20051007044352.30028.qmail@web60020.mail.yahoo.com> hello Ron and all, Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 16:18:41 EDT From: RonLeifer@aol.com Subject: Re: Pennsylvania and crying Buddhas I know for a fact that some (unnamed) Lamas enjoy wrestling, westerns, and some sitcoms. They don't get love stories. (s) Ron Leifer ====== The link didn't get me to the discussion you were referring to, I take it. But did those lamas (Tibetan, should I assume?) not understand the yearnings and torments portrayed, say, in the film Samsara (not available from sources in the USA for some reason). I heard about it from some Australian friends and could find it in Canada of all places, Richard! I'm not clear which sort(s) of love stories they did not understand. Thank you. Mitchell ==================== http://www.geocities.com/jinavamsa/mentalhealth.html with links to my home page, info on The Inner Palace (3rd ed.) and The Far Shore (3rd ed.), further links to psychotherapy, to my current teaching, to the Insight Practice (Vipassana), Chishtiyya (Sufi), Creative Solutions for Peace, and Nasrudin discussion groups, and to the Collective Dharma Insight project. __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From dlusthau at mailer.fsu.edu Thu Oct 6 22:52:16 2005 From: dlusthau at mailer.fsu.edu (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Thu Oct 6 22:55:57 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo References: <1127942930.6308.49.camel@localhost.localdomain><433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net><617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org><4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net><1359619694.20051004213630@kungzhi.org><43441B56.7080303@nerim.net> <1479321719.20051006043947@kungzhi.org><003c01c5ca43$01172200$c8369c04@Dan> <259555498.20051007041109@kungzhi.org> Message-ID: <01c501c5cafa$e6dc28f0$bc369c04@Dan> > Dan, let me ask you what you mean by "moderate > Muslims." Beni, I'm tempted to be flippant, and say they are about as scarce these days as fully realized Buddhas, but instead will give two makeshift definitions: 1. Any Muslim not hellbent on killing everyone who doesn't agree with them. 2. Any Muslim who thinks the world would be a better place without the hellbent Muslims rather than without the victims of the hellbent. A truly good Muslim, however, would be one to whom I would justifiably be able to entrust the safety of my very life. Same applies to Christians, Buddhists, Quakers, etc. >What would > be the result of enlisting and empowering such moderate > Muslims? I would appreciate you developing this. The result? Let's try and see what happens. Dan Lusthaus From bcarral at kungzhi.org Thu Oct 6 23:13:12 2005 From: bcarral at kungzhi.org (Benito Carral) Date: Thu Oct 6 23:15:55 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: <01c501c5cafa$e6dc28f0$bc369c04@Dan> References: <1127942930.6308.49.camel@localhost.localdomain><433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net><617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org><4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net><1359619694.20051004213630@kungzhi.org><43441B56.7080303@nerim.net> <1479321719.20051006043947@kungzhi.org><003c01c5ca43$01172200$c8369c04@Dan> <259555498.20051007041109@kungzhi.org> <01c501c5cafa$e6dc28f0$bc369c04@Dan> Message-ID: <1631133400.20051007071312@kungzhi.org> On Friday, October 7, 2005, Dan Lusthaus wrote: >> Dan, let me ask you what you mean by "moderate >> Muslims." > Beni, I'm tempted to be flippant, and say they are > about as scarce these days as fully realized Buddhas, > but instead will give two makeshift definitions: > 1. Any Muslim not hellbent on killing everyone who > doesn't agree with them. > 2. Any Muslim who thinks the world would be a better > place without the hellbent Muslims rather than > without the victims of the hellbent. I appreciate you taking the way of definitions because now I understand better your view and I can agree that it would be a good idea to support such Muslims. I would also support those who don't try to change other peoples but peacefully coexist with them respecting their ways. Best wishes, Beni From joy.vriens at nerim.net Fri Oct 7 00:44:16 2005 From: joy.vriens at nerim.net (Joy Vriens) Date: Fri Oct 7 00:45:59 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: <008901c5cabf$30ff5010$bc369c04@Dan> References: <1127942930.6308.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> <433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net><617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org> <4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net><1359619694.20051004213630@kungzhi.org> <43441B56.7080303@nerim.net><1479321719.20051006043947@kungzhi.org><003c01c5ca43$01172200$c8369c04@Dan><4344DA9B.8040908@xs4all.nl> <00bb01c5ca59$2aa93700$c8369c04@Dan> <1128621156.4783.55.camel@localhost.localdomain> <008901c5cabf$30ff5010$bc369c04@Dan> Message-ID: <43461940.1060905@nerim.net> Dan Lusthaus wrote: > The fallacious misapplication of the theory of equality (Bush = Bin Laden, > Hiroshima = Bali), even aside from the misguided moral relativism and the > ignoring of context, can now be added to the list of fallacies. A visiting > Zen teacher gave a talk at the Cambridge Zen center last Spring (founded > near Harvard by DT Suzuki and others back in the 50s, though it is now > affiliated with Korean Son). Talking about his time in Korea he explained > that generally he found Koreans very friendly and accepting, except this one > fellow, who repeatedly slashed him with a knife. He gave all sorts of > hair-raising details in his lengthy recounting of his many encounters with > that fellow. He told us he carries the physical scars from those encounters > today. The punchline was that the fellow was a surgeon who treated him for a > serious illness while there. He just left out a few contextualizing details, > and the story sounded like a slasher movie. One doesn't study surgeons to > stage a revival of West Side Story. This is the second time that you write that it is fallacious to compare purposely killing innocent victims (Bali) and purposely killing innocent victims (Hiroshima), which as you wrote earlier will lead to the Great Confusion of Values, the age of Mappo. But this time you give a clue about why one shouldn't equate Bush and Bin Laden (which I don't by the way) and I presume it's also a clue on why Bali and Hiroshima (all proportions kept) shouldn't be compared. So Bush is a surgeon, who kills to make this world better and those who don't see it that way are mad (your exemple about the importance of context) and Bin Laden a murderer who kills to make this world a nightmare. I suppose that in this exemple in which the patient doesn't die, the patient is to symbolise the world and the slashings are the "necessary inventions" that will make it better. In reality the "slashing", in the case of Hiroshima, represents the intentional murder of innocents, who die and don't survive unlike the symbolic patient. That is the big difference. If you think in terms of history and universals like nations, peoples, corporations etc. yes they will survive and perhaps their situation (of the symbolic "they" since individuals don't count) will be "better" than those of their predecessors. But the physical reality of the individuals who are the victims of intentional violence is *not* that world of ideas. The suffering caused is real, more real than the notion of a "better world". If you kill real innocent people intentionally for an idea (including statistics about what would have happened or could have happened if...), than according to my ethical values (which some may call Mappo) that is wrong. I am purposely being candid here, but the only difference I can see is the alleged intention (which you call context). Bush wants to make the world better. Well, I doubt that. When the Western world was standing more united behind its federating values, enlightened values like Human rights, democracy, Libert?, ?galit? and fraternit? etc. one could be forgiven for letting oneself be carried away by those ideas. But Bush, refusing to collaborate with environmental treaties, an International Court of Justice competent to condemn war criminals of all boards, and to deal properly with issues of the North-South problem, including dealing with poverty in his own country (as became obvious with Katrina) undermining democracy in his own country etc etc is obviously not interested in a better world. So his "necessary intervention" doesn't have the benefit of the doubt either. And I would never think of comparing him to a surgeon... I must be mad too. Who am I to doubt someone directly commissioned by God? http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1586978,00.html From joy.vriens at nerim.net Fri Oct 7 00:48:51 2005 From: joy.vriens at nerim.net (Joy Vriens) Date: Fri Oct 7 00:55:55 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: <521073541.20051007040431@kungzhi.org> References: <1127942930.6308.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> <433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net><617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org> <4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net><1359619694.20051004213630@kungzhi.org> <43441B56.7080303@nerim.net> <1479321719.20051006043947@kungzhi.org> <003c01c5ca43$01172200$c8369c04@Dan> <4344DBFE.8030202@nerim.net> <521073541.20051007040431@kungzhi.org> Message-ID: <43461A53.2000802@nerim.net> Benito Carral wrote: > For me, this rises an interesting related question, > what to do about globalized liberal forces trying to > hijack old religions? Coming to think of it, it was quite a silly argument of me. Who doesn't hijack old religions... Joy From joy.vriens at nerim.net Fri Oct 7 01:38:46 2005 From: joy.vriens at nerim.net (Joy Vriens) Date: Fri Oct 7 01:45:57 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: <1667485633.20051007043716@kungzhi.org> References: <1127942930.6308.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> <433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net><617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org> <4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net><1359619694.20051004213630@kungzhi.org> <43441B56.7080303@nerim.net> <1479321719.20051006043947@kungzhi.org><003c01c5ca43$01172200$c8369c04@Dan> <4344DBFE.8030202@nerim.net> <00c701c5ca62$e5c7f5e0$c8369c04@Dan> <4345220A.5040309@nerim.net> <1667485633.20051007043716@kungzhi.org> Message-ID: <43462606.40507@nerim.net> Benito Carral wrote: >>If I look at a victim of Bali or Hiroshima, victims >>of intended actions purposely committed by other >>humans, I don't see a difference. They probably won't >>either. The only ethical decision I can make, is that >>never will I participate in either action or will >>allow it to be carried out in my name. > I agree. As far as I know, the Old Indian guy taugh > us not to kill any sentient being and didn't > differentiate between "good" and "bad" individuals in > this respect. But apart from the Old Guy (thera pudgala?) telling us to do so in order to be a good Buddhist, it is also IMO an obligation that comes with the self-attributed task of wanting to spread enlightened values. Already if one adheres to values like democracy, freedom, human rights, habeas corpus etc. one imposes them on oneself, before even considering imposing them on others. Wanting to impose them on others, one needs to be exemplary. That means that even if others resort to killing innocents, we should refrain from it, because otherwise it would banalize the act of killing innocents and somehow ratify it. The acceptance of "collateral damage" shows that Mappo is already there. Also if we judge terrorists for purposely targeting innocents in order to obtain a better world as they conceive it, then why shouldn't we judge ourselves for purposely sacrifying innocents in order to create a better world as we conceive it? If we say that the objective is worth it (=the sacrifice of innocents), then we are no better than the terrorists in that respect. There are no doubt a couple of fallacies in my reasoning, but that's how I see it and I am open to being shown that I am wrong. Especially if we can thus avoid Mappo. Don't get me wrong, I am not defending terrorism, I am not equating terrorism and democratic states. Terrorists despise enlightened values and blindly follow only their own interests, which they want to realise through terror. They are unprepared to take into account the interests of others. They are at the other extreme of the enlightened values that are those of the West. But in order to avoid Mappo it is our task to stick as much as possible to our values and not use methods that can hardly be distinguished from those of terrorists. > Having said that, I must admit that if > someone would try to kill someone from my family, I > would not hesitate a second in using the necessary > counter-force. It seems that I'm irremediably caught in > samsara, so I will try to use this knowledge in an > useful way. I have never been confronted with that situation. I have never met someone who was confronted with it either. But I have seen it used a lot by those who want to make us accept that it is acceptable to kill in that case and thereby making us accept that killing in general is acceptable. Once that resistance is broken, the gate top Mappo is wide open. From joy.vriens at nerim.net Fri Oct 7 02:19:13 2005 From: joy.vriens at nerim.net (Joy Vriens) Date: Fri Oct 7 02:25:56 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Pennsylvania and crying Buddhas In-Reply-To: <104.6a7d14e7.3076e0a1@aol.com> References: <104.6a7d14e7.3076e0a1@aol.com> Message-ID: <43462F81.5@nerim.net> RonLeifer@aol.com wrote: > I know for a fact that some (unnamed) Lamas enjoy wrestling, westerns, > and some sitcoms. They don't get love stories. (s) I knew one that enjoyed porn though. One of my lamas told me an anecdote about another lama while almost choking with laughter. I believe it was about Karma Thinley Rinpoche of Toronto. During a public teaching, one of the women in the audience asked him why he was not married (probably a question about celibacy vows)? The lama answered that it was because he hadn't found anyone who wanted to marry him. And he added "Would you like to marry me?" The woman answered "No". "You see?" he then said. From dlusthau at mailer.fsu.edu Fri Oct 7 02:34:56 2005 From: dlusthau at mailer.fsu.edu (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Fri Oct 7 02:37:08 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo References: <1127942930.6308.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> <433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net><617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org> <4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net><1359619694.20051004213630@kungzhi.org> <43441B56.7080303@nerim.net><1479321719.20051006043947@kungzhi.org><003c01c5ca43$01172200$c8369c04@Dan><4344DA9B.8040908@xs4all.nl> <00bb01c5ca59$2aa93700$c8369c04@Dan> <1128621156.4783.55.camel@localhost.localdomain><008901c5cabf$30ff5010$bc369c04@Dan> <43461940.1060905@nerim.net> Message-ID: <022701c5cb19$ff594ab0$bc369c04@Dan> Joy, You take what you think is a "clue" a construct an elaborate set of dichotomies and analogies, none of which were buried in the clue. Speaking of context, the context of the Zen teacher's surgeon story was a question from a woman in attendance who was weighing several choices and wondering which was "good" and which was "bad." The moral of the story in that context was precisely that an action itself -- including cutting flesh -- was neither good nor bad; it's value can only be determined contextually. Hence equating Hiroshima with Bali can only be done at the expense of ignoring context. On the simplest level, one act ended a war, the other intensifies one; on an even simpler level, one ultimately saved many lives (including Japanese lives -- anyone familiar with the Japanese ethos of the time knows that the govt. was ready to sacrifice every civilian in the country to save the Emperor, and it armed housewives with brooms and white smocks so that they would attack any invasion on the beaches, something they were already doing with horrible losses not only to allied soldiers but the native civilian population which in fact voluntarily became combatants; not to mention the those under Japanese occupation in South-East Asia and the Pacific islands who by that point in the war had not only been raped and plundered and had no food, but were being eaten by the occupying Japanese troops who themselves had no food and nothing further to plunder but the very flesh of the people they were occupying). Hiroshima, moreover, was not an "innocent" city, but a target with major miliitary strategic importance. But the dichotomies you draw are also too simplistic and reductive. Because ending a war and ultimately saving lives is a good, while driving Hindus out of Bali (or Kashmir, or Afghanistan, or Pakistan, etc.) is not, the violence does not have the same value. That doesn't make violence itself either good or bad. Violence ultimately is just another form of impermanence, one more problematic than dying of old age since it seems in many cases to be avoidable. But "many" is not equivalent to "always." Or put another way, it's not that one act is simply good, and the other is bad, it's that one is better than the other, and the other is worse than the first. Motive and consequence are, at minimum, to factors to consider when making such evaluations. Bush is a simpleton. One could argue that the removal of the Taliban and the disabling, even temporarily, of the Al Qaeda network and international training program were noble and justifiable, and a way to improve the life of the Afghani people. It was also a brilliant military campaign that wrote a new chapter in the annals of military history (due, largely, to military strategies and weaponry developed during the Clinton term). Iraq has become a disaster, for reasons too numerous to recite, which tarnishes and recontextualizes the Afghani project as well. The real world is messy, not simple yes and no, good and bad, surgeon and thug (there are better surgeons and worse surgeons, Robin Hoods and Bali bombers). > the case of Hiroshima, represents > the intentional murder of innocents, who die and don't survive unlike > the symbolic patient. That is the big difference. No. The big difference is the war -- for the US -- began at Pearl Harbor, not Hiroshima. The Japanese were not going to surrender easily (surrender was considered a contemptible act -- which is why not only did the Japanese treat POWs with horrible contempt, but most fighting squads fought until 96% were dead; surrender was not in the script), which meant they would have to be pounded into surrender. > If you think in terms > of history and universals like nations, peoples, corporations etc. yes > they will survive and perhaps their situation (of the symbolic "they" > since individuals don't count) will be "better" than those of their > predecessors. But the physical reality of the individuals who are the > victims of intentional violence is *not* that world of ideas. > > The suffering caused is real, more real than the notion of a "better > world". If you kill real innocent people intentionally for an idea > (including statistics about what would have happened or could have > happened if...), than according to my ethical values (which some may > call Mappo) that is wrong. Joy, the logic of this, if you follow it, would mean that it would have been better for the Allies to have left France occupied by the Nazis, rather than risk their own and possibly innocent French lives. Or for the French to let themselves be slaughtered by the Nazis (once the Jews were gone, who would the Nazis turn to next?) rather than mount a resistance. That's not a vision I can subscribe to, nor would I consider it very moral. It's confused and even suicidal (better to kill oneself than to kill another? But killing is killing, so how can oneself rather than killing another be better? Letting others kill you when you know that's what they are going to do is Assisted Suicide. And if you are killing yourself to avoid killing someone, then you are innocent, so killing yourself is killing someone innocent, rather than killing someone not innocent... very confused and a bit twisted, the sort of knots R.D. Laing liked to untangle). Dan Lusthaus From c_castell at yahoo.com Fri Oct 7 02:39:59 2005 From: c_castell at yahoo.com (Catalina Castell-du Payrat) Date: Fri Oct 7 02:45:59 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: <43462606.40507@nerim.net> Message-ID: <20051007083959.19239.qmail@web60820.mail.yahoo.com> Joy vriens wrote: <> In my opinion, yes, there is not a justification to kill innocents (or some other nocious act to living beings) based on: my intentions are to obtain a good result at the end. I may choose to kill a mosquito because it can be a disease transmission agent but it doesn't mean that is a good act to kill a mosquito. I may choose to defend family or friends and doing that confronted to the situation that I may cause pain to others, I have never been in this situation so I don't know neither. This is always me, choosing, according to situations and my own nature, background, etc. I desagree on the fact that institutions, goverments, groups, etc, justify their actions and act in the same way that criminals do, to me it makes them criminals as well. To me solutions are more based on: Prevention. Catalina Catalina Castell - du Payrat c_castell@yahoo.com --------------------------------- Yahoo! for Good Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20051007/02141809/attachment.htm From c_castell at yahoo.com Fri Oct 7 05:10:19 2005 From: c_castell at yahoo.com (Catalina Castell-du Payrat) Date: Fri Oct 7 05:16:00 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Hiroshima vs Terrorism..........? In-Reply-To: <022701c5cb19$ff594ab0$bc369c04@Dan> Message-ID: <20051007111019.97987.qmail@web60812.mail.yahoo.com> There is no way Hiroshima "saved" lifes...............Dan arguments are "conceptual". First: you just don't know what would happen if USA didn't bomb Hiroshima, and Nagasaki? military target as well?, what happened was: they did it, they bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki and caused a lot of pain and destruction in many many ways, this is just a fact, so, to me, speculations about what have could be happening if........is not an argument, not a serious one. Causing pain and detroy life is the opposite to do in buddhist way (as I understand it) Sorry, I don't understand very well your debate guys......... Cheers, catalina Catalina Castell - du Payrat c_castell@yahoo.com --------------------------------- Yahoo! for Good Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20051007/869a8608/attachment.html From selwyn at ntlworld.com Fri Oct 7 05:39:04 2005 From: selwyn at ntlworld.com (L.S. Cousins) Date: Fri Oct 7 05:46:01 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: <022701c5cb19$ff594ab0$bc369c04@Dan> References: <1127942930.6308.49. camel@localhost.localdomain> <433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net><617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org> <4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net><1359619694.20051004213630@kungzhi.org> <43441B56.7080303@nerim.net><1479321719.20051006043947@kungzhi.org><003c01 c5ca43$01172200$c8369c04@Dan><4344DA9B.8040908@xs4all.nl> <00bb01c5ca59$2aa93700$c8369c04@Dan> <1128621156.4783.55.camel@localhost.localdomain><008901c5cabf$30ff5010$bc3 69c04@Dan> <43461940.1060905@nerim.net> <022701c5cb19$ff594ab0$bc369c04@Dan> Message-ID: Dan, This goes too far. >Hence equating Hiroshima with Bali can only be done at the expense of >ignoring context. On the simplest level, one act ended a war, the other >intensifies one; on an even simpler level, one ultimately saved many lives >(including Japanese lives -- anyone familiar with the Japanese ethos of the >time knows that the govt. was ready to sacrifice every civilian in the >country to save the Emperor, and it armed housewives with brooms and white >smocks so that they would attack any invasion on the beaches, something they >were already doing with horrible losses not only to allied soldiers but the >native civilian population which in fact voluntarily became combatants; not >to mention the those under Japanese occupation in South-East Asia and the >Pacific islands who by that point in the war had not only been raped and >plundered and had no food, but were being eaten by the occupying Japanese >troops who themselves had no food and nothing further to plunder but the >very flesh of the people they were occupying). Hiroshima, moreover, was not >an "innocent" city, but a target with major miliitary strategic importance. The Japanese government had already offered to surrender. The reason for bombing Hiroshima was surely both an encouragement and a warning to Stalin. An encouragement - because immediately after Hiroshima (of which Stalin had some prior knowledge) the Soviet Union declared war on Japan. A warning - not to push too hard in Europe. Lance Cousins From joy.vriens at nerim.net Fri Oct 7 05:45:08 2005 From: joy.vriens at nerim.net (Joy Vriens) Date: Fri Oct 7 05:47:15 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: <022701c5cb19$ff594ab0$bc369c04@Dan> References: <1127942930.6308.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> <433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net><617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org> <4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net><1359619694.20051004213630@kungzhi.org> <43441B56.7080303@nerim.net><1479321719.20051006043947@kungzhi.org><003c01c5ca43$01172200$c8369c04@Dan><4344DA9B.8040908@xs4all.nl> <00bb01c5ca59$2aa93700$c8369c04@Dan> <1128621156.4783.55.camel@localhost.localdomain><008901c5cabf$30ff5010$bc369c04@Dan> <43461940.1060905@nerim.net> <022701c5cb19$ff594ab0$bc369c04@Dan> Message-ID: <43465FC4.7080207@nerim.net> Dan Lusthaus wrote: > Hence equating Hiroshima with Bali can only be done at the expense of > ignoring context. On the simplest level, one act ended a war, the other > intensifies one; Is there a clean cut end to wars? Was WW I actually ended by the peace of Versailles? How many wars and conflicts are in fact sleeping volcanoes, because the causes that led up to them weren't properly dealt with. Violence and ultraviolence can end an open conflict, but not the causes that led up to it. > on an even simpler level, one ultimately saved many lives by destroying many lives, isn't that ironic? Apart from considering how "saved" a traumatised person or country is. > (including Japanese lives -- anyone familiar with the Japanese ethos of the > time knows that the govt. was ready to sacrifice every civilian in the > country to save the Emperor, and it armed housewives with brooms and white > smocks so that they would attack any invasion on the beaches, something they > were already doing with horrible losses not only to allied soldiers but the > native civilian population which in fact voluntarily became combatants; Yes and anyone having access to classified information and satellite pictures etc. simply knew that Saddam H. had links with Al-Qaeda and WMD and could launch missiles in 45 seconds time. etc. I don't mean to deny what you write, but we have to be very careful with "knowing the intentions of..." sort of information. > not > to mention the those under Japanese occupation in South-East Asia and the > Pacific islands who by that point in the war had not only been raped and > plundered and had no food, but were being eaten by the occupying Japanese > troops who themselves had no food and nothing further to plunder but the > very flesh of the people they were occupying). Hiroshima, moreover, was not > an "innocent" city, but a target with major miliitary strategic importance. There are desperate situations in which people do desperate things. Those actions should not be a guideline or a justification for actions of a democracy. As for the target: "The targets chosen were cities which had not already been badly bombed. The Americans wanted to be able to see quite how destructive the atom bomb was. It was seen as an "experiment". For this reason they chose targets where there were large numbers of buildings, ie houses, which could be destroyed. There were military facilities at both sites, large arms factories in Nagasaki, and soldiers in Hiroshima. However the targets were not chosen simply as military targets. The bombs were to fall where they could have maximum impact on the whole city. In the case of Nagasaki poor visibility meant that the bomb was not dropped on the centre of the city but further North. The bomb dropped on Hiroshima contained Uranium, the one used on Nagasaki contained Plutonium. Part of the reason for dropping two bombs was because the Americans wanted to see the effect of both designs." http://www.banthebomb.org/archives/magazine/hiroshim.htm (it's the first link I found, this is the information I was looking for, I don't know about the rest of this site). > But the dichotomies you draw are also too simplistic and reductive. Because > ending a war and ultimately saving lives is a good, while driving Hindus out > of Bali (or Kashmir, or Afghanistan, or Pakistan, etc.) is not, the violence > does not have the same value. No, violence doesn't have the same value for the one at the giving end and the one at the receiving end. But I don't want to be the object of any organised state violence, I don't want to be the victim of violence of whatever value, even when ultimately it saves many lives, I don't want others to make that decision for me, especially others I don't trust the intentions of. And I think I am not the only one to think that. I don't want war to be as banal as it still is. > That doesn't make violence itself either good > or bad. Violence ultimately is just another form of impermanence, one more > problematic than dying of old age since it seems in many cases to be > avoidable. Dan, you tell me I am too simplistic and reductive, but read what you just wrote here: "Violence ultimately is *just* another form of impermanence". That is acceptable for a practising Buddhist, on a very personal practice level when confronted with it, but we can't use this reasoning to condone violence. > But "many" is not equivalent to "always." Or put another way, > it's not that one act is simply good, and the other is bad, it's that one is > better than the other, and the other is worse than the first. Motive and > consequence are, at minimum, to factors to consider when making such > evaluations. But, when the life of individuals is at stake, they should never become abstractions, simple equations like if X < Y than X is acceptable. > Bush is a simpleton. One could argue that the removal of the Taliban and the > disabling, even temporarily, of the Al Qaeda network and international > training program were noble and justifiable, and a way to improve the life > of the Afghani people. It was also a brilliant military campaign that wrote > a new chapter in the annals of military history (due, largely, to military > strategies and weaponry developed during the Clinton term). Iraq has become > a disaster, for reasons too numerous to recite, which tarnishes and > recontextualizes the Afghani project as well. The real world is messy, not > simple yes and no, good and bad, surgeon and thug (there are better surgeons > and worse surgeons, Robin Hoods and Bali bombers). Sorry, but with my basic antimilitarism, I can't see whether a military campaign is brilliant or not. The real word is not only messy, but even messier because of incompetent intervention, of which the motives and consequences have been very badly evaluated. >>The suffering caused is real, more real than the notion of a "better >>world". If you kill real innocent people intentionally for an idea >>(including statistics about what would have happened or could have >>happened if...), than according to my ethical values (which some may >>call Mappo) that is wrong. > Joy, the logic of this, if you follow it, would mean that it would have been > better for the Allies to have left France occupied by the Nazis, rather than > risk their own and possibly innocent French lives. Or for the French to let > themselves be slaughtered by the Nazis (once the Jews were gone, who would > the Nazis turn to next?) rather than mount a resistance. This is a very strong argument. I don't know whether all the French would have been slaughtered, but intervention was certainly necessary here to stop the genocides. That some actions like the bombing of Dresde were excessive is also beyond doubt. > That's not a vision > I can subscribe to, nor would I consider it very moral. It's confused and > even suicidal (better to kill oneself than to kill another? But killing is > killing, so how can oneself rather than killing another be better? Letting > others kill you when you know that's what they are going to do is Assisted > Suicide. You really seem to want to make us all into killers, don't you? No escape possible. You're not living in Florida by any chance (with its new "Shoot to kill" law) are you? ;-) http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1557282,00.html > And if you are killing yourself to avoid killing someone, then you > are innocent, so killing yourself is killing someone innocent, rather than > killing someone not innocent... very confused and a bit twisted, the sort of > knots R.D. Laing liked to untangle). Yes, very. Look at our convulsions and convolutions during this debate. Let's keep it very simple and say no killing like the Buddha said. :-) Joy From jpeavler at mindspring.com Fri Oct 7 06:56:17 2005 From: jpeavler at mindspring.com (Jim Peavler) Date: Fri Oct 7 07:06:01 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: References: <1359619694.20051004213630@kungzhi.org> <43441B56.7080303@nerim.net> <1479321719.20051006043947@kungzhi.org> <003c01c5ca43$01172200$c8369c04@Dan> <4344DA9B.8040908@xs4all.nl> <00bb01c5ca59$2aa93700$c8369c04@Dan> <1128621156.4783.55.camel@localhost.localdomain> <008901c5cabf$30ff5010$bc369c04@Dan> Message-ID: On Oct 6, 2005, at 5:29 PM, Chan Fu wrote: > On 10/6/05, Jim Peavler wrote: >> >> The sun, in fact, is the cause of the hurricane Katrina. Wouldn't it >> have been wonderful of Brownie had blamed the sun instead of everybody >> and everything else. > > Actual, it isn't any more the "cause" of meteorological phenomena than > this planet's own existence, or the presence of water or an > atmosphere. > If y0u need to blame something, blame the second law of thermodynamics. > Which, for all we know, might be the only true God. Of course, I oversimplified. I only wanted to go back a couple of kalpas. I stayed within our own kalpa to assure that my post would be on a Buddhist subject. From jpeavler at mindspring.com Fri Oct 7 07:01:21 2005 From: jpeavler at mindspring.com (Jim Peavler) Date: Fri Oct 7 07:06:03 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] RE: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: References: <1128622708.4783.67.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <546c809eb6d9c74c48058716ddba6f08@mindspring.com> On Oct 6, 2005, at 6:25 PM, Mike Austin wrote: > In message <1128622708.4783.67.camel@localhost.localdomain>, Richard > P. Hayes writes > >> It might not hurt for all of us to strive to remember that >> buddha-l used to be much more narrow in its scope and that we could, >> if >> we so chose, become narrow-minded yet again. > > Not 'narrow-minded', but 'focussed'. I exercise my choice by > repeatedly hitting the 'next' button if I see certain 'key words' in > the post, such as 'Bush', 'Dylan' etc. > I do that too! Through the magic of the delete button (or better yet a filter that goes automatically to the trash). Looks like we have both been sneaking looks at this thread, though, even though we both know perfectly well what is in it. I think most threads here at least start with a bow toward the Buddha, but once the thread is attached we all feel free to drift with it into whatever corner the discussion leads. So long as we aren't abusive I see no harm in it. Particularly if participants make liberal use of their filters and delete keys. And no thread here, however long it gets, even approaches the length of one of the long discourses. From curt at cola.iges.org Thu Oct 6 10:14:50 2005 From: curt at cola.iges.org (curt) Date: Fri Oct 7 08:52:24 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: <00c701c5ca62$e5c7f5e0$c8369c04@Dan> References: <1127942930.6308.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> <433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net><617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org> <4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net><1359619694.20051004213630@kungzhi.org> <43441B56.7080303@nerim.net> <1479321719.20051006043947@kungzhi.org><003c01c5ca43$01172200$c8369c04@Dan> <4344DBFE.8030202@nerim.net> <00c701c5ca62$e5c7f5e0$c8369c04@Dan> Message-ID: <43454D7A.1080305@cola.iges.org> If the United States would withdraw all of its military presence from the Middle East, and end its unconditional subsidy of Israel, the "Islamic Threat" would go away. At least for the U.S. If Europe gets overrun by Islamic hoards, that's their problem - or, more accurately (and more Buddhistically), their karma. Where is Europe anyway? I was just looking for it on a map of the world - but I couldn't find it. Can somebody please explain to me what its geographical boundaries are - and how it constitutes a Continent? Maybe after its taken over by the Muslims they will rename it "West Asia" or "Northern North Africa" - either would be an improvement, and much more geographically correct. - Curt From curt at cola.iges.org Thu Oct 6 10:55:28 2005 From: curt at cola.iges.org (curt) Date: Fri Oct 7 08:52:26 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] teaching creationism In-Reply-To: <809daec80510060924u82c460alb387eff71c6238ea@mail.gmail.com> References: <5886262.1128473969266.JavaMail.rhayes@unm.edu> <009501c5c992$c16f9250$1f1b9c04@Dan> <1128524337.4553.26.camel@localhost.localdomain> <43441A4B.5070301@nerim.net> <1128551999.5617.56.camel@localhost.localdomain> <43453F64.1070609@cola.iges.org> <809daec80510060924u82c460alb387eff71c6238ea@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <43455700.8090006@cola.iges.org> Maybe we could start using the phrase "experimental sciences" in a more deliberate and insistent way. The word "science" and its progenitors have been used for thousands of years to mean various things. And an argument - a very convincing one, in my opinion - can be made that there is every reason to treat "science" as a branch of, and therefore subservient to, Philosophy. But when we talk about a "scientific revolution" that occurred sometime in the 17th century we are really talking about "experimental science" - which also existed previously, but only in embryonic form, at best. Insisting on the word "experimental" pretty much closes the book on creationism in the "science" classroom - or rather the "experimental science" classroom. For sticklers we could add a footnote that "experimental" subsumes or somehow also implies "observational" sciences like Geology, Astronomy and Meteorology, which can apply and must be consistent with experimental results, but which study phenomena not always amenable to direct experimentation. And for those who are even more sticklish we could add one of those double dagger footnotes (I always liked those) to say that "verifiable" is also implied - because, after all, Buddhism is based on observation, but we wouldn't want it being taught in Chemistry classroom. Fortunately Buddhism is not verifiable. Hmmm - or is it? Dang, maybe this won't work after all. - Curt Lee Dillion wrote: > On 10/6/05, *curt* > > wrote: > > Here is a tentative reading list for a class (that exists only in my > mind) on "Creation and Cosmology": > > > Nice list Curt. Here deep from the red state of Idaho, the president > of University of Idaho just issued a statement on ID/creationism stating: > > "I write to articulate the University of Idaho's position with respect > to evolution: This is the only curriculum that is appropriate to be > taught in our bio-physical sciences. As an academic scientific > community and a research extensive land-grant institution, we affirm > scientific principles that are testable and anchored in evidence. > > At the University of Idaho, teaching of views that differ from > evolution may occur in faculty-approved curricula in religion, > sociology, philosophy, political science or similar courses. However, > teaching of such views is inappropriate in our life, earth, and > physical science courses or curricula." > > For many of us who are University faculty and staff, we aren't sure > this is the fight we would have picked given tight budgets and other > educational issues, but I have to appreciate his willingness to stake > out a position that is sure to cause significant backlash. After all, > how many university presidents are willing to tackle the angry bear > because of an idea.? > > > > -- > Lee Dillion > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >buddha-l mailing list >buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com >http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l > > From curt at cola.iges.org Thu Oct 6 21:28:15 2005 From: curt at cola.iges.org (curt) Date: Fri Oct 7 08:52:27 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] teaching creationism In-Reply-To: <1128631189.4783.101.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <5886262.1128473969266.JavaMail.rhayes@unm.edu> <009501c5c992$c16f9250$1f1b9c04@Dan> <1128524337.4553.26.camel@localhost.localdomain> <43441A4B.5070301@nerim.net> <1128551999.5617.56.camel@localhost.localdomain> <43453F64.1070609@cola.iges.org> <1128631189.4783.101.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <4345EB4F.9050703@cola.iges.org> It sounds like potentially interesting reading, and since these fellows come down on that side of the question I might need to add them to the suggested reading list, although I don't think they'll make the cut for the required list. I am very embarrassed, though, that I neglected to include either the Poimandres or Philo of Alexandria's writings on Genesis in the required list. No discussion of "Creation" could even be conceivable without Poimandres - and if we must drag in Genesis, then the only saving grace is Philo. Except for Elaine Pagels, that is (but she must, unfortunately, be relegated to the recommended list). But here's a serious question. Does anyone actually consider the Buddha's physician analogy a convincing argument against metaphysical speculation?? I sure don't. The last thing I want in a doctor's bedside manner is a 'tude like that. Doctor's who refuse to explain what they are doing and why (especially when the refusal is absolute and on principle) should be avoided. - Curt Richard P. Hayes wrote: >On Thu, 2005-10-06 at 11:14 -0400, curt wrote: > > > >>Here is a tentative reading list for a class (that exists only in my >>mind) on "Creation and Cosmology" >> >> > >I would wish to add to that list Brian Swimme and Thomas Berry's >thought-provoking book The Universe Story. A shorter, but no less >thought-provoking, piece by Berry is his address to Harvard Divinity >School in 1996 (http://ecoethics.net/ops/univers.htm) in which he speaks >of the shortcomings of the modern university, the inadequacies of a >legal system that has as its principal frame of reference the deeply >flawed US Constitution, the institutionalized greed of international >corporations and the failure of churches to address the most pressing >issues of our time. (The churches are criticized for failing to realize >that God's primary form of revelation is the world of nature, not a >bunch of sentences in a book.) > >It's a beautifully thought out and eloquent diatribe that every educator >on the planet Earth should be required to read. The tone is more gentle >in many ways but every bit as compelling as Ralph Waldo Emerson's >trenchant address to Harvard Divinity School a century and a half >earlier. > >If one is looking for intelligent versions of Intelligent Design, Swimme >and Berry are a good place to start. (You can get a clear-worded >introduction at http://ecoethics.net/ops/tucker.htm). Theirs is not the >two-dimensional presentation of Christian Fundamentalists whose agenda >is to smuggle the Bible into biology classes, but the combined work of a >physicist specializing in gravitational field theory and a Jesuit who >spent his life studying not only Christian theology but the religions >and philosophies of India. While it is pretty obvious that Berry owes a >big debt to neo-Vedanta and to some of the later forms of Buddhism, it >is also obvious that he is prepared to be every bit as critical of >institutionalized Buddhism as he is of the US constitution (the >document, not the battleship) and of traditional Catholicism and >Puritanism. > > > From c_castell at yahoo.com Fri Oct 7 09:53:28 2005 From: c_castell at yahoo.com (Catalina Castell-du Payrat) Date: Fri Oct 7 09:56:04 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: <43454D7A.1080305@cola.iges.org> Message-ID: <20051007155329.57361.qmail@web60812.mail.yahoo.com> Curt wrote: Where is Europe anyway? answer: the limits are historic. Are you north american? Catalina Catalina Castell - du Payrat c_castell@yahoo.com --------------------------------- Yahoo! for Good Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20051007/377804b7/attachment.html From l.k.starner at larc.nasa.gov Fri Oct 7 10:04:05 2005 From: l.k.starner at larc.nasa.gov (Lawrence K. Starner) Date: Fri Oct 7 10:06:04 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] teaching creationism In-Reply-To: <43455700.8090006@cola.iges.org> Message-ID: >Curt wrote: > > Maybe we could start using the phrase "experimental sciences" in a more > deliberate and insistent way. The word "science" and its progenitors > have been used for thousands of years to mean various things. And an > argument - a very convincing one, in my opinion - can be made that there > is every reason to treat "science" as a branch of, and therefore > subservient to, Philosophy. But when we talk about a "scientific > revolution" that occurred sometime in the 17th century we are really > talking about "experimental science" - which also existed previously, > but only in embryonic form, at best. Insisting on the word > "experimental" pretty much closes the book on creationism in the > "science" classroom - or rather the "experimental science" classroom. > For sticklers we could add a footnote that "experimental" subsumes or > somehow also implies "observational" sciences like Geology, Astronomy > and Meteorology, which can apply and must be consistent with > experimental results, but which study phenomena not always amenable to > direct experimentation. And for those who are even more sticklish we > could add one of those double dagger footnotes (I always liked those) to > say that "verifiable" is also implied - because, after all, Buddhism is > based on observation, but we wouldn't want it being taught in Chemistry > classroom. Fortunately Buddhism is not verifiable. Hmmm - or is it? > Dang, maybe this won't work after all. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------- "Empirical science" is a phrase often used. The results of Buddhist meditation are only truly verifiable by oneself for certain. -- Larry From l.k.starner at larc.nasa.gov Fri Oct 7 09:57:56 2005 From: l.k.starner at larc.nasa.gov (Lawrence K. Starner) Date: Fri Oct 7 10:06:10 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Lance Cousins wrote on Friday, October 07, 2005 7:39 AM > > The Japanese government had already offered to surrender. The reason > for bombing Hiroshima was surely both an encouragement and a warning > to Stalin. An encouragement - because immediately after Hiroshima (of > which Stalin had some prior knowledge) the Soviet Union declared war > on Japan. A warning - not to push too hard in Europe. > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------- Lance: Your first statement is contrary to everything I've read on this subject. To whom did they offer to surrender? One resource states: "The atomic bomb helped to make an invasion of Japan unnecessary. On August 6, a B-29 called the Enola Gay dropped the first atomic bomb used in warfare, on the city of Hiroshima. More than 92,000 poeple were killed or ended up missing. Three days later, an atomic bomb was dropped on Nagasaki, which killed at least 40,000. Injuries from the two bombings were about equal to the deaths. Others would die later from radiation sickness. The Japanese realized that they were helpless if one atomic bomb could cause so much damage. On August 10, the Japanese government asked the Allies if uncondional surrender meant that Emperor Hirohito would have to give up his throne. The Allies replied that the Japanese people would decide his fate. On August 14, the Allies received a message from Japan accepting the surrender terms, and on September 2, aboard the battleship Missouri in Tokyo Bay, the Allies and Japan signed the surrender agreement." -- from http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1661.html. Have you any supportive documentation you can point us to? The rest can be supported in part. -- Larry From jehms at xs4all.nl Fri Oct 7 10:30:07 2005 From: jehms at xs4all.nl (Erik Hoogcarspel) Date: Fri Oct 7 10:36:03 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: <43454D7A.1080305@cola.iges.org> References: <1127942930.6308.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> <433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net><617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org> <4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net><1359619694.20051004213630@kungzhi.org> <43441B56.7080303@nerim.net> <1479321719.20051006043947@kungzhi.org><003c01c5ca43$01172200$c8369c04@Dan> <4344DBFE.8030202@nerim.net> <00c701c5ca62$e5c7f5e0$c8369c04@Dan> <43454D7A.1080305@cola.iges.org> Message-ID: <4346A28F.4080202@xs4all.nl> curt schreef: > Where is Europe anyway? > At the other side of the big water east of North Mexico Erik www.xs4all.nl/~jehms From jehms at xs4all.nl Fri Oct 7 10:27:08 2005 From: jehms at xs4all.nl (Erik Hoogcarspel) Date: Fri Oct 7 10:36:12 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: <00bb01c5ca59$2aa93700$c8369c04@Dan> References: <1127942930.6308.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> <433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net><617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org> <4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net><1359619694.20051004213630@kungzhi.org> <43441B56.7080303@nerim.net> <1479321719.20051006043947@kungzhi.org><003c01c5ca43$01172200$c8369c04@Dan> <4344DA9B.8040908@xs4all.nl> <00bb01c5ca59$2aa93700$c8369c04@Dan> Message-ID: <4346A1DC.60908@xs4all.nl> Dan, sorry for the delay, but I had some pondering to do. Dan Lusthaus schreef: >>You may >>ask yourself what would be the smartest move: building many huge prisons >>and raising a hugy army or helping the poor to live a decent life. >> >> > >Eric, >If this were a different kind of email list, we could devote some time to >enumerating and debunking the ten most common fallacies (or 25 most common, >or 100 most common) mindlessly and inappropriately reiterated to prevent >insight and thinking (and blame someone else). > > Allright let's stop the blaming game. >Bin Laden not only has more money than the collective readership of this >list, ... > Right, so being rich doesnot stop you from being miserable or mean. Let's not blame the money. But I bet many gangmembers would become decent citizens if the could find a good job. You see, recognition is one of the most powerfull drives for us humans. > >Exercise number one: mindfulness, sm.rti, which means listen to what they >say carefully. What do they want? A hallal chicken in every pot, or >hegemony? > > Maybe they don't litterally mean what they say. Maybe you listen the wrong way. Like the Israelis and the Palastines: each vowes to annihilate the other, but they know they will have to settle for a compromise. I have a reason to write this. I recently finfished a short piece about Mohamed Bouyeri, the killer of Theo van Gogh. I compared his closing speach with Albert Camus'novel: 'The Stranger'. There are striking similarities and I learned something from Camus about this terrorist. He just fell from the human world without realising or wanting it. There are circumstances which can make persons terrorists and it's much more effective to prevent people to become terrorists than to put them in jail afterwards. By the way, Bush twisted the truth once again (probably the only thing he understood from the teachings of Leo Strauss). He said that Mohammed B. didn't feel compassion for the mother of Theo because she was an infidel. The exact words of Mohammed were: 'I confess honestly that I don't sympathize with you, I don't your pain, I cannot. I don't know waht it is to lose a child that's been brought into the world wiht so much pain and tears. This is partly because I'm not a women and partly because I cannot sympathize with you because I believe you're an unbeliever. You can blame me for this and you may blame me for this.' > On the other hand, if you really believe what you said, you should be 150% >behind Bush's invasion of Iraq, since that has been one of the goals for >creating a decent nation in post-Saddam Iraq (the "beacon of democracy" >spiel). For some reason, there are people -- most not even Iraqis -- who >would rather kill women, children, clerics in their mosques, and anyone else >who gets in *their* way, rather than allow a decent infrastructure to be >built that would provide a decent living for Iraqi citizens. Ponder that >long and hard, my friend. > > Well if old Georgy had converted the Iraki's to the religion of Santa Claus and had convinced them that he's The One, they surely would have invited all Yanks with their heavenly presents ;-) . But somehow they don't. So there must have been some miscommunication. Maybe someone just should explain them! Erik www.xs4all.nl/~jehms From bcarral at kungzhi.org Fri Oct 7 10:29:24 2005 From: bcarral at kungzhi.org (Benito Carral) Date: Fri Oct 7 10:36:19 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: <4344BEF0.5050801@nerim.net> References: <1127942930.6308.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> <433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net> <617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org> <4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net> <1128439345.4561.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4342B590.2000901@nerim.net> <02556858.20051004215015@kungzhi.org> <43441C32.3010504@nerim.net> <401926149.20051006042841@kungzhi.org> <4344BEF0.5050801@nerim.net> Message-ID: <1998940786.20051007182924@kungzhi.org> On Thursday, October 6, 2005, Joy Vriens wrote: >> Today I was talking with a friend for some hours. I >> explained him my view on Western society and why I'm >> leaving Oviedo in some months to live a completely >> different life that he doesn't understand. > You are referring to your Conversion project, you > mentioned a while ago? Yes, it has much to do with it, although that is just a short-term goal included in a broader life strategy. >> So I think that not losing oneself in impermanent >> amusements is not to be a pessimist but a realist >> guy. > If I could lose myself in impermanent amusements, I > would be amusing myself all the time. But I am too > much of a natural Jansenist, to be able to do that. > We Buddhists are second category humans, we shouldn't > forget that. It is those who can amuse themselves > that are superior human beings, not us. I have enjoyed your way of expressing it. :-) I can't lose myself in such entertainment, either. I have always been unable to do it. Maybe the Old Guy's teachings are just a smart way of dealing with the innate incapacity of some of us to lose ourselves in impermanent amusements. You are right, I suppose that we are nonfunctional westerners. > Frankly, I don't know what *his* general message is. > But end of dukkha is an excellent lowest common > denominator of Buddhism in general. I agree. But I tend to take the Old Indian Guy's word and believe that his only goal was the end of dukkha. >> The other one said that happiness is not feeling bad >> and feeling good sometimes, and a good way to >> achieve it, she said, is to be entertained. > I agree with her, if by being entertained she doesn't > necessarily mean superficial amusement. That rises the interesting question of what a "superficial amusement" is. > Anyway, the construction of our life, the weaving of > all the threads that constitutes our life is nothing > else than entertainment, a sort of escape from the > nothingness. We could even redefine Buddhist meditation as the art of being entertained not matter how bad the show is. > You probably know the famous quote > "There is, O monks, an unborn, an unbecome, an > unmade, an unconditioned; [...] I know. :-) We are dealing here with a controversy that has lasted more than two millennia now, so I would only say that, as far as I'm concerned, the Old Guy was just looking for the ultimate way out. It's quite interesting that the Cosmic Award (TM) for being a non-attached, peaceful and wise individual is final extinction (khandhaparinibbaana). (That's why if one is a Buddhist and doesn't believe in rebirth, he could come to think that killing others is the best bodhisattvic endeavor, but I'm digressing here.) Best wishes, Beni From jkirk at spro.net Fri Oct 7 10:57:37 2005 From: jkirk at spro.net (jkirk) Date: Fri Oct 7 11:06:08 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo References: <1127942930.6308.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> <433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net><617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org> <4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net><1359619694.20051004213630@kungzhi.org> <43441B56.7080303@nerim.net> <1479321719.20051006043947@kungzhi.org><003c01c5ca43$01172200$c8369c04@Dan> <4344DBFE.8030202@nerim.net><00c701c5ca62$e5c7f5e0$c8369c04@Dan> <4345220A.5040309@nerim.net><1667485633.20051007043716@kungzhi.org> <43462606.40507@nerim.net> Message-ID: <003901c5cb60$38e30c30$2930cece@charlie> >> Having said that, I must admit that if >> someone would try to kill someone from my family, I >> would not hesitate a second in using the necessary >> counter-force. It seems that I'm irremediably caught in >> samsara, so I will try to use this knowledge in an >> useful way. =============== One currently alive expert on buddhadharma, HHDL, said the following: At an afternoon talk by the Dalai Lama on May 14, 2001 to 7,600 Oregon and southwest Washington high-school students, one girl wanted to know how to react to a shooter who takes aim at a classmate. The Dalai Lama said acts of violence should be remembered, and then forgiveness should be extended to the perpetrators. But if someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, he said, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun... "(1) (1) Tuesday, May 15, 2001 'Dalai Lama urges students to shape world' By Hal Bernton, Seattle Times staff reporter) I see no problem with personal self-defense. Joanna From selwyn at ntlworld.com Fri Oct 7 13:35:47 2005 From: selwyn at ntlworld.com (L.S. Cousins) Date: Fri Oct 7 13:46:14 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: >Have you any supportive documentation you can point us to? The rest can be >supported in part. > >-- Larry Try: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4724793.stm My initial statement may have been a little strong, but it is clear that the U.S. knew that Japan was making peace overtures. It is evident that a decision was made to not explore that possibility. Lance Cousins From wdkish81 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 7 17:28:24 2005 From: wdkish81 at yahoo.com (Bill Kish) Date: Fri Oct 7 17:36:08 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Indian commentaries to Candrakirti's Madhyamaka-avatara Message-ID: <20051007232824.44134.qmail@web30511.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Does anyone know if there are there any Indian commentaries to Candrakirti's Madhyamaka-avatara aside from Jayananda's and Candrakirti's own autocommentary ? Was there any criticism of Candrakirti's views, either within the Buddhist tradition or in non-Buddhist Indian schools of thought, that may have influenced Tibetan views on his works ? --------- Bill Kish __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From s.hodge at padmacholing.freeserve.co.uk Fri Oct 7 18:55:00 2005 From: s.hodge at padmacholing.freeserve.co.uk (Stephen Hodge) Date: Fri Oct 7 18:57:19 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo References: Message-ID: <000801c5cba3$0a22d590$256a4e51@zen> Lance Cousins wrote: > My initial statement may have been a little strong, but it is clear that > the U.S. knew that Japan was making peace overtures. It is evident that a > decision was made to not explore that possibility. The views of Tsuyoshi Hasegawa as summarized in the BBC link you gave are not particularly new. I have Japanese books dealing with the end months of the Pacific War from which it is apparent that these claims about Japanese peace overtures have been commonplace in Japan for decades. Without benefit of access to all the surviving primary sources, it would seem plausible that the both the US and Japan would have a vested interest in presenting a somewhat different account of these peace overtures, each favouring and justifying their own perspective. But as they say, it's the victors who always write the history. Additionally, the polito-military situation in Japan during the last months of the Pacific War as things began to unravel dramatically, bordering on anarchy, was also very complex with a number of factions, civilian and military, each with conflicting agendas, some pro-peace, some prepared for a conditional or partial cessation of hostilities, and others prepared to fight to the bitter end (some were also prepared to deposd or even murder the Emperor) -- even the Imperial Army, Navy and Air Force were at loggerheads by then, both internally and externally. If the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had not have ocurred, it is difficult to determine who would have ultimately prevailed. However, Japan was virtually exhausted and would have found it difficult to defend the country in any meaningful sense within a very short space of time after August 1945. I also have the testimony of a very high-ranking Japanese officer based in the military headquarters in Tokyo, whom I knew personally, who also believed that the pro-peace faction would have prevailed within a matter of weeks after the late Soviet entry into the Pacific War -- perhaps all the Allies need to have done would have been to sit back and wait. Best wishes, Stephen Hodge From chanfu at gmail.com Fri Oct 7 19:24:28 2005 From: chanfu at gmail.com (Chan Fu) Date: Fri Oct 7 19:26:10 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: <000801c5cba3$0a22d590$256a4e51@zen> References: <000801c5cba3$0a22d590$256a4e51@zen> Message-ID: On 10/7/05, Stephen Hodge wrote: "If the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had not have ocurred..." If I was abbot, I'd have your ass just for that first "if" From jkirk at spro.net Fri Oct 7 19:20:26 2005 From: jkirk at spro.net (jkirk) Date: Fri Oct 7 19:26:13 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Too Much Religion May Be A Dangerous Thing Message-ID: <003e01c5cba6$76fb0860$2930cece@charlie> Too Much Religion May Be A Dangerous Thing (http://www.kintera.org/TR.asp?ID=M711527555754211719779965&af=y) "This is the implication of a study reported in the current issue of the Journal of Religion and Society, a publication of Creighton University's Center for the Study of Religion. The study, by evolutionary scientist Gregory S. Paul, looks at the correlation between levels of "popular religiosity" and various "quantifiable societal health" indicators in 18 prosperous democracies, including the United States.... He found that the most religious democracies exhibited substantially higher degrees of social dysfunction than societies with larger percentages of atheists and agnostics. Of the nations studied, the U.S. which has by far the largest percentage of people who take the Bible literally and express absolute belief in God (and the lowest percentage of atheists and agnostics) also has by far the highest levels of homicide, abortion, teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. (Los Angeles Times, "The dark side of faith," 10-01-05) Joanna From chanfu at gmail.com Fri Oct 7 19:22:16 2005 From: chanfu at gmail.com (Chan Fu) Date: Fri Oct 7 19:27:21 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Karen Armstrong was in Boise last night In-Reply-To: <00bc01c5c9d6$fb5679e0$2930cece@charlie> References: <00bc01c5c9d6$fb5679e0$2930cece@charlie> Message-ID: On 10/5/05, jkirk wrote: > Posted by Joanna > > She's the author of _The Battle for God_, about the causes of the rise of > fundamentalism world-wide. She was invited to Ketchum ID in September, when > the Dalai Lama was here, to moderate an interfaith discussion after his > public talks. > > "It was her first meeting with the Tibetan spiritual leader, and it left a > strong impression. > 'We were in the presence of a very holy man, completely without ego," she > said. "We really should all lighten up a bit because so much of our > pomposity comes from egotism and a sense of our own righteousness.'" > > >From a local article and interview with her, see > http://www.idahostatesman.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051002/NEWS04/510020314&SearchID=73222442394537 May I assume this is a quotation? May I answer conversationally, in the interest of art? > What is your next project? > > I've got a new book coming out in the spring. It's a history of the Axial > Age, a period from 900 to 200 B.C., when all the world's major religions > came into being at much the same time. "Major religions"? Perhaps you meant "modern organized religions". Certainly the Inca, the Aztec, the Egyptian religions were as "major" as religion could get, at the time. Needless to say, I've missed a few, but let's continue... > It shows what the religions have in common, how profoundly similar they are, > right across the board, how none of them are particularly interested in > doctrines or beliefs or metaphysics. They're interested in behavior and, > above all, they emphasize the importance of compassion and nonviolence. Well, perhaps people suddenly discovered that humanism was more important than myth and belief? Why attribute such a thing to religion, rather than human maturity? > The book is also a kind of critique of the way we are religious today, > because very often people like Buddha or Jesus would be rather astonished at > the kind of religions that are going on in their name. This is the kind of > religiosity, for example, that they wanted to get rid of. Jesus is in heaven and Buddha is dead - this is an argument from personification and projection. I invite anyone to prove motives or intentions from such sources. > I'm trying very hard to be optimistic because it's very dangerous to be > pessimistic. Pessimism and despair lead to nihilistic terrorism. We must > keep optimistic. It's very hard, but we have to keep optimistic. The > alternative is unthinkable. Buddhism accepts what happens. It's neither optimistic nor pessimistic. Nature - the universe of which we are part - makes no determination one way or the other. Nature is a Buddhist. WOW! "Pessimism and despair lead to nihilistic terrorism" this sounds something like the creationist's claim that accepting evolution leads to godlessness and thence to immorality (as if morality were inscribed in star formations). > Increasingly now, more groups are going to have powers of destruction that > were previously the preserve only of the nation-states (political units of > organization). Nineteen men with box cutters and penknives brought the > United States to its knees. It's only a matter of time before one of these > groups gets a nuclear weapon. This is catastrophic. We have got to sort > these problems out. A long time ago, the Mongol empire, and many empires after that, held the same sway and influence. In fact, they conquered the known world many times over. The 911 terrorists brought nothing to it's knees. We will do that ourselves, through fear, paranoia and retreat from our own principles. Thinking that *WE* (yes, that's the imperial WE) have the answer is about as Buddhistically stupid as I can imagine. Your book, Ms. Armstrong, is nothing but an appeal to religion, an empty injunction of humanity and a search for a father figure. You should consider your own actions and decisions, your own understanding, your own ga-ga-ism. Surely you know that there is indeed a principle of survival, and that it actually applies. Surely you know that the universe doesn't give a damn what you think. From jkirk at spro.net Fri Oct 7 19:40:48 2005 From: jkirk at spro.net (jkirk) Date: Fri Oct 7 19:46:12 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo References: <000801c5cba3$0a22d590$256a4e51@zen> Message-ID: <006301c5cba9$4f483150$2930cece@charlie> Why? Joanna ================ > On 10/7/05, Stephen Hodge wrote: > > "If the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had not have ocurred..." >================ > Chan Fu said, > If I was abbot, I'd have your ass just for that first "if" From s.hodge at padmacholing.freeserve.co.uk Fri Oct 7 20:12:37 2005 From: s.hodge at padmacholing.freeserve.co.uk (Stephen Hodge) Date: Fri Oct 7 20:16:15 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo References: <000801c5cba3$0a22d590$256a4e51@zen> Message-ID: <002401c5cbad$d34dd000$5d6c4e51@zen> Chan Fu wrote: >> "If the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had not ocurred..." > If I was abbot, I'd have your ass just for that first "if" Oh dear, yet another smart-arse on this list ! If I were abbot, I'd send you off for basic English lessons. Never heard of the conditional ? So I rephrase: "It is difficult to determine who would have ultimately prevailed if the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had not ocurred". Perfectly clear and coherent. Best wishes, Stephen Hodge From chanfu at gmail.com Fri Oct 7 21:13:24 2005 From: chanfu at gmail.com (Chan Fu) Date: Fri Oct 7 21:16:11 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: <002401c5cbad$d34dd000$5d6c4e51@zen> References: <000801c5cba3$0a22d590$256a4e51@zen> <002401c5cbad$d34dd000$5d6c4e51@zen> Message-ID: On 10/7/05, Stephen Hodge wrote: > Chan Fu wrote: > > >> "If the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had not ocurred..." > > > If I was abbot, I'd have your ass just for that first "if" > > Oh dear, yet another smart-arse on this list ! If I were abbot, I'd send > you off for basic English lessons. Never heard of the conditional ? So I > rephrase: "It is difficult to determine who would have ultimately prevailed > if the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had not ocurred". Perfectly clear > and coherent. > > Best wishes, > Stephen Hodge If you have a problem with my english, be assured that the Buddha didn't speak it. But ok then, next time I'll say "arse". From joy.vriens at nerim.net Fri Oct 7 23:01:15 2005 From: joy.vriens at nerim.net (Joy Vriens) Date: Fri Oct 7 23:06:15 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: <1998940786.20051007182924@kungzhi.org> References: <1127942930.6308.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> <433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net> <617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org> <4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net> <1128439345.4561.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4342B590.2000901@nerim.net> <02556858.20051004215015@kungzhi.org> <43441C32.3010504@nerim.net> <401926149.20051006042841@kungzhi.org> <4344BEF0.5050801@nerim.net> <1998940786.20051007182924@kungzhi.org> Message-ID: <4347529B.10705@nerim.net> Benito Carral wrote: >>>The other one said that happiness is not feeling bad >>>and feeling good sometimes, and a good way to >>>achieve it, she said, is to be entertained. >>I agree with her, if by being entertained she doesn't >>necessarily mean superficial amusement. > That rises the interesting question of what a > "superficial amusement" is. I was thinking a bit along the lines of Paul Diel's psychology of motivation, where superficial amusements would be false or exalted imaginations, also called multiple desires, that distract us from the genuin motivation to construct ourselves. To construct ourselves is a destraction from our basic nothingness, but a worthwile enterprise. If you think of exalted imaginations as prapanca, you have a nice little cocktail here, with bits of Diel, Sartre and Indian epistemology. Superficial amusement. ;-) >>Anyway, the construction of our life, the weaving of >>all the threads that constitutes our life is nothing >>else than entertainment, a sort of escape from the >>nothingness. > We could even redefine Buddhist meditation as the > art of being entertained not matter how bad the show > is. Well, as Louis de la Vall?e Poussin observes very subtly with his usual sense of humour, after begging in the morning and eating their meals those bikkhus had to get through their afternoons. > It's quite interesting that the Cosmic Award (TM) > for being a non-attached, peaceful and wise individual > is final extinction (khandhaparinibbaana). I think that the Cosmic Award (TM) is a life of non-attachment, peace and wisdom followed by final extinction (apr?s nous le d?luge). I couldn't wish myself anything better than that. > (That's why > if one is a Buddhist and doesn't believe in rebirth, he > could come to think that killing others is the best > bodhisattvic endeavor, but I'm digressing here.) I am afraid I was the one digressing, but I think that everything that could be said on that subject has been said by now. Joy From dlusthau at mailer.fsu.edu Sat Oct 8 01:25:36 2005 From: dlusthau at mailer.fsu.edu (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Sat Oct 8 01:27:25 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Hiroshima vs Terrorism..........? References: <20051007111019.97987.qmail@web60812.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <00de01c5cbd9$7a7f44f0$e51b9c04@Dan> There is no way Hiroshima "saved" lifes...............Dan arguments are "conceptual". catalina It was anything but conceptual to the people who were no longer being eaten by Japanese soldiers, the POWs who were perishing en masse, the potential allied invading forces who would have suffered incalculable and needless casualties, the Japanese citizens who were mobilized and of an impassioned ethos to fight any invasion to the last women and child... those lives were all saved just for starters. One cannot try to judge or extrapolate from how certain European nations respond to aggression (basically capitulate once resistance seems ineffective) with the Japanese ethos of that time. One only has to look at some of the popular Japanese cinema of recent decades -- often a pointless nihilism culminating in pointless death or suicide, which resonates 'positively' with Japanese audiences on a deep emotional level, while confounding westerners or seeming exotically bizarre (though not bizarre to Japanese) -- to see that that ethos is not gone even today. And the prominent role Zen played in constructing and reinforcing that ethos is the subject matter of Brian Victoria's two books. Read them if you'd like more documentation than you will be comfortable with. Go to the library and read up on Iwo Jima. That wasn't even the homeland. The expectation was that any invasion of the Japanese mainland would produce an Iwo Jima-like situation to the nth degree, an expectation confirmed by the Japanese rhetoric of the day (the chrysanthymum should perish in a blaze of glory for the Emperor), especially from the most powerful echelons of the decision makers. While the bomb has become a mythic icon for marital overkill in the West, non-Japanese Asians have never looked at it that way. The dropping of the bombs were and remain for them liberational events, comparable to concentration camp survivors being liberated from their camps (Japanese occupational cruelty has become legendary -- comfort women, cannibalism, etc). Did any of you follow the anti-Japan internet campaign in China last Spring? Have you paid attention to what the Koreans (North and South) continue to say about Japan and the war years? Have you wondered why the anti-Japanese anger in Asia is still so powerful and palpable? Post-War Japan -- for domestic and international reasons -- found it better PR to portray themselves as the victims of the war (Hiroshima) rather than the aggressors. Just as Austrians disclaim responsibility for what Austrians did during the War, blaming everything on the Anschluss -- forgetting that they lined the streets cheering the Nazis' arrival, and were more than willing partners. Dan Lusthaus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20051008/56e2d7b7/attachment.html From dlusthau at mailer.fsu.edu Sat Oct 8 02:40:32 2005 From: dlusthau at mailer.fsu.edu (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Sat Oct 8 02:46:19 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Hiroshima vs Terrorism..........? References: <20051007111019.97987.qmail@web60812.mail.yahoo.com> <00de01c5cbd9$7a7f44f0$e51b9c04@Dan> Message-ID: <014401c5cbe3$f2526cf0$e51b9c04@Dan> Typo: Should have read "martial" for "marital" in "...a mythic icon for marital overkill in the West.." Dan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20051008/a5e6760c/attachment.html From dlusthau at mailer.fsu.edu Sat Oct 8 03:11:38 2005 From: dlusthau at mailer.fsu.edu (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Sat Oct 8 03:16:16 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo References: <1127942930.6308.49.camel@localhost.localdomain><433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net><617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org><4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net><1359619694.20051004213630@kungzhi.org><43441B56.7080303@nerim.net><1479321719.20051006043947@kungzhi.org><003c01c5ca43$01172200$c8369c04@Dan><4344DA9B.8040908@xs4all.nl><00bb01c5ca59$2aa93700$c8369c04@Dan><1128621156.4783.55.camel@localhost.localdomain><008901c5cabf$30ff5010$bc369c04@Dan> <43461940.1060905@nerim.net><022701c5cb19$ff594ab0$bc369c04@Dan> Message-ID: <014501c5cbe8$4a523580$e51b9c04@Dan> Hi Lance, > This goes too far. Hardly. > The Japanese government had already offered to surrender. First, we have to recognize that the deployment of the A-bomb has become a mythic event, one deemed inconceivably "evil" (or some synonym) by a large number of people -- who, incidentally, cringe when someone like Bush uses that term to characterize something else. Given the arms race and post-war angst, not to mention the awesome destructive power nuclear weapons respresent, this is understandable, Knowing that Hitler was working on developing the bomb up until the end of the war, and the target he would have dropped it on would have been London, must make all this quite poignant for British citizens (and easy to ellide one "evil" into another). Dispelling misconceptions so deeply encrusted in myth is not an easy task. That we invariably talk about "Hiroshima" while Nagasaki remains at most an afterthought shows that this "event" has become an iconic mythic event in general discussion, rather than a subject of rational history. Dealing with myth rather than history, moral convictions rather than historical facts have dominated the discourse. These convictions are as deeply and zealously clung to as religious convictions (sometimes they are even placed under that rubric), so attempts at rational discussion are perceived as attacks on sacred, inviolable cows. With decades of an agenda to justify classifying the "event" as evil, lots of "conspiracy"-type theories have flooded the discussion, eagerly embraced by whoever was seeking backup material or vindication for their mythic convictions. All this makes it very difficult to discuss such things calmly and rationally. We now have lots of facts, archives, etc., at our disposal, and there are legitimate differences of interpretation of those facts. There are also the insupportable assertions based on misconstrual of actual facts (as, for instance, holocaust deniers attempt to do). We also have to remember this was an act of war that took place during a long and brutal war initiated by the Japanese themselves, an act designed to bring the war, killing, carnage to an end. Remove the bomb from the equation and killing doesn't automatically stop. The firebombing of Tokyo was actually more destructive overall than the A-bombs. Would anyone participating in this discussion care to post for us the casualties (dead, wounded) broken down by nationality, and the casualties of the bombs separately? It was a tragedy, it opened a new and still dangerous page in the canons of warfare, but in the end it was warfare That the assertion "the Japanese government had *already* offered to surrender" is an improper misuse of facts, distorting the actual historical record (we need first to determine the different types of "surrender" that were under discussion at that time) becomes obvious when we bring Nagasaki out of the shadows. If the Japanese were so eager to surrender, why wasn't Hiroshima sufficient to bring that about? Why did they hold out until Nagasaki? One would have to believe that the US and Allies were not interested in surrender at all, they just wanted to extend the war as much as possible. That's absurd (unless one's rhetoric is based on always attributing the worst motives to anything American). An earlier surrender would have effectively cut the Russians out of the deal (one of the motives the conspiratorial revisionists float), making the bomb superfluous and unnecessary. Or one has to believe (as someone on the list claimed), it was all just a sadistic experiment -- in which case we must believe somehow that in the days between Hiroshima and Nagasaki the desparate pleas of the Japanese to surrender were just falling on the deaf sadistic ears of the Americans, and that somehow those pleas have been expunged from the historical record by the victors who rewrote history. All of that is nonsense. As I wrote in a previous message: "Violence ultimately is just another form of impermanence, one more problematic than dying of old age since it seems in many cases to be avoidable. " All these revisionistic theories are attempts to make a case that the bomb was avoidable, and hence unjustifiable violence. Ergo, those who pose these theories for the most part do not do so by arguing that it would have been preferable to bring about Japan's surrender by conventional military means, since anyone even slightly aware of what that means understands that the casualties and destruction would have been far greater on both sides. Therefore, they have to argue that the bomb was unnecessary, Japan would have surrendered without deploying either option. That's just naive wishful thinking, unsupported by any of the facts -- the loudest and simplest refutation being the lag between Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The US demanded unconditional surrender (a justifiable demand given the way Japan initiated and prosecuted the war). Japan sought better terms, and some believed Stalin would offer that. Stalin stalled and ultimately rebuked them, advancing into Manchuria making it clear to Japan and the remaining Allies that he had designs on Japan (Japan had been fighting with Russia over territory since the beginning of the 20th c., and had embarrassed them, they had also invaded Russia in an attempt to defend the Czar from the Communist takeover). Had the bomb not been dropped and conventional means deployed instead, the "iron curtain" would have fallen somewhere within Japan -- the record shows that that was a concern, another reason to bring the war to a swift conclusion before the Russian advance complicated things (as anyone familiar with the Russian advance in Europe toward the end of the war realizes, the last thing on the Russians' mind was limiting casualties). The Japanese probed whether the Russians would offer more generous surrender conditions. To the US demand for unconditional surrender, the Japanese presented unacceptable counterproposals. They did not actually offer to surrender. While those negotiations continued, people under occupation were dying in massive amounts, and battlefield casualties continued to mount. Even after the official surrender, many Japanese soldiers refused to surrender, and Japanese officers and diplomats themselves had to scour Asia and the Pacific to get them to put down their weapons. Many committed seppuku, since surrender was unacceptable and inconceivable. What the archives show is that after Hiroshima, the Japanese believed the US had used the only bomb they had, and so they gambled that there would be no repeat performance. They were not surrendering. After Nagasaki it became clear that there were more bombs where the first one came from (actually after Nagasaki it would have been months before another bomb could have been constructed, but the Japanese did not know that). Some factions wanted to continue fighting regardless, though, according to some accounts, it was Hirohito himself who finally put the brakes on (we'll probably never know). At that point the Japanese finally made serious surrender overtures -- so serious that the US conceded the condition that the Emperor be allowed to remain, something that MacArthur was campaigning for anyway, rightly believing it would make post-war occupation and reconstruction easier. > A warning [to the Soviets] - not to push too hard in Europe. I'm not sure that's really true, but if it were, that too would be a good. If that sort magical alchemy really works, then I imagine the Hungarians, Czechs, Poles, East Germans, etc. might wish that a few more bombs would have been dropped. By mentioning that I haven't explicitly mentioned Buddhism, have I mentioned Buddhism? Dan Lusthaus From vthewalt at gmx.net Sat Oct 8 03:27:31 2005 From: vthewalt at gmx.net (Volker Thewalt) Date: Sat Oct 8 03:36:18 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: <43454D7A.1080305@cola.iges.org> References: <1127942930.6308.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> <433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net><617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org> <4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net><1359619694.20051004213630@kungzhi.org> <43441B56.7080303@nerim.net> <1479321719.20051006043947@kungzhi.org><003c01c5ca43$01172200$c8369c04@Dan> <4344DBFE.8030202@nerim.net> <00c701c5ca62$e5c7f5e0$c8369c04@Dan> <43454D7A.1080305@cola.iges.org> Message-ID: <43479103.20104@gmx.net> Hi Curt, maybe you ask Donald Rumsfeld about Europe ... He seems to be better informed than you are. curt wrote: > ........ Where is Europe anyway? I was > just looking for it on a map of the world - but I couldn't find it. Can > somebody please explain to me what its geographical boundaries are - and > how it constitutes a Continent? ....... I mean, he even made out two different Europes! So check your maps --- they may be outdated. Best Volker -- Dr. Volker Thewalt Kapellenweg 8 69257 Wiesenbach Deutschland +49 6223 970122 http://www.bamiyan.de --------------------- From dlusthau at mailer.fsu.edu Sat Oct 8 03:27:53 2005 From: dlusthau at mailer.fsu.edu (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Sat Oct 8 03:36:21 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo References: <1127942930.6308.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> <433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net><617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org> <4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net><1359619694.20051004213630@kungzhi.org> <43441B56.7080303@nerim.net> <1479321719.20051006043947@kungzhi.org><003c01c5ca43$01172200$c8369c04@Dan> <4344DBFE.8030202@nerim.net><00c701c5ca62$e5c7f5e0$c8369c04@Dan> <43454D7A.1080305@cola.iges.org> Message-ID: <014d01c5cbea$8fdba710$e51b9c04@Dan> > If the United States would withdraw all of its military presence from > the Middle East, and end its unconditional subsidy of Israel, the > "Islamic Threat" would go away. Let's add this too common misconception to the list of fallacies. It goes to the top of my list. Get out that map of yours again, and get a list of all the present ongoing conflicts around the globe (the UN provides one). Now mark all those places on your map. Now connect the dots. When you are done you will have circumscribed the boundaries of the Islamic world (with some additional conflicts within those boundaries). None of that has anything to do with Israel. In fact one of the more optimistic things to emerge in recent weeks is the initiation by a variety of Arab and Muslim nations to consider and even initiate relations with Israel (Pakistan, UAE, Kuwait, etc.) -- at the same time that Europeans are atavistically trying to ratchet up efforts to boycott Israel. Even the Muslims know that this is a fallacy -- they also know it's the most effective thing to say to the international press whenever something embarrassing is happening in the Muslim world that they don't want to talk about. 2000 years of European history shows them that this is a very effective scapegoat argument that has legs in the West. If you think handing control of the Saudi and Iraqi oil reserves to Bin Laden will make jihadist pursuit of hegemony go away, request your doctor to prescribe some smelling salts. There is a Buddhist sutra that draws a distinction between dogs and lions: If you throw a stone at a dog, he chases the stone; if you throw a stone at a lion, he chases you. Don't be a dog. Dan Lusthaus From selwyn at ntlworld.com Sat Oct 8 02:32:33 2005 From: selwyn at ntlworld.com (L.S. Cousins) Date: Sat Oct 8 03:56:45 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: <000801c5cba3$0a22d590$256a4e51@zen> References: <000801c5cba3$0a22d590$256a4e51@zen> Message-ID: Stephen, >The views of Tsuyoshi Hasegawa as summarized in the BBC link you >gave are not particularly new. I have Japanese books dealing with >the end months of the Pacific War from which it is apparent that >these claims about Japanese peace overtures have been commonplace in >Japan for decades. Without benefit of access to all the surviving >primary sources, it would seem plausible that the both the US and >Japan would have a vested interest in presenting a somewhat >different account of these peace overtures, each favouring and >justifying their own perspective. But as they say, it's the victors >who always write the history. > The claim about peace overtures was actually made by the Japanese leadership in 1945. See their letter of August 10th, offering to surrender: http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/war.term/093_03.html . My understanding is that this is confirmed from Allied sources. >If the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had not occurred [typos >corrected], it is difficult to determine who would have ultimately >prevailed. However, Japan was virtually exhausted and would have >found it difficult to defend the country in any meaningful sense >within a very short space of time after August 1945. I also have >the testimony of a very high-ranking Japanese officer based in the >military headquarters in Tokyo, whom I knew personally, who also >believed that the pro-peace faction would have prevailed within a >matter of weeks after the late Soviet entry into the Pacific War -- >perhaps all the Allies need to have done would have been to sit back >and wait. I think we are basically in agreement. Lance Cousins From dlusthau at mailer.fsu.edu Sat Oct 8 04:36:27 2005 From: dlusthau at mailer.fsu.edu (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Sat Oct 8 04:46:20 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo References: <1127942930.6308.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> <433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net><617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org> <4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net><1359619694.20051004213630@kungzhi.org> <43441B56.7080303@nerim.net><1479321719.20051006043947@kungzhi.org><003c01c5ca43$01172200$c8369c04@Dan><4344DA9B.8040908@xs4all.nl> <00bb01c5ca59$2aa93700$c8369c04@Dan> <1128621156.4783.55.camel@localhost.localdomain><008901c5cabf$30ff5010$bc369c04@Dan> <43461940.1060905@nerim.net><022701c5cb19$ff594ab0$bc369c04@Dan> <43465FC4.7080207@nerim.net> Message-ID: <019701c5cbf4$23ed7330$e51b9c04@Dan> Joy Vriens wrote: > Is there a clean cut end to wars? It seems there has never been a year in recorded history in which some armed conflict wasn't occurring someplace. It sometimes looks like there are mere periods of relative calm between major conflicts, and those periods we call peace. That would be to view things through a very pessimistic cast. OTOH it also seems that Japan and (West) Germany have experienced peace and prosperity since 1945. That some of the preWar militaristic nationalistic rumblings seem to be reemerging in Japan is a reason for concern. More importantly, the people of Manchuria, China, Korea, Burma, the Philipines, etc. have seen a marked improvement in their lives, though wars have not disappeared from Asia by any means. >Violence and ultraviolence can end an open conflict, but not the > causes that led up to it. That's still better than doing nothing at all. > by destroying many lives, isn't that ironic? Apart from considering how > "saved" a traumatised person or country is. My wife is Japanese, and neither she nor her family nor her friends seem very traumatized. Japan today is more traumatized by fifteen years of recession than by any lingering WW II vestiges. The only remaining trauma of WW II seems to be by Westerners who are guilty for winning, and concentration camp survivors for surviving. The latter is unavoidable, the former is absurd. For a victor to be gloating and vindictive is not healty (the error of Versailles). Some remorse and compassion for the other side is admirable, but feeling guilty for winning is self-defeating and suicidal. > > those under Japanese occupation in South-East Asia and the > > Pacific islands who by that point in the war had not only been raped and > > plundered and had no food, but were being eaten by the occupying Japanese > > troops > There are desperate situations in which people do desperate things. > Those actions should not be a guideline or a justification for actions > of a democracy. The issue is not to judge, but which actions brought that desparate situation to an end. Interminable negotions about conditions of surrender would have doomed many additional people. > The bomb dropped on Hiroshima contained Uranium, the one used on > Nagasaki contained Plutonium. Part of the reason for dropping two bombs > was because the Americans wanted to see the effect of both designs." > http://www.banthebomb.org/archives/magazine/hiroshim.htm (it's the first > link I found, this is the information I was looking for, I don't know > about the rest of this site). I addressed this confused accusation of calculated sadism in a previous message. The Nagasaki bomb was dropped because the Hiroshima bomb was insufficient to compel surrender. The responsibility lies with the Japanese, since they were warned that if they didn't surrender additional bombs would be dropped. That, as a byproduct of trying out a new weapon, they were curious about how it would perform in the field is natural -- to have done otherwise would have been militarily irresponsible. All these are species of the argument that this particular form of military force was unnecessary. Once again, the gap between the two bombs is clear evidence that it was not. > No, violence doesn't have the same value for the one at the giving end > and the one at the receiving end. But I don't want to be the object of > any organised state violence, I don't want to be the victim of violence > of whatever value, No one does. That's why I suspect you have no immediate plans to attack Pearl Harbor or take over the Sudetenland for Lebensraum. > Dan, you tell me I am too simplistic and reductive, but read what you > just wrote here: "Violence ultimately is *just* another form of > impermanence". That is acceptable for a practising Buddhist, on a very > personal practice level when confronted with it, but we can't use this > reasoning to condone violence. Eating is violence (even by vegans); breathing is violence (every inhale bri ngs in thousands of microbes that die the moment the hit the lining of your lungs); plowing the earth is violence; surgery is violence; heating food is violence; even this relatively civilized discussion is violent. That's why Buddha said *all* is suffering. So one tries to turn poison into medicine. Medicine basically consists of toxic materials that one would not take if one were not ill. It is poison judiciously applied. Sadly, the same can be said for violence. > > But, when the life of individuals is at stake, they should never become > abstractions, simple equations like if X < Y than X is acceptable. On the contrary, that's precisely what ethics is. In the messy real world of better/worse (not absolute good/bad) we have no alternative. An example from _Jewish Literacy_ by Rabbi Joseph Telushkin, pp. 557-58: "The rabbis of the Talmud, for example, raise the following hypothetical question: Two men are in the desert, and only one of them has water. If he shares the water with his companion, he and his companion will both die; if he keeps the water for himself, he will ive and only his companion will die. What should he do? "One rabbi, Bar Petura, rules that the man should split the water, even if he dies as a result. Rabbi Akiva teaches, however, that the man with the water has the right to drink it. "The debate had long struck me as interesting but remote, until I hear Elie Wiesel, the noted writer and Holocaust survivor, refer to it in a lecture he delivered on Rabbi Akiva. 'Rabbi Akiva,' Wiesel said in reference to Akiva's statement that the man with the water had the right to drink it, 'was very hard, very hard on the survivor.'" Ethical thought doesn't erase the human, it provides guidance; and even the better course is sometimes very painful. Dan From dlusthau at mailer.fsu.edu Sat Oct 8 04:57:21 2005 From: dlusthau at mailer.fsu.edu (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Sat Oct 8 05:06:22 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo References: <000801c5cba3$0a22d590$256a4e51@zen> Message-ID: <01a301c5cbf7$0f5c6040$e51b9c04@Dan> > The claim about peace overtures was actually made by the Japanese > leadership in 1945. See their letter of August 10th, offering to > surrender: http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/war.term/093_03.html . My > understanding is that this is confirmed from Allied sources. Lance, Hiroshima was bombed on Aug 6th, Nagasaki on the 9th. That Japan surrendered on the 10th is not a revelation. Dan Lusthaus From dlusthau at mailer.fsu.edu Sat Oct 8 06:21:02 2005 From: dlusthau at mailer.fsu.edu (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Sat Oct 8 06:27:32 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo References: <000801c5cba3$0a22d590$256a4e51@zen> Message-ID: <01d101c5cc02$c4e32ab0$e51b9c04@Dan> > Without benefit > of access to all the surviving primary sources, it would seem plausible that > the both the US and Japan would have a vested interest in presenting a > somewhat different account of these peace overtures, each favouring and > justifying their own perspective. But as they say, it's the victors who > always write the history. Stephen, as is well known, the Japanese have engaged in very creative rewriting of the history of the War years. Everything except Hiroshima is forgotten; therefore Japan was a victim of the war, not the aggressor. Victims elicit a lot more sympathy than brutal aggressors. It's an image makeover that has proved very successful in the West and in generations of post-War Japanese raised on textbooks whose meager and distorted accounts have been a scandal, even in Japan. The Japanese Ministry of Education and the Japanese Supreme Court have effectively blocked all efforts to present more accurate textbooks. The other Asian countries, however, have never bought it for a minute, as the outcries in the two Koreas, PRC and elsewhere last spring remind us. Hirohito said virtually nothing about the war. When asked a question about the war by a reporter he responded: "I wouldn't know about that -- I'm just a simple botanist." That was the first and last time he was ever asked (or explained) anything about the War in public. The rest of Asia awaited his apology until his death, but it never came (the present Emperor has offered something, but still falling short of the apology expected. But the best way to cure yourself of that cynical nonargument about "victors" pretending to be an argument, here's a simple test. Check the syllabus of any Japanese professor or instructor who is teaching Japanese history in a Western University. You will discover that history mysteriously ends in 1935 and magically recommences in 1945. The years in between are a black hole. (Education in Japan is pretty similar -- apart from some self-serving autobiographies, mixing the requiste amount of remorse with a denial that it was really that bad. Victoria nails that literature pretty accurately). The new image of Zen (war years ignored for a new pacifistic spirituality) was part of the selling of that image overseas (that part of the makeover has not had much impact at home. Dan Lusthaus From selwyn at ntlworld.com Sat Oct 8 06:23:38 2005 From: selwyn at ntlworld.com (L.S. Cousins) Date: Sat Oct 8 06:27:40 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: <01a301c5cbf7$0f5c6040$e51b9c04@Dan> References: <000801c5cba3$0a22d590$256a4e51@zen> <01a301c5cbf7$0f5c6040$e51b9c04@Dan> Message-ID: You have rather missed the point, Dan. In the letter of August 10th the Japanese govt indicated that it had made overtures for peace several weeks earlier via the intermediary of the then-neutral Soviet Union. Ironically this simply triggered Stalin's opportunistic imperialism and may have been an additional factor in his declaring war i.e. the knowledge that he wouldn't actually have to fight. His reward was Sakhalin which remains under Russian occupation. U.S. Intelligence had intercepted Soviet communications and so knew about the offer. In other words there can be no reasonable doubt that when the order to drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was given, the U.S. President knew that Japan was willing to surrender. It is not clear that dropping those bombs actually had any impact on the Japanese decision. It did not change the division of opinion in their governing body at all, although it may have influenced the Emperor's own views which eventually became decisive. I agree that we should not read back the horror of nuclear weapons to that time. That really dates to the creation of large H-bombs in the following decade or so and the eventual realization that their use would make the survival of civilized society doubtful. From the Buddhist perspective, it seems to me that it is demonization or idolization of a race, a religion, a nation or a political orientation (left, right or centre) which is ultimately unacceptable. We all have allegiances or loyalties, but if we hold on to them too firmly and adopt rigid viewpoints based on them (or based on rejecting them), we become part of the problem instead of part of the cure. Lance Cousins > > The claim about peace overtures was actually made by the Japanese >> leadership in 1945. See their letter of August 10th, offering to >> surrender: http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/war.term/093_03.html . My >> understanding is that this is confirmed from Allied sources. > >Lance, > >Hiroshima was bombed on Aug 6th, Nagasaki on the 9th. That Japan surrendered >on the 10th is not a revelation. > >Dan Lusthaus From joy.vriens at nerim.net Sat Oct 8 06:46:44 2005 From: joy.vriens at nerim.net (Joy Vriens) Date: Sat Oct 8 06:57:33 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: <019701c5cbf4$23ed7330$e51b9c04@Dan> References: <1127942930.6308.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> <433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net><617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org> <4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net><1359619694.20051004213630@kungzhi.org> <43441B56.7080303@nerim.net><1479321719.20051006043947@kungzhi.org><003c01c5ca43$01172200$c8369c04@Dan><4344DA9B.8040908@xs4all.nl> <00bb01c5ca59$2aa93700$c8369c04@Dan> <1128621156.4783.55.camel@localhost.localdomain><008901c5cabf$30ff5010$bc369c04@Dan> <43461940.1060905@nerim.net><022701c5cb19$ff594ab0$bc369c04@Dan> <43465FC4.7080207@nerim.net> <019701c5cbf4$23ed7330$e51b9c04@Dan> Message-ID: <4347BFB4.9040105@nerim.net> Dan Lusthaus wrote: > It seems there has never been a year in recorded history in which some armed > conflict wasn't occurring someplace. It sometimes looks like there are mere > periods of relative calm between major conflicts, and those periods we call > peace. That would be to view things through a very pessimistic cast. But quite realistic I think, especially considering that wars can be teleported and remote-controlled on selected battlefield areas. >>Violence and ultraviolence can end an open conflict, but not the >>causes that led up to it. > That's still better than doing nothing at all. I don't know. Sometimes things need time and often military intervention creates other problems that aren't apparent straight away. In order to play God (in his punishing role) or Super righter of wrongs one needs to have the omniscience of a God. There also is the alternative of a more multilateral approach, where one admits one hasn't the monopoly on right view and action. >>by destroying many lives, isn't that ironic? Apart from considering how >>"saved" a traumatised person or country is. > My wife is Japanese, and neither she nor her family nor her friends seem > very traumatized. Japan today is more traumatized by fifteen years of > recession than by any lingering WW II vestiges. The only remaining trauma of > WW II seems to be by Westerners who are guilty for winning, and > concentration camp survivors for surviving. The latter is unavoidable, the > former is absurd. Absurd? There is a reason for everything that happens. If it happens, there is a reason for it. If one thinks something is absurd, it is perhaps that one's point of view needs to be readjusted. >>There are desperate situations in which people do desperate things. >>Those actions should not be a guideline or a justification for actions >>of a democracy. > The issue is not to judge, but which actions brought that desparate > situation to an end. Interminable negotions about conditions of surrender > would have doomed many additional people. Lance and Stephen brought up another opinion about it, different from yours. I will need to look into this to form my own opinion. >>The bomb dropped on Hiroshima contained Uranium, the one used on >>Nagasaki contained Plutonium. Part of the reason for dropping two bombs >>was because the Americans wanted to see the effect of both designs." >>http://www.banthebomb.org/archives/magazine/hiroshim.htm (it's the first >>link I found, this is the information I was looking for, I don't know >>about the rest of this site). > I addressed this confused accusation of calculated sadism in a previous > message. Everybody seems to be lost in darkness, except the USA, who President after President, generation after generation seem to be doing exactly the right thing for the good of all. Any different opinion on this seems to be qualified by you as confused, fallacious etc. >>Dan, you tell me I am too simplistic and reductive, but read what you >>just wrote here: "Violence ultimately is *just* another form of >>impermanence". That is acceptable for a practising Buddhist, on a very >>personal practice level when confronted with it, but we can't use this >>reasoning to condone violence. > Eating is violence (even by vegans); breathing is violence (every inhale bri > ngs in thousands of microbes that die the moment the hit the lining of your > lungs); plowing the earth is violence; surgery is violence; heating food is > violence; even this relatively civilized discussion is violent. That's why > Buddha said *all* is suffering. So one tries to turn poison into medicine. > Medicine basically consists of toxic materials that one would not take if > one were not ill. It is poison judiciously applied. Sadly, the same can be > said for violence. One moment I accept that eating is violence and the next I am throwing atom bombs on crowded towns, with no difference between the former and the latter. Whether one kills or lets oneself kill, one is a killer. Someone eating a salad as guilty of violence as someone conceiving, producing and throwing an atom bomb. This sort of reasoning banalizes killing and violence. It tells us that whatever we do is violence. The positive side of this reasoning is that it removes counterproductive righteousness, the negative side is that there is no incentive to refrain from killing and greater violence. >>But, when the life of individuals is at stake, they should never become >>abstractions, simple equations like if X < Y than X is acceptable. > On the contrary, that's precisely what ethics is. In the messy real world of > better/worse (not absolute good/bad) we have no alternative. The reign of quantity. That should make ethics a whole lot easier. We still have the alternative of not playing the game, do we? Where does renunciation come in? If ethics are necessarily messy -because the world is messy (not absolute good/bad)- why do we need ethics, when we already have the law of the survival of the fittest (better/worse) and why should we then intervene at all? On the basis of what ethics, that isn't of this world, if the world already has its own ethics that leaves no alternative as you suggest? > An example from _Jewish Literacy_ by Rabbi Joseph Telushkin, pp. 557-58: > > "The rabbis of the Talmud, for example, raise the following hypothetical > question: Two men are in the desert, and only one of them has water. If he > shares the water with his companion, he and his companion will both die; if > he keeps the water for himself, he will live and only his companion will die. > What should he do? > > "One rabbi, Bar Petura, rules that the man should split the water, even if > he dies as a result. Rabbi Akiva teaches, however, that the man with the > water has the right to drink it. > > "The debate had long struck me as interesting but remote, until I hear Elie > Wiesel, the noted writer and Holocaust survivor, refer to it in a lecture he > delivered on Rabbi Akiva. 'Rabbi Akiva,' Wiesel said in reference to Akiva's > statement that the man with the water had the right to drink it, 'was very > hard, very hard on the survivor.'" I agree. But I think Rabbi Petura was right because love (including self respect as self love) is the only thing worth living for. Survival is not a value for me since I am mortal anyway. I can live in Bar Petura's world, I can only survive in Rabbi Akiva's world. From dlusthau at mailer.fsu.edu Sat Oct 8 07:27:55 2005 From: dlusthau at mailer.fsu.edu (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Sat Oct 8 07:36:20 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo References: <000801c5cba3$0a22d590$256a4e51@zen><01a301c5cbf7$0f5c6040$e51b9c04@Dan> Message-ID: <021901c5cc0c$1a641e50$e51b9c04@Dan> Lance, As I mentioned in the previous message, the Japanese overtures to Russia in search of a better deal are well known. It was not an offer of surrender, however. It was a probing, based on misguided notions held by some in the Japanese leadership that Russia, having its own imperial history, would be more understanding. The US repeatedly issued requests, though various channels, asking for the Japanese surrender, which the Japanese repeatedly refused, according to some accounts, in very harsh terms. Given the timing of the Japanese acceptance of the terms of surrender, the idea that "It is not clear that dropping those bombs actually had any impact on the Japanese decision" seems like little more than unconvincing pleading. That would be a whopper of a coincidence. The scenario suggesting that the Japanese were in negotiating mode, hoping that the costliness of a full out invasion -- whether in potentia or in actu -- would produce sufficient change of circumstances that less than unconditional surrender would become possible seems a more accurate reading of the situation. Similarly "In other words there can be no reasonable doubt that when the order to drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was given, the U.S. President knew that Japan was willing to surrender" is reading too much into the situation. They knew that the Japanese were exploring options, and that the noose was tightening. The bombs clinched the deal. Again, if the Japanese were eager to surrender you need to explain why they didn't do so on Aug. 7th instead of Aug. 10th. You aren't suggesting that between Aug. 6th and Aug 10th the US dept. of Surrender Acceptance was on vacation, are you? The only ones raising the kind of questions you raise are in the West. The decisiveness of the bomb in Japan's decision is taken as a basic and obvious fact by every Japanese I've ever talked to about it. Curious, isn't that? "From the Buddhist perspective, it seems to me that it is demonization or idolization of a race, a religion, a nation or a political orientation (left, right or centre) which is ultimately unacceptable. We all have allegiances or loyalties, but if we hold on to them too firmly and adopt rigid viewpoints based on them (or based on rejecting them), we become part of the problem instead of part of the cure." Nothing to disagree with there. Dan From mike at lamrim.org.uk Sat Oct 8 07:54:15 2005 From: mike at lamrim.org.uk (Mike Austin) Date: Sat Oct 8 07:56:20 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Diversions, distractions and off-topic discussions Message-ID: <3luroIQH+8RDFw7l@clara.net> I find it easy for introspection to turn to outrospection, and for self-criticism to be replaced by criticism of others. And when others display extreme behaviour, it is more interesting to look at rather than my own seemingly innocuous behaviour. At our Centre, we meet for a short discourse or preamble on a particular subject which is followed by reflection and discussion. When addressing conduct - good/bad karma, delusion etc - there appears to be a tendency to judge the conduct of others. Such names as Saddam Hussein, Hitler and Bin Laden arise. Instead of investigating our own behaviour, and sharing our own experiences, we investigate the extreme behaviour of others. The person who leads the evening brings people back on topic. I find others' faults easier to perceive that my own. This may be turned to advantage if, once their faults are recognised, they help me to find the same faults in myself. However, for Buddhist practice, I consider it fruitless to criticise world leaders, governments, nations etc because I learn little that could help me improve own behaviour and understanding. To me, such criticisms belong in the world of politics. They do not tend to reduce dukkha. In many cases, they tend to increase it. I do not seek to stifle political thought or action, but I do question its place here. So I have a question of those who post their opinions on such matters as presidents, governments, nations, wars, other religions, musicians etc.: where does this fit into your practice of the Buddhist path, liberation, awakening, enlightenment etc? -- Metta Mike Austin From curt at cola.iges.org Fri Oct 7 12:12:45 2005 From: curt at cola.iges.org (curt) Date: Sat Oct 8 08:29:31 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: <20051007155329.57361.qmail@web60812.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20051007155329.57361.qmail@web60812.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4346BA9D.1010803@cola.iges.org> This is a dangerous answer. Geographical entities (ie, things that are defined geographically) begin and end at particular places. Historical entities (ie, things that are defined historically) begin and end at particular times. So maybe Europe's time is up. And yes, I am safely ensconced "over here" in the geographically quite well-defined continent of North America. Some people simply choose to call it America, which is fine with me, so long as we are clear that America begins at Tierra del Fuego and ends at the balmy coast of the Arctic Sea. There is more than a trivial "Buddhist" point to this. The more closely one looks at the concept of "Europe" the fuzzier it gets. At least according to the Madhyamika view this is true of everything - but I think experience shows that even if that is true, it is easier to see in some instances than in others. With Europe it is pretty easy to demonstrate that "there is no such thing". "Australia" and "Antarctica" are the most difficult cases (of the class "Continent") - but if one gets stuck there, then you can just change gears and attack the category of "Continent" itself. What about Greenland, after all? Buddhism aside - if one is going to defend Europe - against Muslim take-overs, or anything else - one should at least be able to describe what it is that one is defending. Shouldn't one? As to the idea that there is some "European Culture" that should be defended, I would paraphrase Ghandi by saying "as if". - Curt Catalina Castell-du Payrat wrote: > Curt wrote: Where is Europe anyway? > > answer: the limits are historic. Are you north american? > > Catalina > > > Catalina Castell - du Payrat > c_castell@yahoo.com > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Yahoo! for Good > Click here to donate to the > Hurricane Katrina relief effort. > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >buddha-l mailing list >buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com >http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l > > From curt at cola.iges.org Fri Oct 7 21:21:31 2005 From: curt at cola.iges.org (curt) Date: Sat Oct 8 08:29:34 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: <002401c5cbad$d34dd000$5d6c4e51@zen> References: <000801c5cba3$0a22d590$256a4e51@zen> <002401c5cbad$d34dd000$5d6c4e51@zen> Message-ID: <43473B3B.9000809@cola.iges.org> In my opinion the key to success for any good Abbot is to do as little as possible and say even less. In particular: leave the arse-kicking and name-taking to the Vice-Abbot. - Curt Stephen Hodge wrote: > Chan Fu wrote: > >>> "If the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had not ocurred..." >> > >> If I was abbot, I'd have your ass just for that first "if" > > > Oh dear, yet another smart-arse on this list ! If I were abbot, I'd > send you off for basic English lessons. Never heard of the > conditional ? So I rephrase: "It is difficult to determine who > would have ultimately prevailed if the bombing of Hiroshima and > Nagasaki had not ocurred". Perfectly clear and coherent. > > Best wishes, > Stephen Hodge > > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l > > From curt at cola.iges.org Sat Oct 8 08:19:44 2005 From: curt at cola.iges.org (curt) Date: Sat Oct 8 08:29:37 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Diversions, distractions and off-topic discussions In-Reply-To: <3luroIQH+8RDFw7l@clara.net> References: <3luroIQH+8RDFw7l@clara.net> Message-ID: <4347D580.9080405@cola.iges.org> Caring passionately about political and social issues, and engaging in robust debate about them are no more or less related to practice than chopping wood, carrying water, sitting meditation, chanting mantras, etc. The 12th century Zen Master Ta Hui said "Practice in the midst of activity is a million times superior to practice pursued in tranquility." Hakuin did a famous calligraphy of this saying, and commented on it: "Those who practice only in silence cannot establish their freedom when entering into activity. When they engage in worldly activities, their satori will disappear completely." - Curt Mike Austin wrote: > So I have a question of those who post their opinions on such matters > as presidents, governments, nations, wars, other religions, musicians > etc.: where does this fit into your practice of the Buddhist path, > liberation, awakening, enlightenment etc? > From rhayes at unm.edu Sat Oct 8 08:27:19 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Sat Oct 8 08:36:23 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Diversions, distractions and off-topic discussions In-Reply-To: <3luroIQH+8RDFw7l@clara.net> References: <3luroIQH+8RDFw7l@clara.net> Message-ID: <1128781640.4379.12.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Sat, 2005-10-08 at 14:54 +0100, Mike Austin wrote: > I find others' faults easier to perceive that my own. This is almost impossible for me to figure out. The rest of us find it very easy to perceive your faults. Why should it be so difficult for you to see them? > However, for Buddhist practice, I consider it > fruitless to criticise world leaders, governments, nations etc because I > learn little that could help me improve own behaviour and understanding. Stop being so selfish, Mike. It's not all about you and your faults. It's about identifying the root causes of dukkha and eliminating them if possible. It goes without saying that a Buddhist should pay considerable attention to internal attitudes that are causing dukkha to self and others, but why would one stop there? If once you have seen that your own greed, hatred and delusion create problems, why not help others see that institutionalized forms of greed, hatred and delusion create even bigger problems? Why not point out that the decisions made by the leadership of some nations promotes greed, hatred and delusion in its citizens? Frankly, I would say that if your Buddhist practice does not have a substantial dimension of helping governments and nations create conditions that help individuals improve their individual behaviour and understanding, then you have a very shallow Buddhist practice indeed. > To me, such criticisms belong in the world of politics. They do not tend > to reduce dukkha. In many cases, they tend to increase it. I do not seek > to stifle political thought or action, but I do question its place here. Why be so dualistic? What is the advantage of trying to separate the world of politics from the enterprise of striving for self-improvement? In a world in which everything is interconnected, how can you possibly justify the claim that public matters have no place on a Buddhist discussion forum? > So I have a question of those who post their opinions on such matters as > presidents, governments, nations, wars, other religions, musicians etc.: > where does this fit into your practice of the Buddhist path, liberation, > awakening, enlightenment etc? How does breathing fit in with life? -- Richard Hayes Department of Philosophy University of New Mexico From dlusthau at mailer.fsu.edu Sat Oct 8 08:36:40 2005 From: dlusthau at mailer.fsu.edu (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Sat Oct 8 08:46:27 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo References: <1127942930.6308.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> <433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net><617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org> <4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net><1359619694.20051004213630@kungzhi.org> <43441B56.7080303@nerim.net><1479321719.20051006043947@kungzhi.org><003c01c5ca43$01172200$c8369c04@Dan><4344DA9B.8040908@xs4all.nl> <00bb01c5ca59$2aa93700$c8369c04@Dan> <1128621156.4783.55.camel@localhost.localdomain><008901c5cabf$30ff5010$bc369c04@Dan> <43461940.1060905@nerim.net><022701c5cb19$ff594ab0$bc369c04@Dan> <43465FC4.7080207@nerim.net><019701c5cbf4$23ed7330$e51b9c04@Dan> <4347BFB4.9040105@nerim.net> Message-ID: <022301c5cc15$ed402270$e51b9c04@Dan> Joy, >There also is the alternative of a more multilateral approach, > where one admits one hasn't the monopoly on right view and action. When such options, pursue them. When those options are exhausted, more forceful means may be necessary. Chamberlain didn't solve the Hitler problem, did he? Same question from the same logic as before. Conceding the Sudetenland to Hitler and declaring that giddily as "peace in our time" was quite self-deceptive. By your logic Britain and the US should have done to France what Chamberlain did to the Sudetenland. Curt is eager to do that to Israel. That is not an ethical world. > Lance and Stephen brought up another opinion about it, different from > yours. I will need to look into this to form my own opinion. Neither can account for the timing of the surrender. Without rendering the bomb unnecessary, or willing to state directly that the bomb is so evil that it would have been better if lots more people had died than died from the bomb just to keep that evil genie in its bottle, it becomes difficult to dismiss the positives. > Everybody seems to be lost in darkness, except the USA, Actually that would be a very poor reading of my politics. As Lance suggested, both demonizing or sanctifying the US (or Muslims, or whatever) are extremes. That doesn't mean one turns to artificial parities -- pretending something pernicious is better than it is, nor pretending something good is worse than it is. It means seeing things as they are, yathaabhuutam. I did not vote for either Bush senior or junior, some of my students when I taught in Florida (I don't live there now -- thank goodness) thought I was a hopeless Liberal (probably similar to what Richard is undergoing with his current crop of students), and probably with as equal conviction that they were reading me correctly as some members of this list suspect I am a fanatical rightwing flagwaving American nationalist. ...so he asked Buddha Har"sitaagaara, "Is the right right?" Har"sitaagaara replied: "I do not hold that view." "Is the left right?" Har"sitaagaara replied: "I do not hold that view." "Are both the right and left right?" Har"sitaagaara replied: "I do not hold that view." "Are neither the right nor left right?" Har"sitaagaara replied: "Let me think about that one..." >The > positive side of this reasoning is that it removes counterproductive > righteousness, the negative side is that there is no incentive to > refrain from killing and greater violence. And that's where ethics comes in -- precisely to sort out one type of violence from another, to try to turn poison into medicine. Moral absolutes just leave one at the impasses you identify. > The reign of quantity. That should make ethics a whole lot easier. Don't reduce ethics to the anti-quantification rhetoric. Ethics is about thinking, weighing alternatives. It may employ quantification formulas from time to time, but it wouldn't be ethical to reduce everything to quantification. > Where does > renunciation > come in? It's one of the options to be ethically considered. > If ethics are necessarily messy -because the world is messy (not > absolute good/bad)- why do we > need ethics, when we already have the law of the survival of the fittest > (better/worse) > and why should we then intervene at all? On the basis of what ethics, that > isn't of this world, if the world already has its own ethics that leaves no > alternative as you suggest? Precisely because we have the capacity to not act like beasts, to poke our heads above the kama-loka, we have an ethical responsibility to do so. And to do so with and for each other. > But I think Rabbi Petura was right I thought you would. The point of that ethical tradition is that both opinions are recorded, and it was not a true/false question, so they both provide legitimate responses. Note that Akiva does not mandate that he MUST drink his own water, Akiva only allows that he would not be wrong to do so. Telushkin points out that every single person who survived the camps did so by, in one way or another, followng Akiva. Life is indeed complicated. Dan Lusthaus From dlusthau at mailer.fsu.edu Sat Oct 8 08:55:16 2005 From: dlusthau at mailer.fsu.edu (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Sat Oct 8 08:56:25 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Diversions, distractions and off-topic discussions References: <3luroIQH+8RDFw7l@clara.net> Message-ID: <022b01c5cc18$4de371c0$e51b9c04@Dan> Mike, It's not an either/or ... just thinking about yourself and "self-improvement" but never about "world" affairs, etc. Taken to its extreme that option becomes narcissism -- and there's certainly plenty of that to be found among those on a spiritual path. But you recognize that already, since these are already group discussions, a community exercise, not just narcissistic exercises in which Others serve as little more than mirrors to feed one's narcissism. This list has, for some time, devoted more attention to playing out certain political demonizations than it has to discussing anything Buddhist. It was time to -- if not clear the air (it's gotten too dense and murky to hope for that) -- at least shake things up a bit. It's not gratuitious, though. Such discourse can influence how people think (minds don't change that often, but seeds can be crossplanted for later sprouting), and gradually improve things. But you are right, just talking about "them" without checking where that's happening within at the same time is an avoidance mirror-image of that narcissism. Dan Lusthaus From Bshmr at aol.com Sat Oct 8 09:03:38 2005 From: Bshmr at aol.com (Bshmr@aol.com) Date: Sat Oct 8 09:06:24 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Message-ID: <148.4e08d147.307939ca@aol.com> In a message dated 2005-10-08 08:00:31 Central Daylight Time, buddha-l-request@mailman.swcp.com writes: >... But the best way to cure yourself of that cynical nonargument about "victors" pretending to be an argument, here's a simple test. Check the syllabus of any Japanese professor or instructor who is teaching Japanese history in a Western University. You will discover that history mysteriously ends in 1935 and magically recommences in 1945. The years in between are a black hole. ... > A desired, though imagined, outcome to the current state of USAn affairs. That said, One might gain from meditating facing a large mirror. The rigidity and depth of the held past is more visible than clothes. Richard Basham -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20051008/cdc7af52/attachment.htm From richard.nance at gmail.com Sat Oct 8 09:13:04 2005 From: richard.nance at gmail.com (Richard Nance) Date: Sat Oct 8 09:16:22 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Indian commentaries to Candrakirti's Madhyamaka-avatara In-Reply-To: <20051007232824.44134.qmail@web30511.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20051007232824.44134.qmail@web30511.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Bill Kish wrote: >Does anyone know if there are there any Indian commentaries to >Candrakirti's Madhyamaka-avatara aside from Jayananda's and >Candrakirti's own autocommentary ? Was there any criticism >of Candrakirti's views, either within the Buddhist tradition >or in non-Buddhist Indian schools of thought, that may have >influenced Tibetan views on his works ? As far as I know, Candrakiirti was largely ignored by the subsequent Indian tradition; his work was only very rarely cited (Praj~naakaramati does so in his commentary to the Bodhicaryaavataara, but he's the exception rather than the rule). I know of no Indian commentaries apart from the ones you've mentioned. Attention to Candrakiirti really seems to have taken off in Tibet in the wake of the bKa' gdams pa translator sPa tshab Nyi ma grags (fl. late 11th-early 12c.). Best wishes, R. Nance From bcarral at kungzhi.org Sat Oct 8 09:22:12 2005 From: bcarral at kungzhi.org (Benito Carral) Date: Sat Oct 8 09:26:24 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Diversions, distractions and off-topic discussions In-Reply-To: <3luroIQH+8RDFw7l@clara.net> References: <3luroIQH+8RDFw7l@clara.net> Message-ID: <1073114520.20051008172212@kungzhi.org> On Saturday, October 8, 2005, Mike Austin wrote: > So I have a question of those who post their opinions > on such matters as presidents, governments, nations, > wars, other religions, musicians etc.: where does > this fit into your practice of the Buddhist path, > liberation, awakening, enlightenment etc? It's time to go further and adopt a broader view of what Buddhism is, and a fist step would be recognizing the collective side of dukkha. For example, why does half of world population live on less than two dollars a day? If we don't know why, we won't know what to do about it. And here corporations, US Government, US Treasury, IMF, WTO, globalized media, and other forces come to play. For example, where do the resources we spend go? What is being done with such resources? In our world, Buddhism discourse *and practice* should not (and can not) be limited to the traditional Buddhist topics. We like it or not, we are living in a globalized world with international structures that shape our reality. Nowadays boddhisattvas must talk and act about free market forces, globalized media, and multiculturalism--otherwise they would be practitioners isolated in their caves. So, in a Mahayana spirit, your question should be reformulated as follows, "Is a discourse not including corporations, national governments, other religions, etc., relevant to our contemporary Buddhist necessities?" Maybe such discourse would be the one held by current pratyekabuddhas and their acolytes. Best wishes, Beni From ziobro at wfu.edu Sat Oct 8 10:27:59 2005 From: ziobro at wfu.edu (Stanley J. Ziobro II) Date: Sat Oct 8 10:36:23 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Hiroshima vs Terrorism..........? In-Reply-To: <00de01c5cbd9$7a7f44f0$e51b9c04@Dan> References: <20051007111019.97987.qmail@web60812.mail.yahoo.com> <00de01c5cbd9$7a7f44f0$e51b9c04@Dan> Message-ID: On Sat, 8 Oct 2005, Dan Lusthaus wrote: > > There is no way Hiroshima "saved" lifes...............Dan arguments are "conceptual". > > catalina > > It was anything but conceptual to the people who were no longer being eaten by Japanese soldiers, the POWs who were perishing en masse, the potential allied invading forces who would have suffered incalculable and needless casualties, the Japanese citizens who were mobilized and of an impassioned ethos to fight any invasion to the last women and child... those lives were all saved just for starters. Dan, If I can find a certain URL I'll send it along. The author of a highly informative article thereon analyzes hitherto top secret WWII U.S. military and politcal documents relative to the planned invasion of Japan. What one learns is that Japanese military strengths were severely underestimated, that the Japanese populace was, as you've aptly indicated, deternimed to fight Allied forces by any means available, that the duration of the invasion and actual fighting would last much longer, and that U.S. military and enemy casualities were accordingly highly underestimated. Anecdotely, I've spoken to WWII Vets of both the European and Pacific Theaters, and not one of them expected to survive the invasion. In terms of statistics it is difficult to deny that dropping the bombs saved lives. We've now got information tat it was precisely the dropping of the bomb on Nagasaki that decided the Japanese high command to surrender to the Allied Forces. Stan Ziobro From rhayes at unm.edu Sat Oct 8 10:56:44 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Sat Oct 8 11:07:35 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Diversions, distractions and off-topic discussions In-Reply-To: <022b01c5cc18$4de371c0$e51b9c04@Dan> References: <3luroIQH+8RDFw7l@clara.net> <022b01c5cc18$4de371c0$e51b9c04@Dan> Message-ID: <1128790604.5118.45.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Sat, 2005-10-08 at 10:55 -0400, Dan Lusthaus wrote: > This list has, for some time, devoted more attention to playing out certain > political demonizations than it has to discussing anything Buddhist. Over the past twelve years or so I have seen you say quite a few silly things, but this may be the silliest. I have seen quite a lot of political discussion here, and that seems appropriate given that we are living in times when public policies are generating quite a lot of dukkha. But I have not seen any "demonization" as you call it. I have seen what struck me as honest attempts to sort out some very complex issues, but no one here seems to be slavishly spouting ideological rhetoric or indulging in cheap demonization. (I attribute the lack of cheap facile rhetoric to the scarcity of Republicans on this list.) Thomas Berry made an interesting observation in his address to Harvard Divinity School in 1996. He said that he felt that the division of policies into left and right had run its course and was essentially backward looking. The way of looking at policies that he offers as an improvement to the now-useless rightist-leftist liberal-conservative dichotomy is to examine the extent to which policies are geocentric rather than humanocentric, nationalistic and selfish. Ways of thinking that place human beings at the top of the hierarchy of creation are, he argues, decidedly morally inferior to ways of thinking that are based on recognizing that human beings are deeply conditioned beings who depend on everything else on earth. Ways of thinking that place American (or Israeli or Saudi or Pakistani) interests above all others are defective and in need of stern criticism, as are ways of thinking that place Christian or Jewish or Muslim or Buddhist interests above the interests of other religions. Given that Berry, a Passionist brother, studied both Chinese and Sanskrit and wrote books on Buddhism and Vedanta in the early part of his career, it would not be difficult to support the claim that he learned much of value from his study of Asian writings. Another writer who learned a thing or two from Asian sources was Ralph Waldo Emerson. Early in his career as a Unitarian minister and missionary (yes, even Unitarians have missionaries) in the 1820s and 1830s, he advocated a view that morality is the principal business of religion and that all else that one finds in religion is a non-essential sideshow. Morality for him was the cultivation of character, and this, he argued, could best be achieved by studying nature until one recognized one's own interconnectedness with every other thing, living and dead. This interconnectedness of all things Emerson called God. The principal revelation of God, he wrote, is the universe itself, and those of us who busy ourselves with studying how people in the past understood the revelation presented to them run the risk of failing to see that the up-to-date revelation we need to be studying is all around us. Later in his career, Emerson refined the views expressed in his early sermons and devised, however unsystematically, his Transcendentalist philosophy of religion (which academic philosophers studiously ignored until around 1985 and which most American religious leaders ignore to this day, leaving it to professors of English to keep it alive). As Thomas Tweed points out, Emerson is one of the most Buddhist thinkers of the 19th century, with the possible exception of his student Thoreau. What I find interesting about the trajectory of Emerson's career is that he began with personal ethics, evolved into a metaphysics of interconnectedness and universalism, and then spent the later decades of his life sharply criticizing the public policies of his day, most famously in his passionate criticisms of slavery (which the majority of religious "leaders" of his day were either defending or ignoring altogether). Like everyone else, Emerson managed to defend a few things that now seem questionable, even astonishing, such as the American invasion of Mexico. (Actually, Emerson did not advocate that awful war so much as he thought it inevitable, given the expansionist passions of the day, and therefore he seems to have concluded that there was little point trying to stop the American juggernaut.) But questionable positions aside, Emerson offers reflective people an admirable example of how an essentially contemplative person might go about getting involved in trying to straighten out the crooked thinking of his times. It is an example that I recommend to serious Buddhists everywhere, and especially to those who tune in to buddha-l. After all, if we on buddha-l do not use our collective compassionate wisdom to help straighten out a world gone pathological, who will? -- Richard Hayes *** "Where the clear stream of reason has not lost its way into the dreary desert sand of dead habit... Into that heaven of freedom, my Father, let my country awake." --Rabindranath Tagore (1861-1941) From rhayes at unm.edu Sat Oct 8 11:18:39 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Sat Oct 8 11:26:25 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Hiroshima vs Terrorism..........? In-Reply-To: References: <20051007111019.97987.qmail@web60812.mail.yahoo.com> <00de01c5cbd9$7a7f44f0$e51b9c04@Dan> Message-ID: <1128791919.5118.65.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Sat, 2005-10-08 at 12:27 -0400, Stanley J. Ziobro II wrote: > If I can find a certain URL I'll send it along. The author of a highly > informative article thereon analyzes hitherto top secret WWII U.S. > military and politcal documents relative to the planned invasion of Japan. While you're looking for that URL, see if you can find an on-line version of an article written some twenty years ago that chronicles the evolution of American thought on how many lives the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved. What is interesting is that it climbs in direct proportion to the number of deaths directly attributed to the atomic bombs. In 1945 it was thought that the atomic bombs had saved perhaps 10,000 lives, but by 1955 the bombs had saved millions of lives. It would not be too difficult to conclude that the number of lives saved was more a reflection of feelings of guilt than on historical realities, although the claim was always made that recently released top secret documents were showing that the strength of the Japanese army, and the fanaticism of their resolve to fight to the last infant had been drastically underestimated. Another major factor, of course, was the massive paranoia being generated during the McCarthy era. The more people gave in to mass hysteria about the Soviet threat, the more lives the atomic bombs were credited with saving. > In terms of statistics it is difficult to deny that dropping the bombs saved lives. It may be difficult for you to deny something you desperately want to believe. But the lives allegedly saved are all hypothetical and speculative. The lives lost were real, as were the horrible illnesses and psychological traumas experienced by the survivors of the attack. To believe that the suffering caused by the bombs was in any way justifiable is to wallow in a delusion. To the extent that that delusion becomes a basis for justifying other wars, it is a dangerous one. > We've now got information tat it was precisely the > dropping of the bomb on Nagasaki that decided the Japanese high command to > surrender to the Allied Forces. Yes, and we also have the information that is was precisely the unwarranted embargo of the flow of goods to Japan by American ships that decided the Japanese high command to bomb Pearl Harbor. Had it not been for American aggression, the Americans would not have been drawn into the war in the Pacific, and had they not be drawn into that war, it would not have been necessary for Americans to save lives by the essentially terrorist tactic of dropping bombs on two completely non- military targets in which the only lives lost were civilians and hospitalized military personnel. -- Richard Hayes *** "Everybody's crying `Peace on earth-- just as soon as we win this war.'" -- Mose Allison From s.hodge at padmacholing.freeserve.co.uk Sat Oct 8 12:25:18 2005 From: s.hodge at padmacholing.freeserve.co.uk (Stephen Hodge) Date: Sat Oct 8 12:26:23 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo References: <1127942930.6308.49.camel@localhost.localdomain><433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net><617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org><4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net><1359619694.20051004213630@kungzhi.org><43441B56.7080303@nerim.net><1479321719.20051006043947@kungzhi.org><003c01c5ca43$01172200$c8369c04@Dan><4344DA9B.8040908@xs4all.nl><00bb01c5ca59$2aa93700$c8369c04@Dan><1128621156.4783.55.camel@localhost.localdomain><008901c5cabf$30ff5010$bc369c04@Dan> <43461940.1060905@nerim.net><022701c5cb19$ff594ab0$bc369c04@Dan> <014501c5cbe8$4a523580$e51b9c04@Dan> Message-ID: <004c01c5cc35$b804c320$767c4e51@zen> Dear Dan > a long and brutal war initiated by the Japanese themselves So the embargos and trade restrictions imposed by the West on the Japanese during the inter-war years played no part in precipitating hostilities ? Best wishes, Stephen Hodge From s.hodge at padmacholing.freeserve.co.uk Sat Oct 8 12:01:15 2005 From: s.hodge at padmacholing.freeserve.co.uk (Stephen Hodge) Date: Sat Oct 8 12:26:27 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo References: <000801c5cba3$0a22d590$256a4e51@zen><002401c5cbad$d34dd000$5d6c4e51@zen> Message-ID: <004a01c5cc35$b649a5a0$767c4e51@zen> Chan Fu wrote: > If you have a problem with my english, be assured > that the Buddha didn't speak it. It was you that had the problem about my use of a conditional sentence. Joanna asked you to explain your thinking but you have still failed to do. Are you one of those people who speak without thinking first ? I hope not. Your comment about the Buddha and English is a complete non sequitur, unless intended as a misplaced nod to the purported theme of this list -- but I imagine that he would have understood a conditional sentence when he heard it: Indic languages like Pali and sanskrit even have a special verbal form for the conditional.. > But ok then, next time I'll say "arse". But, at the same time, do please try to speaking out of your arse if possible. Best wishes, Stephen Hodge From s.hodge at padmacholing.freeserve.co.uk Sat Oct 8 12:21:24 2005 From: s.hodge at padmacholing.freeserve.co.uk (Stephen Hodge) Date: Sat Oct 8 12:26:30 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo References: <000801c5cba3$0a22d590$256a4e51@zen> <01d101c5cc02$c4e32ab0$e51b9c04@Dan> Message-ID: <004b01c5cc35$b7305c20$767c4e51@zen> Dear Dan, > Stephen, as is well known, the Japanese have engaged in very creative > rewriting of the history of the War years. Of course -- though "non-writing" would be more accurate. I am well aware of this too, so you could have saved your breath. But do you honestly believe that the Allied account of their actions is 100% accurate and objective ? For example, you say that Japanese soldiers never surrendered, but fought to the death. This is largely true. But you must be aware that US forces often shot unarmed Japanese prisoners -- this is well documented with accounts from those who actually participated who say that this was done with full knowledge and encouragement from their commanders (there also seems to have been a strong racist undercurrent at work at the time). Deplorable though this is, it happens in all wars -- it was common in Europe too during both WW I and II. But then all victors try to conceal this and portray themselves as upright, chivalrous and squeeky clean. Best wishes, Stephen Hodge From mike at lamrim.org.uk Sat Oct 8 12:21:29 2005 From: mike at lamrim.org.uk (Mike Austin) Date: Sat Oct 8 12:46:26 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Diversions, distractions and off-topic discussions In-Reply-To: <4347D580.9080405@cola.iges.org> References: <3luroIQH+8RDFw7l@clara.net> <4347D580.9080405@cola.iges.org> Message-ID: In message <4347D580.9080405@cola.iges.org>, curt writes >Caring passionately about political and social issues, and engaging in >robust debate about them are no more or less related to practice than >chopping wood, carrying water, sitting meditation, chanting mantras, etc. Then why not discuss chopping wood on this forum? Because it is a topic for a lumberjacks' forum. One can always engage in political debates in the political forums. But, to my mind, caring needs to be in conjunction with strategy to be effective. I just don't see the strategy behind such debates on this forum. -- Metta Mike Austin From s.hodge at padmacholing.freeserve.co.uk Sat Oct 8 12:39:40 2005 From: s.hodge at padmacholing.freeserve.co.uk (Stephen Hodge) Date: Sat Oct 8 12:46:32 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo References: <1127942930.6308.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> <433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net><617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org> <4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net><1359619694.20051004213630@kungzhi.org> <43441B56.7080303@nerim.net><1479321719.20051006043947@kungzhi.org><003c01c5ca43$01172200$c8369c04@Dan><4344DA9B.8040908@xs4all.nl> <00bb01c5ca59$2aa93700$c8369c04@Dan> <1128621156.4783.55.camel@localhost.localdomain><008901c5cabf$30ff5010$bc369c04@Dan> <43461940.1060905@nerim.net><022701c5cb19$ff594ab0$bc369c04@Dan> <43465FC4.7080207@nerim.net><019701c5cbf4$23ed7330$e51b9c04@Dan><4347BFB4.9040105@nerim.net> <022301c5cc15$ed402270$e51b9c04@Dan> Message-ID: <006601c5cc37$a5658a90$767c4e51@zen> Dear Dan, > ...so he asked Buddha Har"sitaagaara, "Is the right right?" Aha ! Now we have a good idea of how you see yourself :) Best wishes, Stephen Hodge PS: For those who haven't realized, "Har`sitaaagaara" is Dan's attempt to Sanskitize "Lusthaus". From mike at lamrim.org.uk Sat Oct 8 12:44:26 2005 From: mike at lamrim.org.uk (Mike Austin) Date: Sat Oct 8 12:46:36 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Diversions, distractions and off-topic discussions In-Reply-To: <1073114520.20051008172212@kungzhi.org> References: <3luroIQH+8RDFw7l@clara.net> <1073114520.20051008172212@kungzhi.org> Message-ID: <6J+oj8XKOBSDFwwJ@clara.net> In message <1073114520.20051008172212@kungzhi.org>, Benito Carral writes > It's time to go further and adopt a broader view of >what Buddhism is, and a fist step would be recognizing >the collective side of dukkha. One's view may be broad even if one's behaviour and discussions are not. It seems to me that the recognition of dukkha should be accompanied by a recognition of its causes and its cessation. I do not see where debating presidents, governments, nations, wars, other religions, musicians etc., fits in with this. This should be directed to those concerned. >Nowadays boddhisattvas must talk and >act about free market forces, globalized media, and >multiculturalism--otherwise they would be practitioners >isolated in their caves. Hehe! I think you should tell them, not me! I do not recall reading that the Buddha exhorted them to do this. I would expect bodhisattvas to help individual beings, who create such things. To stop something, one has to stop its causes. These things are merely symptomatic of the problem. > So, in a Mahayana spirit, your question should be >reformulated as follows, "Is a discourse not including >corporations, national governments, other religions, >etc., relevant to our contemporary Buddhist >necessities?" Maybe such discourse would be the one >held by current pratyekabuddhas and their acolytes. I think you should check what the Buddha said - unless we are ruling him out because he is not contemporary. -- Metta Mike Austin From ziobro at wfu.edu Sat Oct 8 12:43:43 2005 From: ziobro at wfu.edu (Stanley J. Ziobro II) Date: Sat Oct 8 12:46:38 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Hiroshima vs Terrorism..........? In-Reply-To: <1128791919.5118.65.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <20051007111019.97987.qmail@web60812.mail.yahoo.com> <00de01c5cbd9$7a7f44f0$e51b9c04@Dan> <1128791919.5118.65.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: On Sat, 8 Oct 2005, Richard P. Hayes wrote: > On Sat, 2005-10-08 at 12:27 -0400, Stanley J. Ziobro II wrote: > > > If I can find a certain URL I'll send it along. The author of a highly > > informative article thereon analyzes hitherto top secret WWII U.S. > > military and politcal documents relative to the planned invasion of Japan. > > While you're looking for that URL, see if you can find an on-line > version of an article written some twenty years ago that chronicles the > evolution of American thought on how many lives the bombing of Hiroshima > and Nagasaki saved. What is interesting is that it climbs in direct > proportion to the number of deaths directly attributed to the atomic > bombs. In 1945 it was thought that the atomic bombs had saved perhaps > 10,000 lives, but by 1955 the bombs had saved millions of lives. It > would not be too difficult to conclude that the number of lives saved > was more a reflection of feelings of guilt than on historical realities, > although the claim was always made that recently released top secret > documents were showing that the strength of the Japanese army, and the > fanaticism of their resolve to fight to the last infant had been > drastically underestimated. I think you're shooting from the hip here, Richard. If such an article exists, and if therein the claim was made that 10,000 lives were saved by dropping the atomic bombs, the claim is simply silly. U.S. military estimates for Allied deaths alone in the proposed invasion of Japan exceeded 500,000. > Another major factor, of course, was the massive paranoia being > generated during the McCarthy era. The more people gave in to mass > hysteria about the Soviet threat, the more lives the atomic bombs were > credited with saving. Maybe. You would know. I've wasn't born then. > > In terms of statistics it is difficult to deny that dropping the bombs saved lives. > > It may be difficult for you to deny something you desperately want to > believe. But the lives allegedly saved are all hypothetical and > speculative. The lives lost were real, as were the horrible illnesses > and psychological traumas experienced by the survivors of the attack. To > believe that the suffering caused by the bombs was in any way > justifiable is to wallow in a delusion. To the extent that that delusion > becomes a basis for justifying other wars, it is a dangerous one. You have a penchant for discerning my state of mind. How do you do it? Can you spell p r o j e c t i o n? More to the point, Without denying the question of whether the taking of civilian lives was justifiable (strictly speaking, it wasn't), the statistical projections regarding casulties and deaths turns out to have been extremely conservative. But it remains the case that by dropping the bombs the Japanese High Command chose to surrender. This action spared both the Allies and the Japanese millions of lives that would otherwise have been lost. Maybe this is something you desperately do not want to believe, or maybe you are simply encouraging discussion, or maybe, you're just being contrary for whatever reason. I really don't know. > > We've now got information tat it was precisely the > > dropping of the bomb on Nagasaki that decided the Japanese high command to > > surrender to the Allied Forces. > > Yes, and we also have the information that is was precisely the > unwarranted embargo of the flow of goods to Japan by American ships that > decided the Japanese high command to bomb Pearl Harbor. Had it not been > for American aggression, the Americans would not have been drawn into > the war in the Pacific, and had they not be drawn into that war, it > would not have been necessary for Americans to save lives by the > essentially terrorist tactic of dropping bombs on two completely non- > military targets in which the only lives lost were civilians and > hospitalized military personnel. Neither Hirosshima nor Nagasaki were "completely non-military targets". Regards, Stan Ziobro From mike at lamrim.org.uk Sat Oct 8 12:10:29 2005 From: mike at lamrim.org.uk (Mike Austin) Date: Sat Oct 8 12:56:29 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Diversions, distractions and off-topic discussions In-Reply-To: <1128781640.4379.12.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <3luroIQH+8RDFw7l@clara.net> <1128781640.4379.12.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: In message <1128781640.4379.12.camel@localhost.localdomain>, Richard P. Hayes writes >Stop being so selfish, Mike. It's not all about you and your faults. If I am to be of benefit to others, it becomes my main responsibility to address those obstacles that I can change. If I can effectively address the obstacles in others also, I will do so. But discussing the failings of third parties here is not the way to do it, I feel. "Think globally. Act locally." as they say. >Why not point out that the decisions made by the >leadership of some nations promotes greed, hatred and delusion in its >citizens? Yes, I do. I engage in the democratic protest, I join in antiwar marches and I occasionally discuss politics. On a Buddhist forum, I cannot point out dubious decisions to the leadership that make them. What I can do is to point out discussions that may promote dukkha here, by those who post here. And I would welcome others to do the same for me. Maybe I am wrong, but the following quote is one of many on the subject. I make the assumption that the essence of this applies to lay people: From AN X69 Kathavatthu Sutta (Topics of Conversation) "It isn't right, monks, that sons of good families, on having gone forth out of faith from home to the homeless life, should get engaged in such topics of conversation, i.e., conversation about kings, robbers, & ministers of state... talk of whether things exist or not. "There are these ten topics of [proper] conversation. Which ten? Talk on modesty, on contentment, on seclusion, on non-entanglement, on arousing persistence, on virtue, on concentration, on discernment, on release, and on the knowledge & vision of release. These are the ten topics of conversation. If you were to engage repeatedly in these ten topics of conversation, you would outshine even the sun & moon, so mighty, so powerful -- to say nothing of the wanderers of other sects." -- Metta Mike Austin From rhayes at unm.edu Sat Oct 8 13:51:49 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Sat Oct 8 13:56:26 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Diversions, distractions and off-topic discussions In-Reply-To: References: <3luroIQH+8RDFw7l@clara.net> <4347D580.9080405@cola.iges.org> Message-ID: <1128801109.5717.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Sat, 2005-10-08 at 19:21 +0100, Mike Austin wrote: > Then why not discuss chopping wood on this forum? Because it is a topic > for a lumberjacks' forum. One can always engage in political debates in > the political forums. Mike, it is quite obvious to me that you are having a bad day. I'm sorry about that, for I hate to see people have bad days. Look, we'd all like to see you feeling better. So why don't you just tell us all what to say on buddha-l, and we'll say it for you? -- Richard Hayes *** "Above all things, take heed in judging one another, for in that ye may destroy one another... and eat out the good of one another."-- George Fox From rhayes at unm.edu Sat Oct 8 13:48:45 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Sat Oct 8 13:56:28 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Diversions, distractions and off-topic discussions In-Reply-To: References: <3luroIQH+8RDFw7l@clara.net> <1128781640.4379.12.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1128800926.5717.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Sat, 2005-10-08 at 19:10 +0100, Mike Austin wrote: > If I am to be of benefit to others, it becomes my main responsibility to > address those obstacles that I can change. If I can effectively address > the obstacles in others also, I will do so. But discussing the failings > f third parties here is not the way to do it, I feel. I don't see much evidence of that sort of thing on buddha-l. What I do see here is quite a lot of discussion about the kinds of thinking behind the sorts of actions that leads to dukkha. Thinking about the quality of thinking is no doubt one of the most serious of all Buddhist practices. > "Think globally. Act locally." as they say. Yes, some people do say that. Many of us here also think and act in the way recommended. How that slogan is relevant to anything you or anyone else has said eludes me. But maybe it was just something that randomly popped into your head. Such things happen to all of us from time to time. > I engage in the democratic protest, I join in antiwar marches > and I occasionally discuss politics. I participated in an anti-war march once. It was in 1968. I was so terrified by the hysteria of the crowd that I have never participated in another. Instead, whenever I hear of a demonstration, I stay home and chant Kierkegaard's famous mantra "The crowd is untruth." > On a Buddhist forum, I cannot point out dubious decisions to the > leadership that make them. Can you point out the folly of the decisions of the leadership to the people who will eventually have a hand in deciding who the next leaders will be? > What I can do is to point out discussions that may promote dukkha > here, by those who post here. Nothing posted here causes dukkha to anyone who is reasonable. > And I would welcome others to do the same for me. We trust you to know when you are causing dukkha to others. And if you really don't know by yourself that you are causing others dukkha, then it is unlikely you would be receptive to hearing the news from others. > Maybe I am wrong, but the following quote is one of many on the subject. > From AN X69 Kathavatthu Sutta (Topics of Conversation) Yes, that is an excellent quote. So far as I can see, pretty well everyone who posts on buddha-l adheres to it quite well. But thank you for bringing it to our attention. -- Richard Hayes *** "When the power of love is greater than the love of power, we will have peace." ---Jimi Hendrix From selwyn at ntlworld.com Sat Oct 8 11:26:48 2005 From: selwyn at ntlworld.com (L.S. Cousins) Date: Sat Oct 8 13:56:31 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: <021901c5cc0c$1a641e50$e51b9c04@Dan> References: <000801c5cba3$0a22d590$256a4e51@zen><01a301c5cbf7$0f5c6040$e51b9c04@Dan> <021901c5cc0c$1a641e50$e51b9c04@Dan> Message-ID: Dan, >As I mentioned in the previous message, the Japanese overtures to Russia in >search of a better deal are well known. On the contrary, it is clear that after the Potsdam Declaration of July 25th, Japanese overtures were on that basis. > It was not an offer of surrender, >however. It was a probing, based on misguided notions held by some in the >Japanese leadership that Russia, having its own imperial history, would be >more understanding. This is rather difficult to understand. Stalin would be more understanding because of Russian Imperial history ? > The US repeatedly issued requests, though various >channels, asking for the Japanese surrender, which the Japanese repeatedly >refused, according to some accounts, in very harsh terms. Earlier and irrelevant. >Given the timing of the Japanese acceptance of the terms of surrender, the >idea that "It is not clear >that dropping those bombs actually had any impact on the Japanese decision" >seems like little more than unconvincing pleading. That would be a whopper >of a coincidence. The scenario suggesting that the Japanese were in >negotiating mode, hoping that the costliness of a full out invasion -- >whether in potentia or in actu -- would produce sufficient change of >circumstances that less than unconditional surrender would become possible >seems a more accurate reading of the situation. On the contrary, it is the precise timing which makes it unlikely. Governments rarely make decisions all that quickly. >Similarly "In other words there can be no reasonable doubt that when the >order to drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was given, the U.S. >President knew that Japan was willing to surrender" is reading too much into >the situation. They knew that the Japanese were exploring options, and that >the noose was tightening. The bombs clinched the deal. Again, if the >Japanese were eager to surrender you need to explain why they didn't do so >on Aug. 7th instead of Aug. 10th. You aren't suggesting that between Aug. >6th and Aug 10th the US dept. of Surrender Acceptance was on vacation, are >you? The crucial factors were Potsdam and probably the carpet bombing of Tokyo which killed 100,000 people - more than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined and much closer to home. >The only ones raising the kind of questions you raise are in the West. >The decisiveness of the bomb in Japan's decision is taken as a basic and >obvious fact by every Japanese I've ever talked to about it. Curious, isn't >that? To be expected - it excuses defeat. Also, people do tend to assume causal connexions in the past, forgetting that attitudes were different at the time. Post hoc propter hoc. >"From the Buddhist perspective, it seems to me that it is demonization >or idolization of a race, a religion, a nation or a political >orientation (left, right or centre) which is ultimately unacceptable. >We all have allegiances or loyalties, but if we hold on to them too >firmly and adopt rigid viewpoints based on them (or based on >rejecting them), we become part of the problem instead of part of the >cure." > >Nothing to disagree with there. > My feeling is that we have to recognize that wrong deeds were done on all sides, rather than exaggerating the faults of those we don't like. The German bombing of Rotterdam and subsequently of Coventry, Plymouth and elsewhere was a terrible thing and quite inexcusable. That makes the (even worse) subsequent bombing of Dresden and other German cities understandable. It doesn't make it excusable. If America had not dropped the atomic bombs and instead gone ahead with the alternative plan to use chemical weapons against the Japanese cities with an anticipated 5 million casualties, that would have been even worse. But, to belabour the obvious, Germans (or Americans) in general are not responsible for the actions of some Germans, etc. They are not even responsible for all actions of the German government, particularly when that government was authoritarian in nature. The same goes for Japanese. The truth is that almost all participants in WWII have things of which to be ashamed. What we shouldn't do is drag up other people's wrong deeds selectively or exaggeratedly - usually out of unacknowledged hatred or vengefulness. Or because they do not belong to the same political or cultural grouping as us. Lance Cousins From franzmetcalf at earthlink.net Sat Oct 8 14:01:09 2005 From: franzmetcalf at earthlink.net (Franz Metcalf) Date: Sat Oct 8 14:06:25 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Diversions, distractions and off-topic discussions In-Reply-To: References: <3luroIQH+8RDFw7l@clara.net> <1128781640.4379.12.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <7a2fa607ffa25eeba71e2001b2ab300e@earthlink.net> Gang, I want to thank Mike Austin for challenging the list on our tendency to talk politics (also economics, sociology, etc.) when we're really supposed to be discussing "Buddhism." But I also want to propose that for us householders, these things *are* Buddhism (this idea is nothing new; Curt, for instance, pretty much just expressed it). Speaking now only for myself, the two areas where I do my hardest and most valuable practice are the martial and the marital (thank you for bringing that up, Dan). Mike, you quoted the Kathavatthu Sutta, > It isn't right, monks, that sons of good families, on having gone > forth out of faith from home to the homeless life, should get engaged > in such topics of conversation. I fear the historical Buddha is not my final authority on anything, but here I think he's right. Those having gone forth ought to avoid such conversations. It's their job, after all, to avoid such things in word and deed, even in thought. But that is not *our* job. *Our* job is to get such things *right*, in word, deed, and even thought. Getting it right in word and deed is shila, the first element of the training; getting it right in thought is a bridge to samadhi and prajna, the other two elements. In that sense, there is nothing off-topic on buddha-l. I'm with you, though, Mike, in the following. Responding to Curt--see, told you my ideas are nothing new--you wrote "I just don't see the strategy behind such debates on this forum." I agree such strategy often seems lacking. We must make some effort to frame the conversation, especially when it wanders superficially far afield, in Buddhist tropes or tie it to the dharma more narrowly defined. That's simply skillful means. Otherwise we are coming dangerously close to (mere) narcissistic prattle, rather than sowing seeds of mental change. Dan is correct that we *are* attempting the latter, right? Franz From wdkish81 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 8 14:21:49 2005 From: wdkish81 at yahoo.com (Bill Kish) Date: Sat Oct 8 14:26:25 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Indian commentaries to Candrakirti's Madhyamaka-avatara In-Reply-To: <200510081800.j98I0mur010069@ns1.swcp.com> Message-ID: <20051008202149.31625.qmail@web30504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Richard Nance: > >As far as I know, Candrakiirti was largely ignored by the subsequent >Indian tradition; his work was only very rarely cited >(Praj~naakaramati does so in his commentary to the Bodhicaryaavataara, >but he's the exception rather than the rule). I know of no Indian >commentaries apart from the ones you've mentioned. Attention to >Candrakiirti really seems to have taken off in Tibet in the wake of >the bKa' gdams pa translator sPa tshab Nyi ma grags (fl. late >11th-early 12c.). Thanks, Richard. Do scholars ("western" or otherwise) have any information on Jayananda (~ 11th c. ), and in particular why he decided to focus on Candrakirti after what appears to be centuries of neglect ? The same question would probably go for sPa tshab Nyi ma grags sa well. I find myself wishing for a work similar to Georges Dreyfus's "Recognizing Reality", but with the focus on Candrakirti instead of Dharmakirti. --------- Bill Kish __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From jkirk at spro.net Sat Oct 8 14:23:16 2005 From: jkirk at spro.net (jkirk) Date: Sat Oct 8 14:26:30 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Diversions, distractions and off-topic discussions References: <3luroIQH+8RDFw7l@clara.net><1128781640.4379.12.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <002601c5cc46$206f28a0$2930cece@charlie> > Maybe I am wrong, but the following quote is one of many on the subject. I > make the assumption that the essence of this applies to lay people: > > From AN X69 Kathavatthu Sutta (Topics of Conversation) > > "It isn't right, monks, that sons of good families, on having gone forth > out of faith from home to the homeless life, should get engaged in such > topics of conversation, i.e., conversation about kings, robbers, & > ministers of state... talk of whether things exist or not. > > "There are these ten topics of [proper] conversation. Which ten? Talk on > modesty, on contentment, on seclusion, on non-entanglement, on arousing > persistence, on virtue, on concentration, on discernment, on release, and > on the knowledge & vision of release. These are the ten topics of > conversation. If you were to engage repeatedly in these ten topics of > conversation, you would outshine even the sun & moon, so mighty, so > powerful -- to say nothing of the wanderers of other sects." > > -- > Metta > Mike Austin ====================== Like much found in ancient scriptures, what is said can be contextualized and then a slightly different reading appears. The Buddha and his sangha did not live in democratic societies with civil rights, they lived in kingships and were dependent on kings from time to time for protection, alms, public support, donations of land for monasteries, and so on. Kings in those days maintained spies, and my guess is that it was dangerous to criticize the monarch, even as today in Thailand, in a sort of democratic kingdom where the King's public persona and roles are modeled on Brahmanic patterns of yore, if one criticizes the King, one is subject to the death penalty. Thus, it behooved the monks and their leaders to mind their own business and concentrate on the vinaya. In those days, the idea that public comment and or participation (demonstrations?) could affect politics was unthinkable. Times have changed, and to my mind the sutta quoted here is mainly applicable to monastics, although it is also good advice in some contemporary contexts as well. Joanna From selwyn at ntlworld.com Sat Oct 8 14:42:30 2005 From: selwyn at ntlworld.com (L.S. Cousins) Date: Sat Oct 8 14:46:26 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Diversions, distractions and off-topic discussions In-Reply-To: References: <3luroIQH+8RDFw7l@clara.net> <1128781640.4379.12.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: Mike Austin writes: >Maybe I am wrong, but the following quote is one of many on the >subject. I make the assumption that the essence of this applies to >lay people: > >From AN X69 Kathavatthu Sutta (Topics of Conversation) > >"It isn't right, monks, that sons of good families, on having gone >forth out of faith from home to the homeless life, should get >engaged in such topics of conversation, i.e., conversation about >kings, robbers, & ministers of state... talk of whether things exist >or not. This is an interesting point. But I doubt whether many Buddhists before modern times would have thought that this does apply to lay people in general. I suppose we might say that such discussions do not actually promote a wholesome state of mind. I am not quite convinced that they need be unwholesome. >"There are these ten topics of [proper] conversation. Which ten? >Talk on modesty, on contentment, on seclusion, on non-entanglement, >on arousing persistence, on virtue, on concentration, on >discernment, on release, and on the knowledge & vision of release. >These are the ten topics of conversation. If you were to engage >repeatedly in these ten topics of conversation, you would outshine >even the sun & moon, so mighty, so powerful -- to say nothing of the >wanderers of other sects." I quite agree that these are good topics for discussion for both monks and lay people and would personally find Buddha-L more interesting if it were discussing them more. Lance Cousins From rhayes at unm.edu Sat Oct 8 14:54:07 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Sat Oct 8 14:56:33 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Hiroshima vs Terrorism..........? In-Reply-To: References: <20051007111019.97987.qmail@web60812.mail.yahoo.com> <00de01c5cbd9$7a7f44f0$e51b9c04@Dan> <1128791919.5118.65.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1128804848.5717.80.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Sat, 2005-10-08 at 14:43 -0400, Stanley J. Ziobro II wrote: > I think you're shooting from the hip here, Richard. If such an article > exists, and if therein the claim was made that 10,000 lives were saved by > dropping the atomic bombs, the claim is simply silly. The article does exist, and I did read it. It was one of the many things I read about Hiroshima before I went to live there and to study Buddhist philosophy at Hiroshima Daigaku. As I reported, the article chronicles military statements over the course of about fifteen years and shows that in each statement made on the topic, the number of lives allegedly saved increased. > U.S. military > estimates for Allied deaths alone in the proposed invasion of Japan > exceeded 500,000. Yes, eventually. And a bit after that, it rose to several million. > Maybe. You would know. I've wasn't born then. You refer to the McCarthy era. I was born early enough to witness this tragic episode in American history. Although I was only a child when it took place, I vividly recall my parent's reactions to reports that friends of theirs were being blacklisted, and I recall the fear that people had of the government. If you'd like to have a sense of what it was like, go see George Clooney's new movie on the life of Edward R. Murrow. > You have a penchant for discerning my state of mind. How do you do it? I learned to read a while back. And I have never been able to shake the habit of thinking that people mean what they say. So when I read your words, I begin with the assumption that you are speaking your mind. > Without denying the > question of whether the taking of civilian lives was justifiable (strictly > speaking, it wasn't), the statistical projections regarding casulties and > deaths turns out to have been extremely conservative. Sorry, but I can't manage to be sufficiently naive to believe that. What we know for a fact is that as time went on, the claim for the number of lives saved rose. We know that, because it is amply documented. Where we disagree is WHY the number of allegedly saved lives kept getting higher. Your claim, which I think is naive, is that the initial figures were wrong and were corrected by subsequent investigations. What I claim is that as people became more aware of how many people suffered in the atomic bomb attacks, the only way they could cope with the guilt was to inflate the number of lives that were eventually saved. I also note that inflating the numbers happens to have served the purpose of justifying the enormous build-up of nuclear weapons. > But it remains the case that by dropping the bombs the Japanese High > Command chose to surrender. So you are trying to tell us that the Japanese are lucky they didn't have someone like George W. Bush as their leader? I agree. He would no doubt have made a speech telling the Japanese people that he had to finish the job and that it would be a disaster to embolden the enemy by cutting and running. By showing the good sense to surrender rather than subjecting the people of Japan to more terrorist attacks, the Japanese High Command did the wise and compassionate thing. I only wish our current leaders were half so wise or a quarter so compassionate. > This action spared both the Allies and the Japanese millions > of lives that would otherwise have been lost. Maybe this is something you > desperately do not want to believe, or maybe you are simply encouraging > discussion, or maybe, you're just being contrary for whatever reason. I > really don't know. You're right. You don't know. So let me explain it to you again. We do not know how many people would have died if the Americans had not dropped atomic bombs on two non-military targets. We will never know. All we can do is guess. What we do know is that as a result of a decision to drop an atomic bomb in a populated area (rather than, say, demonstrating its force by dropping it where no human beings would be injured by it), a very large number of innocent people, nearly all of them civilians, were killed or made very ill through radiation sickness. I believe that to try to justify their very real suffering by appealing to guesses and speculations about how many lives were saved, is obscene. And I would add that it is morally short-sighted in the extreme to fail to take into account that using a weapon of mass destruction against a civilian population set a precedent that has made the world incalculably more dangerous and taht much of the danger of the world in which we now live is a direct descendant of that awful decision to use the atomic bomb. The USA showed itself to be a nation that would carry out two massive terrorist attacks and would then continue to justify doing so. And if one claims that these atrocious attacks can be justified simply on the grounds that they worked, then one has no ground whatsoever to condemn Osama bin Ladin or any number of Palestinian or Iraqi suicide bombers. They are simply doing, on a much smaller scale, what the USA has shown to them is a workable strategy. If if we continue to insist that whatever works is legitimate, and that terrifying civilians works, we cannot possibly say that it is not legitimate for others to try to get what they want by terrorizing us. In summary, I find the quality of your thinking on this subject appallingly lacking in moral discernment. Pardon me for saying what I believe so plainly without coating it in honey. Now go put on your Moral Dunce's cap and go sit in the corner and give some thought to the implications of what you have been saying. And be ashamed of your folly. > Neither Hirosshima nor Nagasaki were "completely non-military targets". The only sense in which they were military targets is that they were cities in a country against which a war was being conducted. I suppose you could say that the school children who died in those attacks would have grown up to be enemy soldiers, and the women who were killed might have given birth to more enemy babies. Aside from that, however, they were of no military importance. Indeed, if Hiroshima and Nagasaki HAD been military targets, they would have been bombed or shelled earlier. The reason they were chosen as targets for the atomic bombs is because they had never been bombed or attacked in any way before; the military picked previously untouched targets because they wished to be able to assess exactly how much damage an atomic bomb would do. Bombing Tokyo would not have served this purpose, because it was already so badly damaged by conventional fire bombs. (Most of the claims made here are documented in Enola Gay by Gordon Thomas and Max Morgan Witts. (New York: Stein and Day, 1977.) There is a considerable literature that questions the claim that basis of the decision to use the atomic bomb against the Japanese had anything at all to do with Japan. There is much evidence that Japan was on the verge of collapse and that the Allied Command expected Japan to surrender very soon. So why use the atomic bombs? One theory is that the bombing of Hiroshima was not meant to be the last action of the Second War but the first action of the Cold War. The purpose of using the bombs, according to this theory, was to sent a clear signal to Stalin that the Americans would not hesitate to use such weapons on the Soviet Union if they got out of line. Do I believe that? I don't know. Let's just say I am as prepared to believe that as I am to believe that the main purpose for dropping the atomic bombs was to save lives. -- Richard Hayes *** "Everybody's crying `Peace on earth-- just as soon as we win this war.'" -- Mose Allison From rhayes at unm.edu Sat Oct 8 15:02:41 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Sat Oct 8 15:06:27 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Diversions, distractions and off-topic discussions In-Reply-To: References: <3luroIQH+8RDFw7l@clara.net> <1128781640.4379.12.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1128805361.5717.86.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Sat, 2005-10-08 at 21:42 +0100, L.S. Cousins wrote: > I quite agree that these are good topics for discussion for both > monks and lay people and would personally find Buddha-L more > interesting if it were discussing them more. The only way to see buddha-l take a form that you personally find interesting is to write about the things you find interesting. (I say this not to Lance specifically, but to everyone.) If you want to see something of interest to you discussed, then start a discussion on something of interest to you. If others also find the topic interesting, they will discuss it (whether they know anything about it or not -- being informed has never been a precondition for holding forth on buddha-l). -- Richard Hayes *** "The spiritual path is never one of achievement; it is always one of letting go. The more we let go, the more there is empty and open space for us to see reality." --Sister Ayya Khema From richard.nance at gmail.com Sat Oct 8 15:18:36 2005 From: richard.nance at gmail.com (Richard Nance) Date: Sat Oct 8 15:26:26 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Indian commentaries to Candrakirti's Madhyamaka-avatara In-Reply-To: <20051008202149.31625.qmail@web30504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <200510081800.j98I0mur010069@ns1.swcp.com> <20051008202149.31625.qmail@web30504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Bill Kish wrote: > Do scholars ("western" or otherwise) have any information on > Jayananda (~ 11th c. ), and in particular why he decided to focus > on Candrakirti after what appears to be centuries of neglect ? > The same question would probably go for sPa tshab Nyi ma grags > sa well. I find myself wishing for a work similar to Georges > Dreyfus's "Recognizing Reality", but with the focus on Candrakirti > instead of Dharmakirti. Jayaananda postdates sPa tshab by a few years. Both were most influential in the 12th century; sPa tshab arrived back in Tibet (from a 20+ year sojourn in Kashmir) around 1100, while Jayaananda was an Indian pandit active in Central Tibet and the Tangut kingdom later in the century. Ronald M. Davidson (whose work I seem to be touting a lot lately) devotes some discussion to both sPa tshab and Jayaananda in his brand new book *Tibetan Renaissance*. The book is a monumental work of scholarship, and very highly recommended. But the specific question you ask (i.e., why the sudden -- if it is sudden -- interest in Candrakiirti?) is really an open one. sPa tshab's interest probably stemmed from his experiences in Kashmir. But, of course, noting this doesn't really answer your question -- it just pushes it back a step. Perhaps someone more learned I am in the Tibetan historical literature would like to have a crack at answering this; so far as I'm able to tell, the issue remains a very murky one. Best wishes, R. Nance From chanfu at gmail.com Sat Oct 8 17:42:24 2005 From: chanfu at gmail.com (Chan Fu) Date: Sat Oct 8 17:46:32 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Diversions, distractions and off-topic discussions In-Reply-To: <1128790604.5118.45.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <3luroIQH+8RDFw7l@clara.net> <022b01c5cc18$4de371c0$e51b9c04@Dan> <1128790604.5118.45.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: On 10/8/05, Richard P. Hayes wrote: > On Sat, 2005-10-08 at 10:55 -0400, Dan Lusthaus wrote: > > > This list has, for some time, devoted more attention to playing out certain > > political demonizations than it has to discussing anything Buddhist. > > Over the past twelve years or so I have seen you say quite a few silly > things, but this may be the silliest. I have seen quite a lot of > political discussion here, and that seems appropriate given that we are > living in times when public policies are generating quite a lot of > dukkha. But I have not seen any "demonization" as you call it. I have > seen what struck me as honest attempts to sort out some very complex > issues, but no one here seems to be slavishly spouting ideological > rhetoric or indulging in cheap demonization. (I attribute the lack of > cheap facile rhetoric to the scarcity of Republicans on this list.) > > Thomas Berry made an interesting observation in his address to Harvard > Divinity School in 1996. He said that he felt that the division of > policies into left and right had run its course and was essentially > backward looking. The way of looking at policies that he offers as an > improvement to the now-useless rightist-leftist liberal-conservative > dichotomy is to examine the extent to which policies are geocentric > rather than humanocentric, nationalistic and selfish. Ways of thinking > that place human beings at the top of the hierarchy of creation are, he > argues, decidedly morally inferior to ways of thinking that are based on > recognizing that human beings are deeply conditioned beings who depend > on everything else on earth. Ways of thinking that place American (or > Israeli or Saudi or Pakistani) interests above all others are defective > and in need of stern criticism, as are ways of thinking that place > Christian or Jewish or Muslim or Buddhist interests above the interests > of other religions. Given that Berry, a Passionist brother, studied both > Chinese and Sanskrit and wrote books on Buddhism and Vedanta in the > early part of his career, it would not be difficult to support the claim > that he learned much of value from his study of Asian writings. > > Another writer who learned a thing or two from Asian sources was Ralph > Waldo Emerson. Early in his career as a Unitarian minister and > missionary (yes, even Unitarians have missionaries) in the 1820s and > 1830s, he advocated a view that morality is the principal business of > religion and that all else that one finds in religion is a non-essential > sideshow. Morality for him was the cultivation of character, and this, > he argued, could best be achieved by studying nature until one > recognized one's own interconnectedness with every other thing, living > and dead. This interconnectedness of all things Emerson called God. The > principal revelation of God, he wrote, is the universe itself, and those > of us who busy ourselves with studying how people in the past understood > the revelation presented to them run the risk of failing to see that the > up-to-date revelation we need to be studying is all around us. > > Later in his career, Emerson refined the views expressed in his early > sermons and devised, however unsystematically, his Transcendentalist > philosophy of religion (which academic philosophers studiously ignored > until around 1985 and which most American religious leaders ignore to > this day, leaving it to professors of English to keep it alive). As > Thomas Tweed points out, Emerson is one of the most Buddhist thinkers of > the 19th century, with the possible exception of his student Thoreau. > > What I find interesting about the trajectory of Emerson's career is that > he began with personal ethics, evolved into a metaphysics of > interconnectedness and universalism, and then spent the later decades of > his life sharply criticizing the public policies of his day, most > famously in his passionate criticisms of slavery (which the majority of > religious "leaders" of his day were either defending or ignoring > altogether). > > Like everyone else, Emerson managed to defend a few things that now seem > questionable, even astonishing, such as the American invasion of Mexico. > (Actually, Emerson did not advocate that awful war so much as he thought > it inevitable, given the expansionist passions of the day, and therefore > he seems to have concluded that there was little point trying to stop > the American juggernaut.) > > But questionable positions aside, Emerson offers reflective people an > admirable example of how an essentially contemplative person might go > about getting involved in trying to straighten out the crooked thinking > of his times. It is an example that I recommend to serious Buddhists > everywhere, and especially to those who tune in to buddha-l. After all, > if we on buddha-l do not use our collective compassionate wisdom to help > straighten out a world gone pathological, who will? > > -- > Richard Hayes > *** > "Where the clear stream of reason > has not lost its way into the dreary desert sand of dead habit... > Into that heaven of freedom, my Father, let my country awake." > --Rabindranath Tagore (1861-1941) All agreed. So where does simple reason, a tool available to most common folk (when properly instructed), end, and Buddhism - a difficult thing, to say the least - begin? The fuzzy boundary of self, or somewhere in metaspace? Is it at all possible they're are twins, separated at birth? Persons in general, in my experience, are not "essentiallycontemplative", in fact, they're impulsive, reproductively oriented, and hardly inclined to use their highly evolved computational machines. So if we collect all these "essentially contemplative" persons do we wind up with the same "little dust in their eyes" crowd? My point, in it's entirety, is SO WHAT? We simply haven't got an answer - we keep describing the problem. That's the whole thing - Buddhism is famous for inaction. While Ralphie was "cultivating character", slave's feet were being chopped off to prevent their escape. Hell of a saint, ol' Ralph. "Buddhism is like salsa - you can't dip a Cool Ranch Dorito in it and still expect to taste it." -- Giant Asteroid of Magnificent Awakening From mike at lamrim.org.uk Sat Oct 8 17:35:13 2005 From: mike at lamrim.org.uk (Mike Austin) Date: Sat Oct 8 18:06:27 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Diversions, distractions and off-topic discussions In-Reply-To: References: <3luroIQH+8RDFw7l@clara.net> <1128781640.4379.12.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: In message , L.S. Cousins writes >I quite agree that these are good topics for discussion for both monks >and lay people and would personally find Buddha-L more interesting if >it were discussing them more. Thanks Lance. I was beginning to feel isolated! But maybe the intention from others was to encourage me to go into seclusion - one of Buddha's suitable topics. -- Metta Mike Austin From mike at lamrim.org.uk Sat Oct 8 17:47:44 2005 From: mike at lamrim.org.uk (Mike Austin) Date: Sat Oct 8 18:06:32 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Diversions, distractions and off-topic discussions In-Reply-To: <002601c5cc46$206f28a0$2930cece@charlie> References: <3luroIQH+8RDFw7l@clara.net> <1128781640.4379.12.camel@localhost.localdomain> <002601c5cc46$206f28a0$2930cece@charlie> Message-ID: In message <002601c5cc46$206f28a0$2930cece@charlie>, jkirk writes >Like much found in ancient scriptures, what is said can be >contextualized and then a slightly different reading appears. The >Buddha and his sangha did not live in democratic societies with civil >rights, they lived in kingships and were dependent on kings from time >to time for protection, alms, public support, donations of land for >monasteries, and so on. Kings in those days maintained spies, and my >guess is that it was dangerous to criticize the monarch, even as today >in Thailand, in a sort of democratic kingdom where the King's public >persona and roles are modeled on Brahmanic patterns of yore, if one >criticizes the King, one is subject to the death penalty. Thus, it >behooved the monks and their leaders to mind their own business and >concentrate on the vinaya. In those days, the idea that public comment >and or participation (demonstrations?) could affect politics was >unthinkable. Times have changed, and to my mind the sutta quoted here >is mainly applicable to monastics, although it is also good advice in >some contemporary contexts as well. Are you of the opinion that Buddha's words on the topics of conversation were merely tailored to sustain sponsorship and avoid punishment? Do you not see anything in these words that could provide us with guidance for this day and age - or indeed any day and age? -- Metta Mike Austin From jkirk at spro.net Sat Oct 8 18:07:48 2005 From: jkirk at spro.net (jkirk) Date: Sat Oct 8 18:16:30 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Diversions, distractions and on-topic discussions References: <3luroIQH+8RDFw7l@clara.net><1128781640.4379.12.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1128805361.5717.86.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <004501c5cc65$7beb0450$2930cece@charlie> Speaking of "open space and seeing," the time has come for me to point out what I alluded to very indirectly before--that comments on this list are so spatially oriented toward, and closed, by the males on it that useful and relevant comments by a female, me in this case, continually are unresponded to and/or ignored. (I just went over my postings to the list since 23 Aug, and found 17 of them, most of them, that were totally not responded to.) This has been going on for months. Too often, the un-responded-to posts that I had hoped would elicit responses that I could think over and learn from, ended up being ignored, and I had no responses to consider. Generally speaking, and especially when the testosterone gets rampantly flowing over some particular topic-- despite the fact that it has worn out its welcome (among some of us) long before and people are just repeating themselves--the debate just keeps on going like some exhausted battery rabbit commercial. I happen to be a scholar--- therefore what serious posts I offer don't come out of People magazine or usenets, and I have to say that it's time male denizens of this list thought over their tendency to ignore anything, even almost everything, I contribute to the list discourse. And please do not indulge yourselves by replying that I am suffering from an excess of ego, since that is found in wondrous abundance among every other contributor on this list --so forget about that one. As well, don't ask me to just delete if I don't like what's on offer here......I do that regularly. No--This is an unrecognized issue on this list---male egomania and the unconscious marginalization and ignoring of anything offered by the one female scholar, so far, to have anything to do with this Buddha-L discourse for some time, who sometimes even (schock) offers a rather female point of view. Maybe there are other women scholars like me on Buddha-L, but they are not posting. I can surely understand why. A few months ago there was a woman who posted a few times to the list, (I don't know if she's a scholar or not), but she quickly took off. Think it over, y'all, and please do not demean yourselves by offering any smart-aleck or condescending replies. If Buddha-L is supposed to be a community of practicers and scholars, then stop isolating and ignoring the contributions of the other gender here. Best wishes, Joanna From chanfu at gmail.com Sat Oct 8 18:53:01 2005 From: chanfu at gmail.com (Chan Fu) Date: Sat Oct 8 18:57:40 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Diversions, distractions and off-topic discussions In-Reply-To: References: <3luroIQH+8RDFw7l@clara.net> <1128781640.4379.12.camel@localhost.localdomain> <002601c5cc46$206f28a0$2930cece@charlie> Message-ID: On 10/8/05, Mike Austin wrote: > In message <002601c5cc46$206f28a0$2930cece@charlie>, jkirk > writes > > >Like much found in ancient scriptures, what is said can be > >contextualized and then a slightly different reading appears. The > >Buddha and his sangha did not live in democratic societies with civil > >rights, they lived in kingships and were dependent on kings from time > >to time for protection, alms, public support, donations of land for > >monasteries, and so on. Kings in those days maintained spies, and my > >guess is that it was dangerous to criticize the monarch, even as today > >in Thailand, in a sort of democratic kingdom where the King's public > >persona and roles are modeled on Brahmanic patterns of yore, if one > >criticizes the King, one is subject to the death penalty. Thus, it > >behooved the monks and their leaders to mind their own business and > >concentrate on the vinaya. In those days, the idea that public comment > >and or participation (demonstrations?) could affect politics was > >unthinkable. Times have changed, and to my mind the sutta quoted here > >is mainly applicable to monastics, although it is also good advice in > >some contemporary contexts as well. > > Are you of the opinion that Buddha's words on the topics of conversation > were merely tailored to sustain sponsorship and avoid punishment? Do you > not see anything in these words that could provide us with guidance for > this day and age - or indeed any day and age? Are you of the opinion that we know even a single sentence of "Buddha's words?" Perhaps it would be better to take the entire canon as a collection of generalities, many of them gross. Yes, I'm suggesting that the entireity of Buddhist literature was manufactured. And very often by people who hadn't a clue - completly after the fact - in fact, without even the fact. Further, I'm suggesting that any number of arhats contributed by interpolation and revisionism. That's what the evolution of religion (or philosophy, or science) does. That's what humanity does. We are iterative and recursive, genetically, philosophically, religiously. Buddhism is no different. There is no need to retrace those phantom steps again and again; there is no need to preserve the largely imagined past. We have some bits and pieces that we can smile at, but that's not here and now. That's not Buddhism. A huge number of Buddhists are afraid of karma (action), so they preach and practice inaction - a collection of foolish lizards basking in the sun. But Buddhism isn't that. Selfless action is real action and Buddhism actually demands action, it *is* action - that's what being implies, that's what being is. As I said to Richard, there's hardly a difference between Buddhism and rationality. Our own minds are the very tools for understanding ourselves. It's time Buddhism was forgotten as a "thing" and just put up on the shelf as a fond memory - like grandma's quilt - and its legacy - the essence of it, the science of it - imbued in our basic education and understanding of ourselves. It's time to grow up. From chanfu at gmail.com Sat Oct 8 19:11:16 2005 From: chanfu at gmail.com (Chan Fu) Date: Sat Oct 8 19:16:31 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Diversions, distractions and on-topic discussions In-Reply-To: <004501c5cc65$7beb0450$2930cece@charlie> References: <3luroIQH+8RDFw7l@clara.net> <1128781640.4379.12.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1128805361.5717.86.camel@localhost.localdomain> <004501c5cc65$7beb0450$2930cece@charlie> Message-ID: On 10/8/05, jkirk wrote: > Speaking of "open space and seeing," the time has come for me to point out > what I alluded to very indirectly before--that comments on this list are so > spatially oriented toward, and closed, by the males on it that useful and > relevant comments by a female, me in this case, continually are unresponded > to and/or ignored. (I just went over my postings to the list since 23 Aug, > and found 17 of them, most of them, that were totally not responded to.) > This has been going on for months. Too often, the un-responded-to posts > that I had hoped would elicit responses that I could think over and learn > from, ended up being ignored, and I had no responses to consider. > > Generally speaking, and especially when the testosterone gets rampantly > flowing over some particular topic-- despite the fact that it has worn out > its welcome (among some of us) long before and people are just repeating > themselves--the debate just keeps on going like some exhausted battery > rabbit commercial. > > I happen to be a scholar--- therefore what serious posts I offer don't come > out of People magazine or usenets, and I have to say that it's time male > denizens of this list thought over their tendency to ignore anything, even > almost everything, I contribute to the list discourse. And please do not > indulge yourselves by replying that I am suffering from an excess of ego, > since that is found in wondrous abundance among every other contributor on > this list --so forget about that one. As well, don't ask me to just delete > if I don't like what's on offer here......I do that regularly. > > No--This is an unrecognized issue on this list---male egomania and the > unconscious marginalization and ignoring of anything offered by the one > female scholar, so far, to have anything to do with this Buddha-L discourse > for some time, who sometimes even (schock) offers a rather female point of > view. Maybe there are other women scholars like me on Buddha-L, but they are > not posting. I can surely understand why. A few months ago there was a woman > who posted a few times to the list, (I don't know if she's a scholar or > not), but she quickly took off. > > Think it over, y'all, and please do not demean yourselves by offering any > smart-aleck or condescending replies. If Buddha-L is supposed to be a > community of practicers and scholars, then stop isolating and ignoring the > contributions of the other gender here. > > Best wishes, > Joanna Sheesh, Jo! What set that off? I didn't see any sexist stuff here, but I'm just a newbie. Did I ignore you (all we can ask of ourselves is just what we do) or something? You should remember that such indictments include everyone. love, cf From bcarral at kungzhi.org Sat Oct 8 20:04:57 2005 From: bcarral at kungzhi.org (Benito Carral) Date: Sat Oct 8 20:06:31 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Diversions, distractions and off-topic discussions In-Reply-To: <6J+oj8XKOBSDFwwJ@clara.net> References: <3luroIQH+8RDFw7l@clara.net> <1073114520.20051008172212@kungzhi.org> <6J+oj8XKOBSDFwwJ@clara.net> Message-ID: <515280680.20051009040457@kungzhi.org> On Saturday, October 8, 2005, Mike Austin wrote: >> It's time to go further and adopt a broader view of >> what Buddhism is, and a fist step would be >> recognizing the collective side of dukkha. > It seems to me that the recognition of dukkha should > be accompanied by a recognition of its causes and its > cessation. I do not see where debating presidents, > governments, nations, wars, other religions, > musicians etc., fits in with this. They are a major factor in collective dukkha, so we should understand how they work from a Buddhist perspective before thinking in developing strategies in order to change their ways. > This should be directed to those concerned. Why? I think that we all are concerned about those forces, so why don't discuss them here? >> Nowadays boddhisattvas must talk and act about free >> market forces, globalized media, and >> multiculturalism--otherwise they would be >> practitioners isolated in their caves. > Hehe! I think you should tell them, not me! I do not > recall reading that the Buddha exhorted them to do > this. I would expect bodhisattvas to help individual > beings, who create such things. To stop something, > one has to stop its causes. These things are merely > symptomatic of the problem. What you call "symptomatic things" are also conditions. Anyway, it uses to be that in order to establish a treatment one must study the symptoms before. But maybe we are writing a new page in the history of medicine. Then, as Joanna rightly said, the Old Indian Guy lived in a world completely different than ours. >> So, in a Mahayana spirit, your question should be >> reformulated as follows, "Is a discourse not >> including corporations, national governments, other >> religions, etc., relevant to our contemporary >> Buddhist necessities?" Maybe such discourse would be >> the one held by current pratyekabuddhas and their >> acolytes. > I think you should check what the Buddha said - > unless we are ruling him out because he is not > contemporary. I don't know if you assume that I don't know what the Old Guy said, that's up to you, but I would no say that "we are ruling him out" just "updating his tought" so it can be useful for us here and now. Best wishes, Beni From mike at lamrim.org.uk Sat Oct 8 19:41:13 2005 From: mike at lamrim.org.uk (Mike Austin) Date: Sat Oct 8 20:16:33 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Diversions, distractions and on-topic discussions In-Reply-To: <004501c5cc65$7beb0450$2930cece@charlie> References: <3luroIQH+8RDFw7l@clara.net> <1128781640.4379.12.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1128805361.5717.86.camel@localhost.localdomain> <004501c5cc65$7beb0450$2930cece@charlie> Message-ID: In message <004501c5cc65$7beb0450$2930cece@charlie>, jkirk writes >Speaking of "open space and seeing," the time has come for me to point >out what I alluded to very indirectly before--that comments on this >list are so spatially oriented toward, and closed, by the males on it >that useful and relevant comments by a female, me in this case, >continually are unresponded to and/or ignored. Joanna, Where did this come from? I only just responded to your last post. There is one point I would make, though. You often post snippets and links. I am not really disposed to being sent off somewhere else to read articles in this way. This is a Buddhist discussion group (I can be at least half right here) and I prefer to discuss with people in their own words, when I find discussion of the topic conducive to dukkha-nirodha. Whether they fall into that category or not was the subject of this thread. -- Metta Mike Austin From mike at lamrim.org.uk Sat Oct 8 20:07:33 2005 From: mike at lamrim.org.uk (Mike Austin) Date: Sat Oct 8 20:16:39 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Diversions, distractions and off-topic discussions In-Reply-To: References: <3luroIQH+8RDFw7l@clara.net> <1128781640.4379.12.camel@localhost.localdomain> <002601c5cc46$206f28a0$2930cece@charlie> Message-ID: <691oeydltHSDFwzS@clara.net> In message , Chan Fu writes >Yes, I'm suggesting that the entireity of Buddhist literature was >manufactured. And very often by people who hadn't a clue - >completly after the fact - in fact, without even the fact. Well, well! I happen to think that some people have more of a clue than I. (In fact, probably most people do). But I only become convinced of this if I take on board what they say, and test it for myself. What I have found, with guidance from texts and teachers, is something I would not have expected to find through my own disoriented musings, let alone through dismissive banter. >A huge number of Buddhists are afraid of karma (action), so >they preach and practice inaction - a collection of foolish lizards >basking in the sun. But Buddhism isn't that. Selfless action >is real action and Buddhism actually demands action, it *is* >action - that's what being implies, that's what being is. Now settle down there! It is said (hopefully, not by the clueless), that Bodhisattvas fear only their delusions. If they wish to avoid an effect, they wish to avoid the cause of that effect. Dukkha arises from delusion and karma. One does not overcome these through inaction. >It's time to grow up. One grows up by recognising grown-ups, and learning from them. -- Metta Mike Austin From bcarral at kungzhi.org Sat Oct 8 20:19:15 2005 From: bcarral at kungzhi.org (Benito Carral) Date: Sat Oct 8 20:26:30 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Diversions, distractions and on-topic discussions In-Reply-To: <004501c5cc65$7beb0450$2930cece@charlie> References: <3luroIQH+8RDFw7l@clara.net><1128781640.4379.12.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1128805361.5717.86.camel@localhost.localdomain> <004501c5cc65$7beb0450$2930cece@charlie> Message-ID: <602926703.20051009041915@kungzhi.org> On Sunday, October 9, 2005, Joanna wrote: > This is an unrecognized issue on this list---male > egomania and the unconscious marginalization and > ignoring of anything offered by the one female > scholar, so far, to have anything to do with this > Buddha-L discourse for some time, who sometimes even > (schock) offers a rather female point of view. How would you characterize male and female discourse here? This is a quite interesting issue for me, having being the only man in the Women's Voices Commitee of the last Parliament of World's Religions (Barcelona, 2004) where we discussed something similar and made some proposals. (I will copy our manifest in other message.) Best wishes, Beni From chanfu at gmail.com Sat Oct 8 20:27:51 2005 From: chanfu at gmail.com (Chan Fu) Date: Sat Oct 8 20:36:38 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Diversions, distractions and off-topic discussions In-Reply-To: <691oeydltHSDFwzS@clara.net> References: <3luroIQH+8RDFw7l@clara.net> <1128781640.4379.12.camel@localhost.localdomain> <002601c5cc46$206f28a0$2930cece@charlie> <691oeydltHSDFwzS@clara.net> Message-ID: On 10/8/05, Mike Austin wrote: > In message > , Chan Fu > writes > > >Yes, I'm suggesting that the entireity of Buddhist literature was > >manufactured. And very often by people who hadn't a clue - > >completly after the fact - in fact, without even the fact. > > Well, well! > > I happen to think that some people have more of a clue than I. (In fact, > probably most people do). But I only become convinced of this if I take > on board what they say, and test it for myself. What I have found, with > guidance from texts and teachers, is something I would not have expected > to find through my own disoriented musings, let alone through dismissive > banter. > > > >A huge number of Buddhists are afraid of karma (action), so > >they preach and practice inaction - a collection of foolish lizards > >basking in the sun. But Buddhism isn't that. Selfless action > >is real action and Buddhism actually demands action, it *is* > >action - that's what being implies, that's what being is. > > Now settle down there! It is said (hopefully, not by the clueless), that > Bodhisattvas fear only their delusions. If they wish to avoid an effect, > they wish to avoid the cause of that effect. Dukkha arises from delusion > and karma. One does not overcome these through inaction. > > > >It's time to grow up. > > One grows up by recognising grown-ups, and learning from them. ok dad - teach me From jkirk at spro.net Sat Oct 8 20:41:33 2005 From: jkirk at spro.net (jkirk) Date: Sat Oct 8 20:46:32 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Diversions, distractions and off-topic discussions References: <3luroIQH+8RDFw7l@clara.net><1128781640.4379.12.camel@localhost.localdomain><002601c5cc46$206f28a0$2930cece@charlie> Message-ID: <000901c5cc7a$f6b57250$2930cece@charlie> Times have changed, and to my mind the sutta quoted here >>is mainly applicable to monastics, although it is also good advice in some >>contemporary contexts as well. > > Are you of the opinion that Buddha's words on the topics of conversation > were merely tailored to sustain sponsorship and avoid punishment? Do you > not see anything in these words that could provide us with guidance for > this day and age - or indeed any day and age? > > -- > Metta > Mike Austin ================== No, that is not my opinion, as should have been evident from what I wrote. If the Buddha had been living in the kind of culture that permitted criticism of governments, kings, and congresses, I suspect he might have had much to offer that was less quietist than the verses you cited. But, as I said, "it is also good advice in >>some contemporary contexts as well." Everything has a context. JK From bcarral at kungzhi.org Sat Oct 8 20:55:45 2005 From: bcarral at kungzhi.org (Benito Carral) Date: Sat Oct 8 20:57:46 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Petition on the Inclusion of Women's Voices (Parliament of the World's Religions) Message-ID: <1233778238.20051009045545@kungzhi.org> Petition on the Inclusion of Women's Voices On July 12, 2004, 70-100 Parliament participants, included the undersigned, met to express our concerns regarding the notable absence of a full range of women's voices and points of view that would have brought needed balance to the Parliament's dialogue about the issues of: access to clean water, the impact of religiously motivated violence on women and children, elimination of third world debt, and the plight of refugees, 80% of whom are women and children. We are moved to reflection and action by a spontaneous upsurge of energy caused by the desire to hear the full spectrum of women's experiences and perspectives, including that of feminists. We respectfully offer a list of recommendations that move forward the religious commitment to the well-being of women, as described in the Global Ethics Statement of the 1993 Parliament of the World's Religions. In conclusi?n, we stand ready to contribute and apply our collective expertise and first-person experience as women. Without the adequate representation of a rainbow of women's voices, religious and spiritual dialogue will be irrelevant. It is our hope that by opening the door further to include a wider range of voices, you will enable fuller participation for all the underrepresented and marginalized. The organizing committee Loletta Barret (wchrmp@hotmail.com) Janet Bregar (LadyRevJAB@aol.com) Benito Carral (bcarral@hotmail.com Spanish wellcome) Denielle Charel (dchere@aol.com) Anna Crews (jeremiah_ch29wsll@hotmail.com) Helene Egnell (Helene.Egnell@ted.uu.se) Alejandra Espa?ol (alejandraev@terra.es) Jeannine Hill Fletcher (hillfletche@fordham.edu) Annie Imbens-Fransen (imbensan@wxs.nl) Shirly Strong (sstrong@projectchange.org) Carlotta Tyler (ctyler@odconsultant.cem) Susanne Zimmermann (sanne_zimmermann@hotmail.com) Recommendation to the Council for a Parliament of the World's Religions The focus of the Parliament "agenda" should include the gender inequality in the world's religious and spiritual traditions. Equal members of women and men should be present on all programs. There are gender issues embedded in every topic. Women experiences ofter differ from mainstrem interpretations. This should consistently be reflected in the presentations. Scholars of women in religion and feminist scholars should be included in every program. The interpretation of religious and spiritual text from the perspective of women's and children's human rights should be given priority. Broader criteria for selection of "experts" must also be considered. The emphasis upon "experts" as a criteria for participant selection ofter excludes the primary concerns of women because women have been denied the opportunities for professional advancement. Experiences from women's interfaith project show that emphasis placed on building relations facilitates constructive dialogue. The format of programs should include, as a priority, group dialogues and the creation of space for co-equal conversations that produce collective insights. Experts in the study of women and religion and feminist scholars should be included in every program. Women oftern have less opportunity for education, employement and economic resources. This means they are less able to participate in Parliament activities. We propose that the Parliament actively sponsor women by developing partnerships that provide financial support. This also applies to other marginalized groups. An equal number of women and men (including feminist scholars) should be members of the Parliament's governing bodies, especially the program task force and the advisors to the program task force. (PS: Please, help us to spread the message.) From curt at cola.iges.org Sat Oct 8 10:46:50 2005 From: curt at cola.iges.org (curt) Date: Sat Oct 8 21:30:31 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Diversions, distractions and off-topic discussions In-Reply-To: <1073114520.20051008172212@kungzhi.org> References: <3luroIQH+8RDFw7l@clara.net> <1073114520.20051008172212@kungzhi.org> Message-ID: <4347F7FA.7070800@cola.iges.org> I agree very strongly with this, and I also think that this is raises a basic issue with respect to "mindfulness". One of the quick and dirty ways of summarizing what the Buddha taught, is that he taught people about the necessity to see things "as they are". For the Buddha himself, at least according to tradition, the turning point in his life came when he became aware of how much suffering existed outside of his comfortable Palace. It is almost as if that story were intended to speak directly to those of us today who live relatively privileged and comfortable lives while there exists so much suffering all around us. Of course, I also agree that from that basic understanding it is necessary to move on to understand the causes of poverty and oppression and violence and to seek to cut off their roots. - Curt Benito Carral wrote: > For example, why does half of world population live >on less than two dollars a day? If we don't know why, >we won't know what to do about it. And here >corporations, US Government, US Treasury, IMF, WTO, >globalized media, and other forces come to play. For >example, where do the resources we spend go? What is >being done with such resources? > > From curt at cola.iges.org Sat Oct 8 17:02:16 2005 From: curt at cola.iges.org (curt) Date: Sat Oct 8 21:30:34 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: <004c01c5cc35$b804c320$767c4e51@zen> References: <1127942930.6308.49.camel@localhost.localdomain><433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net><617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org><4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net><1359619694.20051004213630@kungzhi.org><43441B56.7080303@nerim.net><1479321719.20051006043947@kungzhi.org><003c01c5ca43$01172200$c8369c04@Dan><4344DA9B.8040908@xs4all.nl><00bb01c5ca59$2aa93700$c8369c04@Dan><1128621156.4783.55.camel@localhost.localdomain><008901c5cabf$30ff5010$bc369c04@Dan> <43461940.1060905@nerim.net><022701c5cb19$ff594ab0$bc369c04@Dan> <014501c5cbe8$4a523580$e51b9c04@Dan> <004c01c5cc35$b804c320$767c4e51@zen> Message-ID: <43484FF8.3070208@cola.iges.org> Actually, the main thing that precipitated hostilities was the fact that Japan and the US were both engaged simultaneously in Imperialist expansionism into the same part of the world. Jack Reed actually put it much more eloquently and succinctly (or at least "he" did according to the portrayal of him in the movie "Reds") when asked to deliver a speech on the causes of WWI (which was still going on at the time). He stood up and said "Profits", and then sat back down. The same thing was true although the details differed slightly in WWII. - Curt Stephen Hodge wrote: > Dear Dan > >> a long and brutal war initiated by the Japanese themselves > > > So the embargos and trade restrictions imposed by the West on the > Japanese during the inter-war years played no part in precipitating > hostilities ? From rhayes at unm.edu Sat Oct 8 22:01:40 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Sat Oct 8 22:07:41 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: <43484FF8.3070208@cola.iges.org> References: <1127942930.6308.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> <433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net> <617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org><4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net> <1359619694.20051004213630@kungzhi.org><43441B56.7080303@nerim.net> <1479321719.20051006043947@kungzhi.org><003c01c5ca43$01172200$c8369c04@Dan> <4344DA9B.8040908@xs4all.nl><00bb01c5ca59$2aa93700$c8369c04@Dan> <1128621156.4783.55.camel@localhost.localdomain> <008901c5cabf$30ff5010$bc369c04@Dan> <43461940.1060905@nerim.net> <022701c5cb19$ff594ab0$bc369c04@Dan> <014501c5cbe8$4a523580$e51b9c04@Dan> <004c01c5cc35$b804c320$767c4e51@zen> <43484FF8.3070208@cola.iges.org> Message-ID: <1128830500.6887.23.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Sat, 2005-10-08 at 19:02 -0400, curt wrote: > Actually, the main thing that precipitated hostilities was the fact that > Japan and the US were both engaged simultaneously in Imperialist > expansionism into the same part of the world. My memory is among the worst in the world (or at least I have forgotten whose is worse), so I can't recall where I read an interesting analysis of American meddling in Vietnam that began with an account of American aspirations in the 1930s to develop a dominating commercial and political presence in Southeast Asia. That attempt was foiled by the Japanese, said the article in question, because the Japanese were better at the time than the Americans at being imperialists. The American aspiration to gain a dominating presence in Asia continued after the Second World War, into the Korean war and finally in the Vietnam War. What the article claimed was that American imperial aspirations in Asia were in full operation for about fifty years, until the American military finally went home with its tail between its legs. After giving up in Asia, the Americans apparently decided to pick on Arabs and Persians instead. But even after being defeated militarily in Vietnam, the American effort to establish an empire in Asia was still not finished. After the military failed to do the trick, the Americans sent Ronald MacDonald, Colonel Saunders and Sam Walton. The attempt to conquer China economically has obviously worked beautifully. I went into a huge shoe store a couple of days ago and looked at where the shoes were made. I looked at about fifty pairs of shoes. All the American shoes, Swiss shoes, Italian shoes, and German shoes were made in China. The Israeli shoes were made in Israel. A pair of Brazilian shoes were made in Brazil. Pretty neat, eh? Nobody in the world has a job anymore, because all work is being done by underpaid Chinese workers. As a feeble protest against globalization, I wear Red Wing shoes. They're still made in Minnesota, by gum. They are, I understand, the preferred foot ware of American Buddhists. -- Richard Hayes From rhayes at unm.edu Sat Oct 8 22:26:16 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Sat Oct 8 22:26:32 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Statistics Message-ID: <1128831977.6887.37.camel@localhost.localdomain> Joanna Kirkpatrick's observation that she is being ignored prompted me to look into the archives. Here we are, eight days into October, and already we have six contributors who have sent more that twenty messages this month. The most frequent contributors have been: Benito Carral, 30 messages Joy Vriens, 29 Chan Fu, 26 Richard Hayes, 24 Joanna Kirkpatrick, 23 Dan Lusthaus, 23 Joanna is an academic who loves to write and who, being retired, has time on her hands. I don't know what the hell excuse the rest of us have. An examination of threads in September and October shows that Joanna's messages are not ignored much more than those of anyone else who writes a lot. I have a hunch that many readers get into the habit of automatically deleting messages from people who write a lot. It's easy to set up a filter to do such things, and I'd bet that just about all subscribers to buddha-l have found ways to send all the messages of their least favorite writers to the junk file. -- Richard Hayes *** "If you want the truth, rather than merely something to say, you will have a good deal less to say." -- Thomas Nagel From StormyTet at aol.com Sat Oct 8 22:50:05 2005 From: StormyTet at aol.com (StormyTet@aol.com) Date: Sat Oct 8 22:57:42 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Diversions, distractions and on-topic discussions Message-ID: In a message dated 10/8/2005 7:19:18 P.M. Central Daylight Time, jkirk@spro.net writes: No--This is an unrecognized issue on this list---male egomania and the unconscious marginalization and ignoring of anything offered by the one female scholar, so far, to have anything to do with this Buddha-L discourse for some time, who sometimes even (schock) offers a rather female point of view. Maybe there are other women scholars like me on Buddha-L, but they are not posting. I can surely understand why. A few months ago there was a woman who posted a few times to the list, (I don't know if she's a scholar or not), but she quickly took off. Think it over, y'all, and please do not demean yourselves by offering any smart-aleck or condescending replies. If Buddha-L is supposed to be a community of practicers and scholars, then stop isolating and ignoring the contributions of the other gender here. Best wishes, Joanna Hi Joanna, I don't know if you were talking about me in this post, but I haven't taken off. I've just gotten really busy and focused on academic stuff that is not directly related to Buddha-l. Like, applying for doctoral programs and basically stressing out with my last two semesters of grad school. I wanted to chime in here as a female and let you know that my silences and lack of responses are often because I don't feel I can speak wisely about an issue or I realize that I simply do not want to get into a debate. To be frank, I find the verbal 'battles' to be sometimes worthwhile and sometimes distracting. That said, I like this list and your contributions -- often ones that offer a link I tend to read and appreciate. I just don't feel qualified to reply all the time. I just wanted you to know...I'm listening quietly. Stormy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20051009/f8fcaa37/attachment.html From StormyTet at aol.com Sat Oct 8 23:19:01 2005 From: StormyTet at aol.com (StormyTet@aol.com) Date: Sat Oct 8 23:27:43 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] non-entanglement, motherhood and right livelihood Message-ID: <1c9.32b29d50.307a0245@aol.com> In a message dated 10/8/2005 3:49:16 P.M. Central Daylight Time, selwyn@ntlworld.com writes: >"There are these ten topics of [proper] conversation. Which ten? >Talk on modesty, on contentment, on seclusion, on non-entanglement, >on arousing persistence, on virtue, on concentration, on >discernment, on release, and on the knowledge & vision of release. >These are the ten topics of conversation. If you were to engage >repeatedly in these ten topics of conversation, you would outshine >even the sun & moon, so mighty, so powerful -- to say nothing of the >wanderers of other sects." I quite agree that these are good topics for discussion for both monks and lay people and would personally find Buddha-L more interesting if it were discussing them more. Lance Cousins In light of my recent stress, I would love to listen to people wax eloquent on "non-entanglement." The subject of attachment vs. non-attachment has probably been the most salient buddhist dichotomy that I have worked with in my life. My conception of what detachment means has changed dramatically since I began my practice (about 7 years ago). Being a mother has made this issue central to finding balance in my life and academic career. I just recently watched "Searching for Debra Winger." The movie is about aging female actresses and one of the topics they discuss is the terrible tension between following their passion for acting (right livelihood?) vs. fulfilling their role of mother. The struggle that is depicted in the movie is very real, I think, for any woman who recognizes a life passion/work and the impact that fulfilling her path will have on her children. There is a woman's topic. :) Stormy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20051009/f20dc57a/attachment.htm From dlusthau at mailer.fsu.edu Sun Oct 9 01:42:42 2005 From: dlusthau at mailer.fsu.edu (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Sun Oct 9 01:46:35 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo References: <1127942930.6308.49.camel@localhost.localdomain><433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net><617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org><4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net><1359619694.20051004213630@kungzhi.org><43441B56.7080303@nerim.net><1479321719.20051006043947@kungzhi.org><003c01c5ca43$01172200$c8369c04@Dan><4344DA9B.8040908@xs4all.nl><00bb01c5ca59$2aa93700$c8369c04@Dan><1128621156.4783.55.camel@localhost.localdomain><008901c5cabf$30ff5010$bc369c04@Dan> <43461940.1060905@nerim.net><022701c5cb19$ff594ab0$bc369c04@Dan><014501c5cbe8$4a523580$e51b9c04@Dan> <004c01c5cc35$b804c320$767c4e51@zen> Message-ID: <006b01c5cca5$0ab2d750$f6339c04@Dan> Dear Stephen, > > So the embargos and trade restrictions imposed by the West on the Japanese > during the inter-war years played no part in precipitating hostilities ? Of course! A direct result of the embargo was the invasion of Manchuria, the Rape of Nanjing, the subjugation of the Pacific Islands, the torture of Korea, and every other evil of the 20th century. Grow up. Dan Lusthaus From dlusthau at mailer.fsu.edu Sun Oct 9 01:54:52 2005 From: dlusthau at mailer.fsu.edu (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Sun Oct 9 01:56:36 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo References: <000801c5cba3$0a22d590$256a4e51@zen><01d101c5cc02$c4e32ab0$e51b9c04@Dan> <004b01c5cc35$b7305c20$767c4e51@zen> Message-ID: <007301c5cca6$be6d51c0$f6339c04@Dan> Dear Stephen, >For example, you say that Japanese soldiers never surrendered, > but fought to the death. This is largely true. But you must be aware that > US forces often shot unarmed Japanese prisoners What does "often" mean? How did the Japanese treat POWs? And what does that have to do with the Japanese considering surrender anathema? In the context of what was on decision makers' mind in the last months of the war I would suggest paying more attention to the message clearly broadcast by kamikaze flights (who only appeared *after* things were already militarily hopeless), the suicide mission of the battleship Yamamato (biggest battleship ever built, went out virtually single-handledly to take on the entire American fleet with 3000 crewman on board, *after* the rest of the Japanese fleet had been largely destroyed, and was sunk by American planes before it ever got within 200 miles of the American fleet in a mission everyone involved knew was suicidal even before they left port), the training of the housewife militias (well documented, and I have personally heard some of the stories of the trainees who were ready to die on the beaches), and countless other indications that the Japanese will to die fighting rather than surrender was the ruling ethos. The Japanese still view these acts with mythic awe. Dan Lusthaus From wdkish81 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 9 02:38:54 2005 From: wdkish81 at yahoo.com (Bill Kish) Date: Sun Oct 9 02:46:35 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: buddha-l Digest, Vol 8, Issue 36 In-Reply-To: <200510090011.j990BojQ017393@ns1.swcp.com> Message-ID: <20051009083854.13037.qmail@web30511.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Richard Nance: >Ronald M. Davidson (whose work I seem to be touting a lot lately) >devotes some discussion to both sPa tshab and Jayaananda in his >brand new book *Tibetan Renaissance*. The book is a monumental >work of scholarship, and very highly recommended. I wasn't aware of this book; thanks for the reference. I'm also finding material on both in Ruegg's "Three Studies in the History of Indian and Tibetan Madhyamaka Philosophy". --------- Bill Kish __________________________________ Yahoo! Music Unlimited Access over 1 million songs. Try it free. http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/ From dlusthau at mailer.fsu.edu Sun Oct 9 03:53:20 2005 From: dlusthau at mailer.fsu.edu (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Sun Oct 9 03:57:59 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo References: <000801c5cba3$0a22d590$256a4e51@zen><01a301c5cbf7$0f5c6040$e51b9c04@Dan><021901c5cc0c$1a641e50$e51b9c04@Dan> Message-ID: <008701c5ccb7$4acc9490$f6339c04@Dan> Lance, Thanks for that post, which helps clarify for me your thinking on this. I still disagree about a number of key points. > >As I mentioned in the previous message, the Japanese overtures to Russia in > >search of a better deal are well known. > > On the contrary, it is clear that after the Potsdam Declaration of > July 25th, Japanese overtures were on that basis. I'm not sure where the disagreement ("on the contrary...") here is supposed to be. If you mean that the Japanese were approaching the Russians only, but with an attitude to full compliance with the Potsdam Declaration (Unconditional Surrender), that doesn't make sense. If they were agreeing to the Potsdam agreement, why only approach the Russians? I have never seen any plausible suggestion that the probings with Russians were anything other than probings for a better deal (which did include a list of unacceptable counter-demands/conditions that could hardly be taken as a valid offer of surrender). If you have evidence to the contrary, please share it. > > It was not an offer of surrender, > >however. It was a probing, based on misguided notions held by some in the > >Japanese leadership that Russia, having its own imperial history, would be > >more understanding. > > This is rather difficult to understand. Stalin would be more > understanding because of Russian Imperial history ? Yes it is. That's why I characterized it as "misguided notions held by some in the Japanese leadership." I think -- but this would be a wide and complicated detour to get into in detail -- that it can be clearly documented that the Japanese harbored fundamental misconceptions about the nature of the Soviet Union and the Communist Revolution, starting in 1917 (I mean their misconceptions, not just the revolution) and continuing at least through the duration of the war. Having an Emperor, and believing in their heart of hearts that the Russian people would still have warm and fuzzy feelings about their own Czar on some level, they would understand -- unlike the Zionistic Americans who were sovereignless -- Japanese demands to preserve the emperor (one of the Potsdam conditions was elimination of the Emperor system). The Japanese were obviously very confused about this. > > > The US repeatedly issued requests, though various > >channels, asking for the Japanese surrender, which the Japanese repeatedly > >refused, according to some accounts, in very harsh terms. > > Earlier and irrelevant. Irrelevant? So your position is the Americans were gluttons for punishment and eager or willing to sacrifice thousands or hundreds of thousands of young Americans just to continue prosecute a war that was for all intents and purposes over -- except for the Japanese penchant to take things to their suicidal end -- so much so, that the Americans were closed to the idea of Japanese surrender? And the alleged benefit from dragging things out just a little more and taking these casualties was...? Or, that they were willing to suffer all those losses just to see how their new toy bomb worked? Let's make this very, very clear. It was up to whom -- the Americans or the Japanese -- to make the announcement that would end the war? > > On the contrary, it is the precise timing which makes it unlikely. > Governments rarely make decisions all that quickly. That doesn't follow. As Stephen rightly noted, there were competing factions in the Japanese leadership echelon, running a spectrum from envisioning the glorious consummation of the entire Japanese nation for the honor of the Emperor (unfortunately, far from empty rhetoric, and far from limited to a few kooks -- it was the common ethos of the military and the civilian population, once the prospect that Japan might not the win the War, in spite of their leader being a Deity) to more pragmatic thinkers searching for the best and most face-saving deal with which to end the hostilities (and perhaps fight again some other day). The bombs decisively brought the internal debate to a conclusion. > The crucial factors were Potsdam and probably the carpet bombing of > Tokyo which killed 100,000 people - more than Hiroshima and Nagasaki > combined and much closer to home. More wishful thinking, I'm afraid. Potsdam gave the pragmatists a new goal or victory to seek -- a better deal than what Potsdam offered, and the simple fact that they didn't surrender after either Tokyo or Hiroshima undermines your idea. The war was already over from the military standpoint after (and possibly even during) Sanpan, Iwo Jima, etc. Japan had no hope of winning the war. Rather than surrender, it went into suicide mode (kamikaze, Yamamato, etc.). The Allies had experience that fanatic suicidal ethos since the beginning of the war, from the common soldier to the decisions from High Command. They had no reason to believe that that ethos had suddenly evaporated. An invasion would give them precisely the occasion of going out in a blaze of glory as their rhetoric and actions throughout the war had demonstrated. The bombs were effective precisely because they demonstrated that the blaze of glory would never happen. No Allied soldier need ever set foot on Japanese soil, and yet the whole place could be decimated in short order. No honor in that. The pervasive suicidal ethos -- no Japanese I have ever heard has suggested anything otherwise. On the contrary, if they say anything, they offer contrite explanations -- more like excuses, really -- for maybe thinking, in the last hours of the war, that all this suicidal fervor might be *slightly* mistaken (that a very few have expressed remorse at having been caught up in that frenzy suggests it is NOT a post-war rationalization or self-justification, but a very real pervasive social phenomenon, for which Zen played a not insignificant role). One might want to question to what extremes they ultimately were willing to go in that mode. Fortunately that hypothetical remains today just a hypothetical precisely because of the two bombs. But to belabor the point, while the noose was tightening and the war was effectively over, Germany has surrendered months earlier; but it was still necessary to break the will of the Japanese govt. and get them to acknowledge defeat, i.e., to surrender and cease hostilities. That they surrendered on Aug. 10th seems to settle the matter. It's noble to want to demonize the bomb. It's a demonic, terrible thing. But inventing imaginary history to erroneously suggest it wasn't necessary or used judiciously, or that it didn't accomplish what it accomplished, when what one would really like to do is turn the clock back and try to prevent the damn thing from being invented in the first place, is not the way to go. That does not put the genie back in the bottle. > To be expected - it excuses defeat. Also, people do tend to assume > causal connexions in the past, forgetting that attitudes were > different at the time. Post hoc propter hoc. So the Americans have distorted the record, and the Japanese have as well. Only the BBC gets it right. I see. Might all this BBC blame game be an attempt by some British to disown their role as Allies -- pawn the "guilt " of the evil bomb off on the guys who saved Europe? Remind me now, who bombed Dresden? Playing this sort of motive game can get messy, don't you think? OTOH the Japanese motives, if read in terms of their consistent actions throughout the war, and the intensification of the suicidal rhetoric AND actions, is a different affair. It would have been irresponsible of Allied leaders to ignore proven behaviors. > But, to belabour the obvious, Germans (or Americans) in general are > not responsible for the actions of some Germans, etc. They are not > even responsible for all actions of the German government, > particularly when that government was authoritarian in nature. The > same goes for Japanese. The truth is that almost all participants in > WWII have things of which to be ashamed. What we shouldn't do is drag > up other people's wrong deeds selectively or exaggeratedly - usually > out of unacknowledged hatred or vengefulness. Or because they do not > belong to the same political or cultural grouping as us. I don't think that is what has been going on here. My wife and in-laws are Japanese, and I am not on some vendetta against them (or vice versa). We have been discussing the difference between the mythology and the historical reality of the strategic use of the bomb. My objections have been precisely to the selective and exaggerated nature of some otherwise popular opinions. That is something quite different than inventing imaginary stories to make one side better than it was, and the other worse than it was -- such as asserting that the Japanese really had already surrendered -- they just forgot to tell the people attacking them; or that the Americans were scrambling for excuses to drop a bomb just because they are racists, or facinated with technology (but then why wait to drop the second bomb, why not just drop them on the same day?), or whatever. People make mistakes. In wartime those can be quite egregious. We could probably generate a lengthy litany of Allied wrongs during the subsequent Occupation of Japan (and the continued presence on Okinawa, etc.), But on balance, I think we might agree that for the most part, the occupation was benign and enabled, rather than hindered subsequent Japanese prosperity. Certainly in comparison to the Japanese occupation of Korea and China, there is actually no comparison. Dan Lusthaus From jehms at xs4all.nl Sun Oct 9 04:36:24 2005 From: jehms at xs4all.nl (Erik Hoogcarspel) Date: Sun Oct 9 04:36:38 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Diversions, distractions and off-topic discussions In-Reply-To: <4347F7FA.7070800@cola.iges.org> References: <3luroIQH+8RDFw7l@clara.net> <1073114520.20051008172212@kungzhi.org> <4347F7FA.7070800@cola.iges.org> Message-ID: <4348F2A8.2070608@xs4all.nl> curt schreef: > I agree very strongly with this, and I also think that this is raises > a basic issue with respect to "mindfulness". One of the quick and > dirty ways of summarizing what the Buddha taught, is that he taught > people about the necessity to see things "as they are". For the Buddha > himself, at least according to tradition, the turning point in his > life came when he became aware of how much suffering existed outside > of his comfortable Palace. It is almost as if that story were intended > to speak directly to those of us today who live relatively privileged > and comfortable lives while there exists so much suffering all around > us. Of course, I also agree that from that basic understanding it is > necessary to move on to understand the causes of poverty and > oppression and violence and to seek to cut off their roots. > - Curt > > Benito Carral wrote: > >> For example, why does half of world population live >> on less than two dollars a day? If we don't know why, >> we won't know what to do about it. And here >> corporations, US Government, US Treasury, IMF, WTO, >> globalized media, and other forces come to play. For >> example, where do the resources we spend go? What is >> being done with such resources? >> >> > __ And he got enlightenend only after having a meal. No meal, no understanding and no bodhi. So seeing that everybody has a decent meal would be the first step in spreading Buddhism. -- Erik www.xs4all.nl/~jehms From dlusthau at mailer.fsu.edu Sun Oct 9 04:41:57 2005 From: dlusthau at mailer.fsu.edu (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Sun Oct 9 04:46:37 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo References: <1127942930.6308.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> <433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net><617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org> <4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net><1359619694.20051004213630@kungzhi.org> <43441B56.7080303@nerim.net><1479321719.20051006043947@kungzhi.org><003c01c5ca43$01172200$c8369c04@Dan><4344DA9B.8040908@xs4all.nl> <00bb01c5ca59$2aa93700$c8369c04@Dan> <1128621156.4783.55.camel@localhost.localdomain><008901c5cabf$30ff5010$bc369c04@Dan> <43461940.1060905@nerim.net><022701c5cb19$ff594ab0$bc369c04@Dan> <43465FC4.7080207@nerim.net><019701c5cbf4$23ed7330$e51b9c04@Dan><4347BFB4.9040105@nerim.net><022301c5cc15$ed402270$e51b9c04@Dan> <006601c5cc37$a5658a90$767c4e51@zen> Message-ID: <00dd01c5ccbe$14f46260$f6339c04@Dan> Dear Stephen. >>Buddha Har"sitaagaara > Aha ! Now we have a good idea of how you see yourself :) Bodhidharma told me that I'm already Buddha. Was he lying? Actually this was intended as an in-joke to those who would recognize it, with a nod to Jamie's question. Just following a long tradition of Mahayana sutra writing... cheers, Har"sitaagaara From dlusthau at mailer.fsu.edu Sun Oct 9 05:29:56 2005 From: dlusthau at mailer.fsu.edu (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Sun Oct 9 05:37:48 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Diversions, distractions and off-topic discussions References: <3luroIQH+8RDFw7l@clara.net> <022b01c5cc18$4de371c0$e51b9c04@Dan> <1128790604.5118.45.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <00e901c5ccc4$c9098db0$f6339c04@Dan> Richard, > Over the past twelve years or so I have seen you say quite a few silly > things, but this may be the silliest. Always striving to outdo myself. > Thomas Berry made an interesting observation in his address to Harvard > Divinity School in 1996. He said that he felt that the division of > policies into left and right had run its course and was essentially > backward looking. What has impoverished the old right vs. left polemics is the absence of any intelligent thought emanating from the left since the mid-60s. The left has fallen into mindless, ineffective demonization prattle, while the right has fallen into clever, effective demonization prattle. Berry is harmless enough, kind of the old school of Huston Smith-ish globalization based on pegging each religion into an alleged archetype that rounds out the human picture. I wouldn't recommend his typology of religions to undergrads or anyone else if what they were seeking were accurate portrayals of any of those traditions. Would you? As for his political proposal, by '96 the environmental movement was already firmly established here (that, and the women's movement are the only lasting legacies of the 60s, plus some music that has endured), so he's not proposing anything radical. But he repeats an old mistake, made by Mani, Guru Nanak, Baha'ullah, and others. What they all overlooked, stated simply: all universalisms are particularistic. For example, Guru Nanak bravely and insightfully stated that God was neither a Hindu nor a Muslim (something the Sants, Kabir, etc., had already hit upon). What he overlooked is that if one is not a Hindu nor a Muslim, one must be something else. In his case and those who followed him, that something else came to be a follower of Sikhism, an interesting, mystical and embracing tradition. The Guru Granth incorporates Buddhist, Jain, Hindu and Muslim echoes in a more organic way than, for instance, a Unitarian prayer book that collects selected snippets from everyone from God to Abe Lincoln and Gandhi eclectically. In the practical world, however, even the majority of people who voted for Bush are pro-environment (according to the polls). That Democrats can't mobilize that shows they are more clueless than he is -- which is a very damning statement. Unfortunately the cartoon version of history and current events that the remnants of the left recites in the place of what should be serious analysis -- given emotional charge by demonizing the opposition -- isn't going to get the job done. I won't go through your recent posts pointing out where all the cartoons are and why they are cartoons. The recent threads have largely run their course, so I'm going to join Mike's group and wait for something more Buddhist-related. Unless violations of the fallacy list pop up, or things get out of control again. Joanna, it's your turn... Dan Lusthaus From dlusthau at mailer.fsu.edu Sun Oct 9 05:57:38 2005 From: dlusthau at mailer.fsu.edu (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Sun Oct 9 06:07:48 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Indian commentaries to Candrakirti's Madhyamaka-avatara References: <20051007232824.44134.qmail@web30511.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <011601c5ccc8$a7c02480$f6339c04@Dan> Bill, This will have to be answered by a Tibetologist who concentrates on early (8th-12th c) Tibetan appropriations of Indian Buddhism. My understanding is that Candrakirti was largely ignored by the Indian tradition; he was never translated into Chinese so was never of concern in East Asia. Some of his works continued to be circulated in India, however, as is evident by the fact that interest in him did eventually revive and get transferred to Tibet, and that we still have a Sanskrit version of the Prasannapada. From what I have heard (but, again, a Tibetologist would have to provide the details), interest in Candrakirti revived in response to wide-ranging debates about varieties of Yogacara doctrine that were all the rage ca. 10th-11th c., since Candrakirti contained some relevant observations on a few minor matters. That sparked -- possibly in Tibet itself rather than in India -- some interest in Candrakirti himself, though my impression is that, despite eventually being elevated in the thinking of some, such as Tsong-kha-pa, to a status second only to Nagarjuna who was second only to Buddha, there really never was serious engagement with the radical nature of his thought, evidenced, e.g., by the almost exclusve concern in Tibet with his Madhyamakavatara -- a mediocre but unchallenging work -- rather than his magnum opus, Prasannapada, one of the best things ever written by an Indian Buddhist that takes Buddhism to its foundations and rattles things around -- not to mention a playful and powerful Sanskrit rhetorical style that does not seem to have survived the blandness of TIbetan translation. I'm sure many of us would be interested to hear if you discover any more on any of this, or an alternate narrative. best, Dan Lusthaus ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Kish" To: Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 7:28 PM Subject: [Buddha-l] Indian commentaries to Candrakirti's Madhyamaka-avatara > > Does anyone know if there are there any Indian commentaries to > Candrakirti's Madhyamaka-avatara aside from Jayananda's and > Candrakirti's own autocommentary ? Was there any criticism > of Candrakirti's views, either within the Buddhist tradition > or in non-Buddhist Indian schools of thought, that may have > influenced Tibetan views on his works ? > > --------- > Bill Kish > > > > > > > __________________________________ > Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 > http://mail.yahoo.com > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From tomokono at blueyonder.co.uk Sun Oct 9 04:17:15 2005 From: tomokono at blueyonder.co.uk (Tomoyuki Kono) Date: Sun Oct 9 06:18:33 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: <006b01c5cca5$0ab2d750$f6339c04@Dan> References: <1127942930.6308.49.camel@localhost.localdomain><433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net><617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org><4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net><1359619694.20051004213630@kungzhi.org><43441B56.7080303@nerim.net><1479321719.20051006043947@kungzhi.org><003c01c5ca43$01172200$c8369c04@Dan><4344DA9B.8040908@xs4all.nl><00bb01c5ca59$2aa93700$c8369c04@Dan><1128621156.4783.55.camel@localhost.localdomain><008901c5cabf$30ff5010$bc369c04@Dan> <43461940.1060905@nerim.net><022701c5cb19$ff594ab0$bc369c04@Dan><014501c5cbe8$4a523580$e51b9c04@Dan> <004c01c5cc35$b804c320$767c4e51@zen> <006b01c5cca5$0ab2d750$f6339c04@Dan> Message-ID: <6BBF91E5-C2DE-4705-BB17-84C0D86A52F0@blueyonder.co.uk> Dear Dan, On 9 Oct 2005, at 08:42, Dan Lusthaus wrote: > >> >> So the embargos and trade restrictions imposed by the West on the >> Japanese >> during the inter-war years played no part in precipitating >> hostilities ? >> > > Of course! A direct result of the embargo was the invasion of > Manchuria, the > Rape of Nanjing, the subjugation of the Pacific Islands, the > torture of > Korea, and every other evil of the 20th century. Oh dear. Are you seriously claiming that those things which you enumerate *directly resulted* from the embargo and trade restrictions? That's simply bad history. As far as I am aware, they resulted in various diplomatic and military manoeuvres leading to Pearl Harbor. But today, even the popularly accepted version of events regarding Pearl Harbor has been shown to be erroneous, as Robert Stinnett's well-researched book, Day of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor, has shown. He has convincingly argued on the basis of the previously classified documents that FDR was fully aware of the coming attack but allowed it to take place in order to push Japan into war. That facts of history are more nuanced than people present them to be is shown in another anecdote. The Japanese embassy's delay in preparing the final ultimatum just hours before Pearl Harbor has been known as one of the biggest blunders in Japanese diplomatic history. We have long been told that this was due to the sheer incompetence of the officials in decoding, translating and typing the script that was sent in fourteen parts from Japan. However, it recently emerged that the shortage of staff was caused by an inevitable, though no less embarrassing, event. Many members of the embassy were attending the funeral of a navy spy called Major Shinjo on the crucial morning of 7 December. It was meant to be a short service held in a baptist church in Washington DC, but the priest there kept on praising the spiritual virtue of the deceased, accompanied by a lengthy recitation of many English poems he had composed. A newly discovered memoir of someone who was present at the funeral details how the priest went on to describe Shinjo's spiritual progress age by age, delivered from a well-prepared note. Several officials wanted to end the service delicately, but was overruled by the high officials. While this anecdote does not exonerate the officials of their incompetence, it also shows ironically how Japanese politeness contributed to one of the most acrimonious beginnings of war :) Digression aside, my point is that, while I am well aware of the atrocities committed by the Japanese, there are often unreported or unnoticed events which played important roles in the dynamic of history. So I agree with Stephen's argument. They may compromise, complicate or even contradict the simplified and accepted version of history in school textbooks or popular books, but that's what I find fascinating about history. Unlike your other posts on the end of the war and the A-bombs, you seem to have indulged in sheer rhetoric and no historical discourse. > Grow up. Come on, was it necessary? Best wishes, Tomo From jpeavler at mindspring.com Sun Oct 9 06:49:32 2005 From: jpeavler at mindspring.com (Jim Peavler) Date: Sun Oct 9 06:56:39 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Diversions, distractions and off-topic discussions In-Reply-To: <7a2fa607ffa25eeba71e2001b2ab300e@earthlink.net> References: <3luroIQH+8RDFw7l@clara.net> <1128781640.4379.12.camel@localhost.localdomain> <7a2fa607ffa25eeba71e2001b2ab300e@earthlink.net> Message-ID: On Oct 8, 2005, at 2:01 PM, Franz Metcalf wrote: > Gang, > > I want to thank Mike Austin for challenging the list on our tendency > to talk politics (also economics, sociology, etc.) when we're really > supposed to be discussing "Buddhism." I use buddha-l as a constant reminder that all things are conditioned. The interesting debate on whether the Japanese or the Americans were naughtier in the second world war could never have happened if our old friend Benito Carral had not left the list for a year or so and returned with his, now famous, "Greetings from Oviedo" post. So, in a way, Benito is a direct cause of the return of this subject after many of us had thought it exhausted. The ways of karma are indeed mysterious. Jim Peavler "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -- Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), reply of the Pennsylvania Assembly to the Governor, November 11, 1755 From jpeavler at mindspring.com Sun Oct 9 07:06:02 2005 From: jpeavler at mindspring.com (Jim Peavler) Date: Sun Oct 9 07:06:39 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Gender on Buddha-l In-Reply-To: <004501c5cc65$7beb0450$2930cece@charlie> References: <3luroIQH+8RDFw7l@clara.net><1128781640.4379.12.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1128805361.5717.86.camel@localhost.localdomain> <004501c5cc65$7beb0450$2930cece@charlie> Message-ID: <62cb2589a3b0bbdec0c863a7e0d5e7e0@mindspring.com> On Oct 8, 2005, at 6:07 PM, jkirk wrote: > Speaking of "open space and seeing," the time has come for me to point > out what I alluded to very indirectly before--that comments on this > list are so spatially oriented toward, and closed, by the males on it > that useful and relevant comments by a female, me in this case, > continually are unresponded to and/or ignored. I have noticed the same thing about your posts, many of which I would have liked to see followed up. Unfortunately, I am NOT a scholar, so I am not competent to respond to most of your posts. I agree that the female point-of-view is nearly completely absent on buddha-l. On the other hand I feel we have developed a very valuable (to me anyway) personal email relationship over the years, which is about all I have to contribute. From jpeavler at mindspring.com Sun Oct 9 07:14:24 2005 From: jpeavler at mindspring.com (Jim Peavler) Date: Sun Oct 9 07:16:42 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Gender and diversions In-Reply-To: References: <3luroIQH+8RDFw7l@clara.net> <1128781640.4379.12.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1128805361.5717.86.camel@localhost.localdomain> <004501c5cc65$7beb0450$2930cece@charlie> Message-ID: <5fdce30417f749d9d83981d4518030aa@mindspring.com> On Oct 8, 2005, at 7:41 PM, Mike Austin wrote: > There is one point I would make, though. You often post snippets and > links. I am not really disposed to being sent off somewhere else to > read articles in this way. This is a Buddhist discussion group (I can > be at least half right here) and I prefer to discuss with people in > their own words, when I find discussion of the topic conducive to > dukkha-nirodha. I, on the other hand like to be given links to outside, supportive materials. Joanna's links are very often to direct, primary sources for relevant things that are actually going on in the world. And, thanks to her incredible curiosity, they are nearly all either about ideas I would not have thought of otherwise, or are from arcane sources that I would never have found. On my web browser I have a whole folder names "jkirk" where I have collected a whole library of very interesting resource. Chainsaw of Eternal Bliss (married to and dedicated to the Catbox of Emergent Humility) From jpeavler at mindspring.com Sun Oct 9 07:21:46 2005 From: jpeavler at mindspring.com (Jim Peavler) Date: Sun Oct 9 07:26:41 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: <1128830500.6887.23.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1127942930.6308.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> <433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net> <617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org><4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net> <1359619694.20051004213630@kungzhi.org><43441B56.7080303@nerim.net> <1479321719.20051006043947@kungzhi.org><003c01c5ca43$01172200$c8369c04@Dan> <4344DA9B.8040908@xs4all.nl><00bb01c5ca59$2aa93700$c8369c04@Dan> <1128621156.4783.55.camel@localhost.localdomain> <008901c5cabf$30ff5010$bc369c04@Dan> <43461940.1060905@nerim.net> <022701c5cb19$ff594ab0$bc369c04@Dan> <014501c5cbe8$4a523580$e51b9c04@Dan> <004c01c5cc35$b804c320$767c4e51@zen> <43484FF8.3070208@cola.iges.org> <1128830500.6887.23.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: On Oct 8, 2005, at 10:01 PM, Richard P. Hayes wrote: > But even after being defeated militarily in Vietnam, the American > effort > to establish an empire in Asia was still not finished. After the > military failed to do the trick, the Americans sent Ronald MacDonald, > Colonel Saunders and Sam Walton. The attempt to conquer China > economically has obviously worked beautifully. On the other hand (and possibly confirmed by your following statement) the Chinese may have conquered us. Our national debt is now in the trillions, and guess who buys the most US Treasury Bonds? So perhaps Japan and China own us. Nobody in the world has a job anymore, because > all work is being done by underpaid Chinese workers. > From dlusthau at mailer.fsu.edu Sun Oct 9 08:16:00 2005 From: dlusthau at mailer.fsu.edu (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Sun Oct 9 08:16:46 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo References: <1127942930.6308.49.camel@localhost.localdomain><433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net><617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org><4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net><1359619694.20051004213630@kungzhi.org><43441B56.7080303@nerim.net><1479321719.20051006043947@kungzhi.org><003c01c5ca43$01172200$c8369c04@Dan><4344DA9B.8040908@xs4all.nl><00bb01c5ca59$2aa93700$c8369c04@Dan><1128621156.4783.55.camel@localhost.localdomain><008901c5cabf$30ff5010$bc369c04@Dan> <43461940.1060905@nerim.net><022701c5cb19$ff594ab0$bc369c04@Dan><014501c5cbe8$4a523580$e51b9c04@Dan><004c01c5cc35$b804c320$767c4e51@zen><006b01c5cca5$0ab2d750$f6339c04@Dan> <6BBF91E5-C2DE-4705-BB17-84C0D86A52F0@blueyonder.co.uk> Message-ID: <013601c5ccdb$fa1918a0$f6339c04@Dan> Tomo, > Oh dear. Are you seriously claiming that I was being sarcastic. > shown to be erroneous, as Robert Stinnett's well-researched book, Day > of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor, has shown. That's probably the oldest "conspiracy" theory we have re: WW II (anti-war activists were already proposing that in the early '40s). For those unfamiliar with that theory, it's laid out at http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/pearl.html (there is a link to a Japanese version on that page) Like most conspiracy theories, it works by removing facts from their actual context, and fitting them instead into a magic thread of suspicion. For instance, just to take one of the "suspicious" "facts": FDR positioning the fleet at Pearl Harbor, over the objections of some Military Brass. The context is not a secret desire to have virtually the entire fleet destroyed as a pretext to get into the war (one would want to get into the war with a capable fleet -- would you want to instigate someone into a gun fight by destroying your gun?); the actual context is the well entrenched and misguided US Military theory of the day -- they did not take air power seriously, and the military was resistant to developing a serious airforce. Billy Mitchell was court martialed for insisting that the US take the notion of air power seriously, and even predicted that the next war would be with Japan, a sneak attack on Pearl Harbor by aircraft (that was in the mid 1920s). He was court martialed for his insistance on improving air power years before FDR ever came to power. The Navy dismissed his ideas about air power, Pearl Harbor, etc. as misguided, vested-interest-threatening rantings -- everybody knew international power was naval -- gunboat diplomacy -- planes were meaningless distractions that had been dramatic but largely inconsequential to the outcome of WW I. Military thinking about the importance of air power obviously changed radically during war II. It changed again -- to take a more recent example -- during the Clinton Administration concerning Serbia and Bosnia. Military dogma insisted that a successful campaign could not be conducted by air alone, so that Clinton should not begin his bombing campaign since that will inevitably prove an embarrassment or lead to the commitment of ground forces. In a matter of weeks that dogma was proven wrong. Imagine how much greater the resistance to taking air power seriously was in the 30s and early 40s. There is nothing to this "FDR knew and wanted" theory, but I can understand why you would find that sort of thing persuasive and even comforting. Bottom line: even if one would like to imagine that somehow magically Japan didn't attack Pearl Harbor of its own volition but was somehow forced or tricked into it by FDR, that doesn't explain what happened to Manchuria, Korea, China, etc. etc. long before Pearl Harbor. Or was all that also just an elaborate American plot to make Japan suicidally confront the US? When shall we say the Pacific War began? In 1937 (invasion of China)? Occupation of Korea? Don't you think that if FDR had anticipated Peal Harbor, they would have been more ready? It took years for the US Naval forces to rebuild from those losses, so that the Pacific War was almost lost. As contributors to this list amply prove, there is a deep tradition of people in the West (America especially) of finding a way to blame everything on themselves -- possibly deriving from a delusionary sense of omnipotence (nothing can happen without us being responsible for it) mixed with a profound sense of impotence (we-I-us are doing this against my will). That leads to self-hatred which is easier to live with when externalized as a "them." So Muslims couldn't possibly be jihadic unless we omnipotent Americans caused it; Japan couldn't have attacked Pearl Harbor unless we wanted them to; and so on. It's not a healthy tradition. As for the comedy of errors -- too polite to present an ultimatum in a timely manner -- that whole story, from every angle, stretches credulity beyond all bounds. How many weeks did this funeral take? Lance has already informed us that governments don't act quickly, so there must have been some time built into that diplomatic maneuver if was an actual ultimatum -- at least enough time for FDR to offer a reply and for that reply to reach the Japanese planes. Otherwise that would be a meaningless gesture. Are we to believe that there was no way to recall the planes, since no response to the ultimatum had been reached? If so, then the timing of the delivery of the ultimatum is a non-issue -- the attack was scheduled to take place regardless. It was meant to produce US capitulation -- surrender because you no longer have a navy. The error was missing part of the fleet (see below), not the timing of the delivery of the ultimatum. It was a surprise attack. If an ultimatum had been offered in a timely manner, there would have been time to mount at least some sort of defense, and there would have been no advantage of surprise. But of course, FDR wanted the place bombed, right? So an ultimatum wouldn't have mattered -- so why don't we spare Japan all embarrassment in this, and say that the ultimatum was delivered on time, and FDR just sat on it? (That was sarcastic again) Admiral Yamamoto (and this has been well known for a long time -- this is real history, not the bogus phantoms you find so interesting) was a brilliant strategist, and his plan was to destroy the American fleet at Pearl Harbor, knowing that were it to be completely destroyed, the Pacific War would already be over. That was also the point of the ultimatum -- the subtitles to the main event. It turned out that while all the ships in harbor were destroyed, part of the fleet happened to be out on maneuvers, and the planes missed them (oh! another suspicious fact! Ships never go on maneuvers unless there's a conspiracy afoot). When news got back to Yamamoto about the losses, he realized that part of the fleet had been missed, meaning that they were still out in the Pacific somewhere. He is reported to have said, even in these opening hours of the war after Pearl Harbor, that the war was over, Japan had lost. If Yamamoto, who planned the attack, had that reaction, what does that explain about the attack and the ultimatum? The issue here is not about being pro or anti US or Japan, but about thinking clearly. Pearl Harbor was a surprise attack. A surprise attack is successful when it is a suprise. Dan Unless this shifts over to a WW II history list, I think we've taken this discussion as far as it can go here, and beyond any direct relevance to Buddhism. From castanford at gmail.com Sun Oct 9 08:41:51 2005 From: castanford at gmail.com (Chris) Date: Sun Oct 9 08:46:41 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Statistics In-Reply-To: <1128831977.6887.37.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1128831977.6887.37.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <290923980510090741u166280abxa9e2ef83258c7ea3@mail.gmail.com> Actually, mea culpa, mea culpa, mea culpa. I have to admit to deleting messages from 'jkirlk' routinely before I 'process' other messages. Why? Because all too often, messages from 'jkirk' contain extensive transcribed script from third part sources or, URLs to third parity sources. I believe I am quite capable of doing my own research, thank you very much and do not need prejudiced referrals from anyone. I come here to find *original* ideas, not referrals. I would be most anxious and willing to hear of jkirk's personal views on matters discussed in this form as opposed to what she views as relevant opinions of others. On 10/9/05, Richard P. Hayes wrote: > > Joanna Kirkpatrick's observation that she is being ignored prompted me > to look into the archives. Here we are, eight days into October, and > already we have six contributors who have sent more that twenty messages > this month. The most frequent contributors have been: > > Benito Carral, 30 messages > Joy Vriens, 29 > Chan Fu, 26 > Richard Hayes, 24 > Joanna Kirkpatrick, 23 > Dan Lusthaus, 23 > > Joanna is an academic who loves to write and who, being retired, has > time on her hands. I don't know what the hell excuse the rest of us > have. > > An examination of threads in September and October shows that Joanna's > messages are not ignored much more than those of anyone else who writes > a lot. I have a hunch that many readers get into the habit of > automatically deleting messages from people who write a lot. It's easy > to set up a filter to do such things, and I'd bet that just about all > subscribers to buddha-l have found ways to send all the messages of > their least favorite writers to the junk file. > > -- > Richard Hayes > *** > "If you want the truth, rather than merely something to say, > you will have a good deal less to say." -- Thomas Nagel > > > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20051009/d37b3ca3/attachment.htm From jkirk at spro.net Sun Oct 9 08:55:26 2005 From: jkirk at spro.net (jkirk) Date: Sun Oct 9 08:56:43 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Gender on Buddha-l References: <3luroIQH+8RDFw7l@clara.net><1128781640.4379.12.camel@localhost.localdomain><1128805361.5717.86.camel@localhost.localdomain><004501c5cc65$7beb0450$2930cece@charlie> <62cb2589a3b0bbdec0c863a7e0d5e7e0@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <000301c5cce1$7c465860$2930cece@charlie> Dear Jim, Having had my cup of coffee, I geared up to read the mail after I launched my manifesto, and when I saw your name on the message list went first to your post. Thanks for your moral support. I have really enjoyed our personal exchanges over the years as well as your posts to the list, which have been edifying as well as welcomly (not sure if that's a word, Prof!) witty on occasion. Well, you are a scholar after all, of English Literature, and sometimes that too has helpfully surfaced on the list. All best, Joanna ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Peavler" To: "Buddhist discussion forum" Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2005 7:06 AM Subject: [Buddha-l] Gender on Buddha-l > > On Oct 8, 2005, at 6:07 PM, jkirk wrote: > >> Speaking of "open space and seeing," the time has come for me to point >> out what I alluded to very indirectly before--that comments on this list >> are so spatially oriented toward, and closed, by the males on it that >> useful and relevant comments by a female, me in this case, continually >> are unresponded to and/or ignored. > > I have noticed the same thing about your posts, many of which I would have > liked to see followed up. Unfortunately, I am NOT a scholar, so I am not > competent to respond to most of your posts. I agree that the female > point-of-view is nearly completely absent on buddha-l. > > > On the other hand I feel we have developed a very valuable (to me anyway) > personal email relationship over the years, which is about all I have to > contribute. > > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From castanford at gmail.com Sun Oct 9 08:53:01 2005 From: castanford at gmail.com (Chris) Date: Sun Oct 9 08:56:50 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Diversions, distractions and off-topic discussions In-Reply-To: <1128801109.5717.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <3luroIQH+8RDFw7l@clara.net> <4347D580.9080405@cola.iges.org> <1128801109.5717.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <290923980510090753j6e15da09h650982a91abfe1ce@mail.gmail.com> Richard, (my good friend, I wish and hope!), I wonder if dukkha would not be reduced with a few less 'you's and a little less a personal aproach in your responses to other people's posts. What do you think? On 10/9/05, Richard P. Hayes wrote: > > On Sat, 2005-10-08 at 19:21 +0100, Mike Austin wrote: > Mike, it is quite obvious to me that you are having a bad day. I'm sorry > about that, for I hate to see people have bad days. Look, we'd all like > to see you feeling better. So why don't you just tell us all what to say > on buddha-l, and we'll say it for you? > Richard Hayes > > > > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20051009/2c89ecfa/attachment.html From rhayes at unm.edu Sun Oct 9 08:57:29 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Sun Oct 9 09:06:43 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: <006b01c5cca5$0ab2d750$f6339c04@Dan> References: <1127942930.6308.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> <433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net> <617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org><4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net> <1359619694.20051004213630@kungzhi.org><43441B56.7080303@nerim.net> <1479321719.20051006043947@kungzhi.org><003c01c5ca43$01172200$c8369c04@Dan> <4344DA9B.8040908@xs4all.nl><00bb01c5ca59$2aa93700$c8369c04@Dan> <1128621156.4783.55.camel@localhost.localdomain> <008901c5cabf$30ff5010$bc369c04@Dan> <43461940.1060905@nerim.net> <022701c5cb19$ff594ab0$bc369c04@Dan> <014501c5cbe8$4a523580$e51b9c04@Dan> <004c01c5cc35$b804c320$767c4e51@zen> <006b01c5cca5$0ab2d750$f6339c04@Dan> Message-ID: <1128869849.4380.2.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Sun, 2005-10-09 at 03:42 -0400, Dan Lusthaus wrote: > Grow up. Making childishly condescending and dismissive remarks like "Grow up" is a pretty good way to lose the privilege to post without moderation. Please strive to be civil, especially with those who disagree with you. From dylan at tweney.com Sun Oct 9 08:55:38 2005 From: dylan at tweney.com (d f tweney) Date: Sun Oct 9 09:07:56 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Statistics In-Reply-To: <290923980510090741u166280abxa9e2ef83258c7ea3@mail.gmail.com> References: <1128831977.6887.37.camel@localhost.localdomain> <290923980510090741u166280abxa9e2ef83258c7ea3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4b4998a072ea0d62ecce9797d75a5b66@tweney.com> As a former, non-practicing scholar, I appreciate references to sources (particularly those in English) far more than anything else I read on Buddha-L. If I want personal views, there are plenty of places I can look. I come to this forum for educated, informed commentary on Buddhism and for a rare chance to hear scholars discussing buddhism, often passionately, among themselves. Unfortunately the dialog often devolves to long threads that have very little to do with buddhism ... but fortunately, these threads are easy to delete. -- dylan tweney dylan@tweney.com blog: http://dylan.tweney.com haiku: http://tinywords.com On Oct 9, 2005, at 7:41 AM, Chris wrote: > Actually, mea culpa, mea culpa, mea culpa. I have to admit to deleting > messages from 'jkirlk'? routinely before I 'process' other messages. > Why? Because all too often, messages from 'jkirk' contain extensive > transcribed script from third part sources or, URLs to third parity > sources. I believe I am quite capable of doing my own research, thank > you very much and do not need prejudiced referrals from anyone. I come > here to find *original* ideas, not referrals. I would be most anxious > and willing to hear of jkirk's personal views on matters discussed in > this form as opposed to what she views as relevant opinions of others. > > On 10/9/05, Richard P. Hayes wrote: >> to look into the archives. Here we are, eight days into October, and >> already we have six contributors who have sent more that twenty >> messages >> this month. The most frequent contributors have been: >> >> Benito Carral, 30 messages >> Joy Vriens, 29 >> Chan Fu, 26 >> Richard Hayes, 24 >> Joanna Kirkpatrick, 23 >> Dan Lusthaus, 23 >> >> Joanna is an academic who loves to write and who, being retired, has >> time on her hands. I don't know what the hell excuse the rest of us >> have. >> >> An examination of threads in September and October shows that Joanna's >> messages are not ignored much more than those of anyone else who >> writes >> a lot. I have a hunch that many readers get into the habit of >> automatically deleting messages from people who write a lot. It's easy >> to set up a filter to do such things, and I'd bet that just about all >> subscribers to buddha-l have found ways to send all the messages of >> their least favorite writers to the junk file. >> >> -- >> Richard Hayes >> *** >> "If you want the truth, rather than merely something to say, >> you will have a good deal less to say." -- Thomas Nagel >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> buddha-l mailing list >> buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com >> http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 3004 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20051009/7cfee129/attachment.bin From rhayes at unm.edu Sun Oct 9 09:11:51 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Sun Oct 9 09:16:46 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Gender on Buddha-l In-Reply-To: <62cb2589a3b0bbdec0c863a7e0d5e7e0@mindspring.com> References: <3luroIQH+8RDFw7l@clara.net> <1128781640.4379.12.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1128805361.5717.86.camel@localhost.localdomain> <004501c5cc65$7beb0450$2930cece@charlie> <62cb2589a3b0bbdec0c863a7e0d5e7e0@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <1128870711.4380.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Sun, 2005-10-09 at 07:06 -0600, Jim Peavler wrote: > I agree that the female point-of-view is nearly completely absent on buddha-l. Yes, but so is the male point of view. The fact is that points of view are points of view and that there is no such thing as male and female points of view. -- Richard Hayes *** "The spiritual path is never one of achievement; it is always one of letting go. The more we let go, the more there is empty and open space for us to see reality." --Sister Ayya Khema From rhayes at unm.edu Sun Oct 9 09:13:43 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Sun Oct 9 09:16:53 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: References: <1127942930.6308.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> <433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net> <617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org><4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net> <1359619694.20051004213630@kungzhi.org><43441B56.7080303@nerim.net> <1479321719.20051006043947@kungzhi.org><003c01c5ca43$01172200$c8369c04@Dan> <4344DA9B.8040908@xs4all.nl><00bb01c5ca59$2aa93700$c8369c04@Dan> <1128621156.4783.55.camel@localhost.localdomain> <008901c5cabf$30ff5010$bc369c04@Dan> <43461940.1060905@nerim.net> <022701c5cb19$ff594ab0$bc369c04@Dan> <014501c5cbe8$4a523580$e51b9c04@Dan> <004c01c5cc35$b804c320$767c4e51@zen> <43484FF8.3070208@cola.iges.org> <1128830500.6887.23.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1128870823.4380.15.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Sun, 2005-10-09 at 07:21 -0600, Jim Peavler wrote: > On the other hand (and possibly confirmed by your following statement) > the Chinese may have conquered us. Yes, you picked up on my irony. From rhayes at unm.edu Sun Oct 9 09:08:03 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Sun Oct 9 09:17:00 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Diversions, distractions and off-topic discussions In-Reply-To: <00e901c5ccc4$c9098db0$f6339c04@Dan> References: <3luroIQH+8RDFw7l@clara.net> <022b01c5cc18$4de371c0$e51b9c04@Dan> <1128790604.5118.45.camel@localhost.localdomain> <00e901c5ccc4$c9098db0$f6339c04@Dan> Message-ID: <1128870483.4380.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Sun, 2005-10-09 at 07:29 -0400, Dan Lusthaus wrote: > What has impoverished the old right vs. left polemics is the absence of any > intelligent thought emanating from the left since the mid-60s. The left has > fallen into mindless, ineffective demonization prattle, while the right has > fallen into clever, effective demonization prattle. The designations "left" and "right" have become perfectly meaningless, as have the labels "conservative" and "liberal". > Berry is harmless enough, kind of the old school of Huston Smith-ish > globalization based on pegging each religion into an alleged archetype that > rounds out the human picture. I wouldn't recommend his typology of religions > to undergrads or anyone else if what they were seeking were accurate > portrayals of any of those traditions. Would you? He is required reading in some of my classes. The accuracy of his typology of religions is not important to me. Typologies of any kind strike me as fundamentally simplistic and unworthy of giving much thought. But Berry is an eloquent spokesman for a view that is dear to my heart, and I like for his thinking to be one of the many points of view to which I expose my students. > I won't go through your recent posts pointing out where all the cartoons are > and why they are cartoons. I know you won't, because you won't be able to find any cartoons. All you would manage to do is to show us, yet again, your own deep prejudices against reason and evidence. -- Richard Hayes *** "Above all things, take heed in judging one another, for in that ye may destroy one another... and eat out the good of one another."-- George Fox From rhayes at unm.edu Sun Oct 9 09:20:06 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Sun Oct 9 09:26:43 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Diversions, distractions and off-topic discussions In-Reply-To: <290923980510090753j6e15da09h650982a91abfe1ce@mail.gmail.com> References: <3luroIQH+8RDFw7l@clara.net> <4347D580.9080405@cola.iges.org> <1128801109.5717.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> <290923980510090753j6e15da09h650982a91abfe1ce@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1128871207.4380.20.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Sun, 2005-10-09 at 21:53 +0700, Chris wrote: > Richard, (my good friend, I wish and hope!), I wonder if dukkha would > not be reduced with a few less 'you's and a little less a personal > aproach in your responses to other people's posts. What do you think? I cannot give up the pleasure I get out of being sarcastic, dismissive, contemptuous and sardonic. Moreover, I think being this way serves a noble purpose, in that it demonstrates to everyone how ugly such verbal behavior is and thus serves as a valuable moral teaching. Indeed, I think it may be more effective to show someone a negative example than to preach a positive one. From jkirk at spro.net Sun Oct 9 09:21:14 2005 From: jkirk at spro.net (jkirk) Date: Sun Oct 9 09:26:45 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Gender and diversions References: <3luroIQH+8RDFw7l@clara.net><1128781640.4379.12.camel@localhost.localdomain><1128805361.5717.86.camel@localhost.localdomain><004501c5cc65$7beb0450$2930cece@charlie> <5fdce30417f749d9d83981d4518030aa@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <005d01c5cce5$17049300$2930cece@charlie> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Peavler" To: "Buddhist discussion forum" Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2005 7:14 AM Subject: [Buddha-l] Gender and diversions > > On Oct 8, 2005, at 7:41 PM, Mike Austin wrote: > >> There is one point I would make, though. You often post snippets and >> links. I am not really disposed to being sent off somewhere else to read >> articles in this way. This is a Buddhist discussion group (I can be at >> least half right here) and I prefer to discuss with people in their own >> words, when I find discussion of the topic conducive to dukkha-nirodha. > > I, on the other hand like to be given links to outside, supportive > materials. Joanna's links are very often to direct, primary sources for > relevant things that are actually going on in the world. And, thanks to > her incredible curiosity, they are nearly all either about ideas I would > not have thought of otherwise, or are from arcane sources that I would > never have found. On my web browser I have a whole folder names "jkirk" > where I have collected a whole library of very interesting resource. > > > Chainsaw of Eternal Bliss (married to and dedicated to the Catbox of > Emergent Humility) ===== Dear ChainsawOEB: Apparently Stormy also appreciates my attempts to supply links. The reasons I sometimes post snippets with a link is because we are supposed to keep our posts reasonably short and also because if I want to discuss something it just seems impossible to keep it as short as required. (Although no word lengths have been bruited.) Joanna > > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From dylan at tweney.com Sun Oct 9 09:13:40 2005 From: dylan at tweney.com (d f tweney) Date: Sun Oct 9 09:28:02 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] non-entanglement, motherhood and right livelihood In-Reply-To: <1c9.32b29d50.307a0245@aol.com> References: <1c9.32b29d50.307a0245@aol.com> Message-ID: <729ca4411131e1d275fd989abe0aaf17@tweney.com> Stormy, this is not a woman's topic of necessity -- but of course it is an agonizing choice that women have to make far more than men. If more fathers had equal responsibility for raising their children then they, too, would face such choices. Thich Nhat Hanh tells a story, in one of his books, of talking to a friend with a young daughter who is consuming much of the new father's time. The man is wistful, wondering when he will ever find time to do things for himself (such as, I assume, meditate -- but maybe also write poetry, read books, or watch football). Hanh's answer is that the father has to start thinking about the time he spends with his daughter as *his* time too -- in short, to be fully present in the moment and to do active meditation by being fully engaged in the time he spends with his daughter. That way, Hanh says, this time will no longer be something "taken away" from the man's "own" time. It's a beautiful answer -- but as the father of a 4 1/2 year old daughter, I find it unsatisfying. Perhaps I'm just too entangled in my own projects and my desires to complete them, while still wanting to be a good father and spend time with my daughter. But still. If she takes an hour and a half to get settled into sleep in the evening instead of thirty minutes, I have that much less time to read about Buddhism, for instance, or to catch up on email messages with my friends. Perhaps this is why people become monks. --dylan. -- dylan tweney dylan@tweney.com blog: http://dylan.tweney.com haiku: http://tinywords.com On Oct 8, 2005, at 10:19 PM, StormyTet@aol.com wrote: >> > In light of my recent stress, I would love to listen to people wax > eloquent on "non-entanglement." The subject of attachment vs. > non-attachment has probably been the most salient buddhist dichotomy > that I have worked with in my life. My conception of what detachment > means has changed dramatically since I began my practice (about 7 > years ago). Being a mother has made this issue central to?finding > balance in my?life and academic career. > ? > I just recently watched "Searching for Debra Winger." The movie is > about aging female actresses and one of the topics they discuss is the > terrible tension between following their passion for acting (right > livelihood?) vs. fulfilling their role of mother. The struggle that is > depicted in the movie is very real, I think, for any woman who > recognizes a life passion/work and the impact that fulfilling her path > will have on her children. > ? > There is a woman's topic. :) > ? > Stormy_______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 3532 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20051009/4df07472/attachment-0001.bin From jkirk at spro.net Sun Oct 9 09:36:19 2005 From: jkirk at spro.net (jkirk) Date: Sun Oct 9 09:36:44 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Diversions, distractions and on-topic discussions References: <3luroIQH+8RDFw7l@clara.net><1128781640.4379.12.camel@localhost.localdomain><1128805361.5717.86.camel@localhost.localdomain><004501c5cc65$7beb0450$2930cece@charlie> Message-ID: <008b01c5cce7$32075460$2930cece@charlie> > Joanna, > > Where did this come from? I only just responded to your last post. There > is one point I would make, though. You often post snippets and links. I > am not really disposed to being sent off somewhere else to read articles > in this way. This is a Buddhist discussion group (I can be at least half > right here) and I prefer to discuss with people in their own words, when I > find discussion of the topic conducive to dukkha-nirodha. Whether they > fall into that category or not was the subject of this thread. > > -- > Metta > Mike Austin =================== Mike, this came from months and months of my attempts to start discussions on topics of importance to any Buddhist (as I and a few others see it anyway) that might get one reply from somebody, followed by no further discussion, -- while otherwise the list is treated to endless divagations on politics and past wars, and too many ad hominem attacks. I too have on occasion added my 2 cents on politics, but generally speaking, not. Best wishes, Joanna From jkirk at spro.net Sun Oct 9 09:28:33 2005 From: jkirk at spro.net (jkirk) Date: Sun Oct 9 09:36:57 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Statistics References: <1128831977.6887.37.camel@localhost.localdomain> <290923980510090741u166280abxa9e2ef83258c7ea3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <007d01c5cce6$1c392a60$2930cece@charlie> By routinely deleting everything I sent to the list you missed every post I wrote that did not supply either links or snippets. And in the past two months, discussions rather than snippets and links have been the majority of what I sent. Ah well, too bad for you. Joanna ----- Original Message ----- From: Chris To: Buddhist discussion forum Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2005 8:41 AM Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] Statistics Actually, mea culpa, mea culpa, mea culpa. I have to admit to deleting messages from 'jkirlk' routinely before I 'process' other messages. Why? Because all too often, messages from 'jkirk' contain extensive transcribed script from third part sources or, URLs to third parity sources. I believe I am quite capable of doing my own research, thank you very much and do not need prejudiced referrals from anyone. I come here to find *original* ideas, not referrals. I would be most anxious and willing to hear of jkirk's personal views on matters discussed in this form as opposed to what she views as relevant opinions of others. On 10/9/05, Richard P. Hayes wrote: Joanna Kirkpatrick's observation that she is being ignored prompted me to look into the archives. Here we are, eight days into October, and already we have six contributors who have sent more that twenty messages this month. The most frequent contributors have been: Benito Carral, 30 messages Joy Vriens, 29 Chan Fu, 26 Richard Hayes, 24 Joanna Kirkpatrick, 23 Dan Lusthaus, 23 Joanna is an academic who loves to write and who, being retired, has time on her hands. I don't know what the hell excuse the rest of us have. An examination of threads in September and October shows that Joanna's messages are not ignored much more than those of anyone else who writes a lot. I have a hunch that many readers get into the habit of automatically deleting messages from people who write a lot. It's easy to set up a filter to do such things, and I'd bet that just about all subscribers to buddha-l have found ways to send all the messages of their least favorite writers to the junk file. -- Richard Hayes *** "If you want the truth, rather than merely something to say, you will have a good deal less to say." -- Thomas Nagel _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20051009/888b9e9a/attachment.htm From SJZiobro at cs.com Sun Oct 9 09:44:28 2005 From: SJZiobro at cs.com (SJZiobro@cs.com) Date: Sun Oct 9 09:46:41 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] URL Message-ID: Here is the URL I mentioned yesterday: http://plungepontificates.blogspot.com/2005/05/decision-to-drop-atomic-bomb-on .html Stan Ziobro -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20051009/9bb7ebd2/attachment.html From jkirk at spro.net Sun Oct 9 10:00:57 2005 From: jkirk at spro.net (jkirk) Date: Sun Oct 9 10:06:41 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Gender on Buddha-l References: <3luroIQH+8RDFw7l@clara.net><1128781640.4379.12.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1128805361.5717.86.camel@localhost.localdomain><004501c5cc65$7beb0450$2930cece@charlie><62cb2589a3b0bbdec0c863a7e0d5e7e0@mindspring.com> <1128870711.4380.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <00a501c5ccea$a355a600$2930cece@charlie> The fact is that points of view > are points of view and that there is no such thing as male and female > points of view. > > > -- > Richard Hayes =============== Sorry but that's wrong----if you hold to that view, then you have no concept of culture whatsoever, thanks to an apparent decision to disregard some very huge social realities. Joanna From rhayes at unm.edu Sun Oct 9 10:02:50 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Sun Oct 9 10:06:46 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Gender and diversions In-Reply-To: <005d01c5cce5$17049300$2930cece@charlie> References: <3luroIQH+8RDFw7l@clara.net> <1128781640.4379.12.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1128805361.5717.86.camel@localhost.localdomain> <004501c5cc65$7beb0450$2930cece@charlie> <5fdce30417f749d9d83981d4518030aa@mindspring.com> <005d01c5cce5$17049300$2930cece@charlie> Message-ID: <1128873770.5654.5.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Sun, 2005-10-09 at 09:21 -0600, Joanna Kirkpatrick wrote: > The reasons I sometimes post snippets with a link is because we are supposed > to keep our posts reasonably short An excellent way to achieve this (for everyone, not just Joanna) is 1) to delete all of the post to which you are replying, except for a bare minimum to establish context, and 2) to make sure your mailer sends out messages as pure text and not at HTML coding. > (Although no word lengths have been bruited.) The buddha-l mail server is set to eliminate messages over 10K. That is a very generous allowance. Even Lusthaus's long-winded disquisitions fit within it. But if the message to which one is replying is not trimmed out, or if HTML code is included, even a short message can easily exceed the limit. -- Richard Hayes From jkirk at spro.net Sun Oct 9 09:58:00 2005 From: jkirk at spro.net (jkirk) Date: Sun Oct 9 10:06:51 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] non-entanglement, motherhood and right livelihood References: <1c9.32b29d50.307a0245@aol.com> Message-ID: <009f01c5ccea$39c40b50$2930cece@charlie> In light of my recent stress, I would love to listen to people wax eloquent on "non-entanglement." The subject of attachment vs. non-attachment has probably been the most salient buddhist dichotomy that I have worked with in my life. My conception of what detachment means has changed dramatically since I began my practice (about 7 years ago). Being a mother has made this issue central to finding balance in my life and academic career. I just recently watched "Searching for Debra Winger." The movie is about aging female actresses and one of the topics they discuss is the terrible tension between following their passion for acting (right livelihood?) vs. fulfilling their role of mother. The struggle that is depicted in the movie is very real, I think, for any woman who recognizes a life passion/work and the impact that fulfilling her path will have on her children. There is a woman's topic. :) Stormy ----------------------------- Hi Stormy, I too was rearing a child while working and the stress almost did me in. I attribute the fact that I came down with RA to years of that stress and the incredibly difficult working environment at my college, which seemed most of the time to reflect the war of each against all and the gender wars as well (not only in my view but in the view of most of my colleagues.) This must be why, although I had been a Buddhist for years, I had never gone on a retreat nor practiced any of the meditative disciplines. It was as though I hadn't the energy to stray from watching my back at work and trying to do both jobs well. In fact, I did not know how to meditate until finally, after heading for a shrink to ward off a complete nervous breakdown, I ended up with one who was also a Buddhist! It was from him that I got Joseph Goldstein's first book on meditation and how to do it. What a revelation when I tried it and went through the steps in this book. I was still very entangled in the job world though. I really don't see how it's possible to be otherwise if one is doing single mothering and also holding down a job. The need to earn in order to support oneself and one's offspring is paramount. It's not that I was maintaining any material "lifestyle" either! We were poor because this academic job paid us faculty poorly. However, I realized later on that if I had learned to meditate years before I finally got the "word," the situation would have been less stressful. I would perhaps have been able to better enjoy the entanglement with my child, who was a joy in any case, and distance myself better from the job entanglements of competition for scarce resources, the frogs in small pond syndrome. Joanna -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20051009/bbbe8b23/attachment-0001.htm From dlusthau at mailer.fsu.edu Sun Oct 9 10:25:40 2005 From: dlusthau at mailer.fsu.edu (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Sun Oct 9 10:26:42 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo References: <1127942930.6308.49.camel@localhost.localdomain><433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net><617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org><4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net><1359619694.20051004213630@kungzhi.org><43441B56.7080303@nerim.net><1479321719.20051006043947@kungzhi.org><003c01c5ca43$01172200$c8369c04@Dan><4344DA9B.8040908@xs4all.nl><00bb01c5ca59$2aa93700$c8369c04@Dan><1128621156.4783.55.camel@localhost.localdomain><008901c5cabf$30ff5010$bc369c04@Dan> <43461940.1060905@nerim.net><022701c5cb19$ff594ab0$bc369c04@Dan><014501c5cbe8$4a523580$e51b9c04@Dan><004c01c5cc35$b804c320$767c4e51@zen><006b01c5cca5$0ab2d750$f6339c04@Dan> <1128869849.4380.2.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <019901c5ccee$193ae4e0$f6339c04@Dan> > > Making childishly condescending and dismissive remarks like "Grow up" is > a pretty good way to lose the privilege to post without moderation. > Please strive to be civil, especially with those who disagree with you. You are right, Richard. That was over the line, and realized it as soon as I hit the send button. I apologize to Stephen. Contritely, Dan From rhayes at unm.edu Sun Oct 9 10:25:06 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Sun Oct 9 10:26:48 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Teaching Zen Buddhist philosophy Message-ID: <1128875107.5654.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> Next semester I am scheduled to teach a course on Zen Buddhist philosophy (in the philosophy department, not in religious studies). Last time I taught the course I had the students read, among other things, The Lankavatara Sutra, the Diamond-cutter sutra, The Platform Sutra, some writings by Chinul, some writings by Dogen and a book by David Loy. The class got rave reviews, so I could just repeat it. But the fact is, I am really sick of the old standards (the majority of which I don't find at all inspiring anyway) and would like to have a change of pace. So I have decided to try something different (for me). Rather than giving a lot of historical background, I am thinking of having students read five or six books by contemporary Western writers who have been influenced by their Zen practice. The people whose works I have been thinking of are Robert Aitken, Joko Beck, Jan Chozen Bays, Toni Packer, Bernie Glassman and Ruben Habito. If possible I'd like to have a good balance of male and female authors, and I'd like to have at least one writer who, like Packer, has abandoned the Buddhist and Zen labels altogether, and I'd like to have a couple of people whose vision of Zen includes religious traditions other than Buddhism (like Habito and Glassman). I also want to have a book that deals significantly with ethics (as do Aitken, Franz Metcalf and David Loy). My question is: do any of you have any experience teaching any of these authors in an academic context? If so, how did it go? Are there other authors you would recommend whose works fit within the guidelines I have sketched above? Incidentally, I was toying with the idea of having people read Austin's Zen and the Brain, which I find captivating, but in the end I decided against using the whole book. I may include a few excerpts, since several of the people who keep taking my courses are science majors who seem to like to grapple with the sorts of things that Austin grapples with. Have any of you taught from his book? How did it go? Any advice will be gratefully received. -- Richard P. Hayes University of New Mexico From jpeavler at mindspring.com Sun Oct 9 10:22:56 2005 From: jpeavler at mindspring.com (Jim Peavler) Date: Sun Oct 9 10:26:51 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Conspiracy Theories of World War II In-Reply-To: <013601c5ccdb$fa1918a0$f6339c04@Dan> References: <1127942930.6308.49.camel@localhost.localdomain><433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net><617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org><4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net><1359619694.20051004213630@kungzhi.org><43441B56.7080303@nerim.net><1479321719.20051006043947@kungzhi.org><003c01c5ca43$01172200$c8369c04@Dan><4344DA9B.8040908@xs4all.nl><00bb01c5ca59$2aa93700$c8369c04@Dan><1128621156.4783.55.camel@localhost.localdomain><008901c5cabf$30ff5010$bc369c04@Dan> <43461940.1060905@nerim.net><022701c5cb19$ff594ab0$bc369c04@Dan><014501c5cbe8$4a523580$e51b9c04@Dan><004c01c5cc35$b804c320$767c4e51@zen><006b01c5cca5$0ab2d750$f6339c04@Dan> <6BBF91E5-C2DE-4705-BB17-84C0D86A52F0@blueyonder.co.uk> <013601c5ccdb$fa1918a0$f6339c04@Dan> Message-ID: On Oct 9, 2005, at 8:16 AM, Dan Lusthaus wrote: > >> shown to be erroneous, as Robert Stinnett's well-researched book, Day >> of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor, has shown. > > That's probably the oldest "conspiracy" theory we have re: WW II > (anti-war > activists were already proposing that in the early '40s). Thanks for taking the time to debunk this ridiculous book one more time. I don't suppose it will ever get debunked enough to just disappear. Well documented history refutes almost everything in this conspiracy story. But, one has to admit, conspiracies are usually fascinating to speculate about if they are detailed enough and have enough verisimilitude. From rhayes at unm.edu Sun Oct 9 10:26:56 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Sun Oct 9 10:36:44 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Gender on Buddha-l In-Reply-To: <00a501c5ccea$a355a600$2930cece@charlie> References: <3luroIQH+8RDFw7l@clara.net> <1128781640.4379.12.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1128805361.5717.86.camel@localhost.localdomain> <004501c5cc65$7beb0450$2930cece@charlie> <62cb2589a3b0bbdec0c863a7e0d5e7e0@mindspring.com> <1128870711.4380.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> <00a501c5ccea$a355a600$2930cece@charlie> Message-ID: <1128875217.5654.30.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Sun, 2005-10-09 at 10:00 -0600, jkirk wrote: > Sorry but that's wrong----if you hold to that view, then you have no concept > of culture whatsoever, thanks to an apparent decision to disregard some very > huge social realities. Sorry, but that's not an argument. If you'd like to convince me, you'll have to provide some evidence. Or is evidence a guy thing? From dlusthau at mailer.fsu.edu Sun Oct 9 10:28:46 2005 From: dlusthau at mailer.fsu.edu (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Sun Oct 9 10:36:50 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Diversions, distractions and off-topic discussions References: <3luroIQH+8RDFw7l@clara.net> <022b01c5cc18$4de371c0$e51b9c04@Dan><1128790604.5118.45.camel@localhost.localdomain><00e901c5ccc4$c9098db0$f6339c04@Dan> <1128870483.4380.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <01a401c5ccee$88300ba0$f6339c04@Dan> Richard, > > I won't go through your recent posts pointing out where all the cartoons are > > and why they are cartoons. > > I know you won't, because you won't be able to find any cartoons. All > you would manage to do is to show us, yet again, your own deep > prejudices against reason and evidence. As tempting as that tease is, staying true to my intention to bow out of this thread for now, I'll let it pass, in the certain knowledge that you will present countless additional opportunities in the posts to come. Please prove me wrong. Dan From jpeavler at mindspring.com Sun Oct 9 10:28:06 2005 From: jpeavler at mindspring.com (Jim Peavler) Date: Sun Oct 9 10:36:57 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Gender on Buddha-l In-Reply-To: <1128870711.4380.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <3luroIQH+8RDFw7l@clara.net> <1128781640.4379.12.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1128805361.5717.86.camel@localhost.localdomain> <004501c5cc65$7beb0450$2930cece@charlie> <62cb2589a3b0bbdec0c863a7e0d5e7e0@mindspring.com> <1128870711.4380.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <5796e90dd5c45faa721bbef3691c2e76@mindspring.com> On Oct 9, 2005, at 9:11 AM, Richard P. Hayes wrote: > On Sun, 2005-10-09 at 07:06 -0600, Jim Peavler wrote: > >> I agree that the female point-of-view is nearly completely absent on >> buddha-l. > > Yes, but so is the male point of view. The fact is that points of view > are points of view and that there is no such thing as male and female > points of view. Now Richard! I humbly disagree. With my extensive experience with women (some of it relatively successful in the sense that I really think I learned something from them -- particularly my wife and daughter) I am convinced that women experience, see, and think about the world differently from the ways men do, and that men can actually benefit by paying attention to it. I don't like to say things like "that's the silliest of all the silly things you have said on buddha-l" so I won't. Stay dry. From dlusthau at mailer.fsu.edu Sun Oct 9 11:35:56 2005 From: dlusthau at mailer.fsu.edu (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Sun Oct 9 11:46:44 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] URL References: Message-ID: <01dc01c5ccf8$5237ee00$f6339c04@Dan> Thanks, Stan. This site pretty much reiterates everything I have been arguing, with copious supporting evidence, including a very sober explanation for why the estimates of casualties increased over time (more precise knowledge of the "defenses" the Japanese had in wait, severely underestimated at the time), why and how the decision to drop the bombs, and where, considerations of the Soviets, etc. Shows that these myths have been around for a long time, and continue to be recycled. But perhaps the most telling remark is the following: ----- Dr. Mitchell Wilson was asked to work on the Manhattan Project. Dr. Wilson refused on moral grounds, not wanting anything to do with an atomic weapon. Later in his life, in 1960, he was sent around the world on an investigation of different styles in science. One of the countries he went to was Japan. He writes: There are those who have become absolutely certain that the bombing of Hiroshima was a mistake. Not until I went to Japan did I realize that all the discussions I had heard had been among Western scientists only, thinking in Western terms, and taking for granted that the Japanese High Command would necessarily have reasoned along similar lines. In Tokyo, I discussed the question at last with a number of Japanese scientists who were old enough to have lived through the times. When I asked these men to describe for me what sort of demonstration of the atomic bomb by the United States in the summer of 1945 would have convinced the Japanese High Command of the inevitability of defeat and the need for immediate surrender, I drew a blank stare at the total unreality of the question in the light of the situation as it then existed. Wilson later discussed this saying, "Whatever verdict history will pass on the need to destroy Hiroshima and Nagasaki. when the matter is put in terms of the Japanese values generally accepted during the war, Japanese scientists themselves can suggest no realistic alternative to what happened. That there might have been a premilitary demonstration of the atom bomb turns out to be another one of history's myths." ---- That pretty much sums up everything I have been trying to say. Debunking myths is hard work. With that site now available to anyone who cares to ponder any of this thread further, I really can get back to other things. Thanks again. Dan Here is the URL I mentioned yesterday: http://plungepontificates.blogspot.com/2005/05/decision-to-drop-atomic-bomb-on.html Stan Ziobro -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20051009/385593e5/attachment.htm From junger at samsara.law.cwru.edu Sun Oct 9 11:07:37 2005 From: junger at samsara.law.cwru.edu (Peter D. Junger) Date: Sun Oct 9 12:06:50 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Gender on Buddha-l In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 09 Oct 2005 10:00:57 MDT." <00a501c5ccea$a355a600$2930cece@charlie> Message-ID: <200510091707.j99H7c54010038@samsara.law.cwru.edu> "jkirk" writes: : The fact is that points of view : > are points of view and that there is no such thing as male and female : > points of view. : > : > : > -- : > Richard Hayes : =============== : Sorry but that's wrong----if you hold to that view, then you have no concept : of culture whatsoever, thanks to an apparent decision to disregard some very : huge social realities. : Joanna I tend to agree with Richard. There are differing points of view between the tall and the short and between those who look up and those who look down (as a matter of relative truth) but I fail to see how there can be different male and female points of view, unless they fall within the tall/short dichotomy. Of course, as a matter of ultimate truth all points of view are empty and in the blue sky there is no east or west. As to whether Richard has, or wants, a concept of culture I will leave to him to repond. -- Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH EMAIL: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu URL: http://samsara.law.cwru.edu From rhayes at unm.edu Sun Oct 9 12:45:31 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Sun Oct 9 12:46:43 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: <019901c5ccee$193ae4e0$f6339c04@Dan> References: <1127942930.6308.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> <433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net> <617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org><4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net> <1359619694.20051004213630@kungzhi.org><43441B56.7080303@nerim.net> <1479321719.20051006043947@kungzhi.org><003c01c5ca43$01172200$c8369c04@Dan> <4344DA9B.8040908@xs4all.nl><00bb01c5ca59$2aa93700$c8369c04@Dan> <1128621156.4783.55.camel@localhost.localdomain> <008901c5cabf$30ff5010$bc369c04@Dan> <43461940.1060905@nerim.net> <022701c5cb19$ff594ab0$bc369c04@Dan> <014501c5cbe8$4a523580$e51b9c04@Dan><004c01c5cc35$b804c320$767c4e51@zen> <006b01c5cca5$0ab2d750$f6339c04@Dan> <1128869849.4380.2.camel@localhost.localdomain> <019901c5ccee$193ae4e0$f6339c04@Dan> Message-ID: <1128883531.6394.1.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Sun, 2005-10-09 at 12:25 -0400, Dan Lusthaus wrote: > You are right, Richard. That was over the line, and realized it as soon as I > hit the send button. I apologize to Stephen. Thank you for being grown up about it. Now if someone could only get ME to grow up... -- Richard Hayes From jkirk at spro.net Sun Oct 9 12:45:29 2005 From: jkirk at spro.net (jkirk) Date: Sun Oct 9 12:46:53 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Gender on Buddha-l References: <3luroIQH+8RDFw7l@clara.net><1128781640.4379.12.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1128805361.5717.86.camel@localhost.localdomain><004501c5cc65$7beb0450$2930cece@charlie><62cb2589a3b0bbdec0c863a7e0d5e7e0@mindspring.com><1128870711.4380.13.camel@localhost.localdomain><00a501c5ccea$a355a600$2930cece@charlie> <1128875217.5654.30.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <001201c5cd01$a22d5b30$2930cece@charlie> Come on, Richard. The evidence is so mammoth, in print and otherwise, that it's up to you to do the requisite research. But I don't think you are serious. However, if you insist on evidence, it would be spiritually of great benefit to you if you looked it up, since you claim not to know about any of this (which I doubt). But we could start with the prevailing cultural views of the female gender that caused the bhikkunis of yore to be obliged to take a much longer list of vows than the bhikkus, and also to bow down to any male monk no matter what his age or accomplishments relative to those of the Bhikkuni. These basically negative views of women in that age were probably what inclined the Buddha to make these monastic rule distinctions. He had to preserve the sangha's reputation in a culture that suspected all women of being sexually voracious-- a perfect example of male projection, actually. There is of course more--much more in some of the literature on Buddhism. I have already cited (in previous fairly recent posts on the economy of merit) aspects of Ladakhi cultural views on women that prevent even nuns from practicing important aspects of their calling. So, to offer just one source, please read Kim Gutschow, _Being a Buddhist Nun._ I think this will do for now. You are possibly just baiting me anyway. No, evidence is distinctly not a guy thing, as women (and some men) have been marshalling it for centuries. It's only been in the 20th century that they were finally able to get it all into print, more than just a book or a poem here or there. Joanna ==================== From: "Richard P. Hayes" > >> Sorry but that's wrong----if you hold to that view, then you have no >> concept >> of culture whatsoever, thanks to an apparent decision to disregard some >> very >> huge social realities. > > Sorry, but that's not an argument. If you'd like to convince me, you'll > have to provide some evidence. Or is evidence a guy thing? > > > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From rhayes at unm.edu Sun Oct 9 12:53:42 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Sun Oct 9 12:56:45 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Gender on Buddha-l In-Reply-To: <200510091707.j99H7c54010038@samsara.law.cwru.edu> References: <200510091707.j99H7c54010038@samsara.law.cwru.edu> Message-ID: <1128884022.6394.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Sun, 2005-10-09 at 13:07 -0400, Peter D. Junger wrote: > I tend to agree with Richard. Jeez, Peter, where's your testosterone? Guys don't AGREE with each other. That's what gals do. > As to whether Richard has, or wants, a concept of culture I will > leave to him to repond. Gracias, amigo Now that you ask, I have to say that I find the idea of culture one of the most ill-founded, unscientific, hare-brained, useless and perhaps even dangerous ideas of the 20th century. The sooner we dump it, the better we'll all be. I'm almost perfectly incapable of saying anything intelligent on e-mail, because it takes too much time to be intelligent. So let me recommend a good book: Ian Hacking's "The Social Construction of What?" -- Richard Hayes From jehms at xs4all.nl Sun Oct 9 12:50:00 2005 From: jehms at xs4all.nl (Erik Hoogcarspel) Date: Sun Oct 9 12:56:50 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Gender on Buddha-l In-Reply-To: <00a501c5ccea$a355a600$2930cece@charlie> References: <3luroIQH+8RDFw7l@clara.net><1128781640.4379.12.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1128805361.5717.86.camel@localhost.localdomain><004501c5cc65$7beb0450$2930cece@charlie><62cb2589a3b0bbdec0c863a7e0d5e7e0@mindspring.com> <1128870711.4380.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> <00a501c5ccea$a355a600$2930cece@charlie> Message-ID: <43496658.5090407@xs4all.nl> jkirk schreef: > The fact is that points of view > >> are points of view and that there is no such thing as male and female >> points of view. >> >> >> -- >> Richard Hayes > > =============== > Sorry but that's wrong----if you hold to that view, then you have no > concept > of culture whatsoever, thanks to an apparent decision to disregard > some very > huge social realities. If that's a fact I wonder if a guy could have a female point of view. If so, which kind of male arguments could a female produce to convince a male to give up his 'natural' point of view, if not I fail to see how you could blame him. I remember a line from Chuang Tse saying that if there are two points of view any choice means take sides. Maybe you should redefine your objections. Personally I have always enjoyed your info an d I hope you'll keep up the good work. Erik www.xs4all.nl/~jehms From chanfu at gmail.com Sun Oct 9 13:24:30 2005 From: chanfu at gmail.com (Chan Fu) Date: Sun Oct 9 13:26:44 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] An experiment (Gender on Buddha-l) Message-ID: On 10/9/05, Erik Hoogcarspel wrote: > jkirk schreef: > > > The fact is that points of view > > > >> are points of view and that there is no such thing as male and female > >> points of view. > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Richard Hayes > > > > =============== > > Sorry but that's wrong----if you hold to that view, then you have no > > concept > > of culture whatsoever, thanks to an apparent decision to disregard > > some very > > huge social realities. > > If that's a fact I wonder if a guy could have a female point of view. If > so, which kind of male arguments could a female produce to convince a > male to give up his 'natural' point of view, if not I fail to see how > you could blame him. I remember a line from Chuang Tse saying that if > there are two points of view any choice means take sides. > Maybe you should redefine your objections. Personally I have always > enjoyed your info an d I hope you'll keep up the good work. > > Erik Taking these two tests is a very interesting experiment for a buddhist practitioner: http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,937913,00.html While being a rabid techologist and maniacally science-oriented, I actually found it difficult to answer many questions on the S test from my usual perspective of just not thinking about such things in the way the questions imply. It's great fun. cf (high "B") From chanfu at gmail.com Sun Oct 9 14:28:59 2005 From: chanfu at gmail.com (Chan Fu) Date: Sun Oct 9 14:36:47 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Karen Armstrong was in Boise last night In-Reply-To: References: <00bc01c5c9d6$fb5679e0$2930cece@charlie> Message-ID: On 10/7/05, Chan Fu wrote: > On 10/5/05, jkirk wrote: > > Posted by Joanna > > > > She's the author of _The Battle for God_, about the causes of the rise of > > fundamentalism world-wide. She was invited to Ketchum ID in September, when > > the Dalai Lama was here, to moderate an interfaith discussion after his > > public talks. > > > > "It was her first meeting with the Tibetan spiritual leader, and it left a > > strong impression. > > 'We were in the presence of a very holy man, completely without ego," she > > said. "We really should all lighten up a bit because so much of our > > pomposity comes from egotism and a sense of our own righteousness.'" > > > > >From a local article and interview with her, see > > http://www.idahostatesman.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051002/NEWS04/510020314&SearchID=73222442394537 > > May I assume this is a quotation? > > May I answer conversationally, in the interest of art? > > > What is your next project? > > > > I've got a new book coming out in the spring. It's a history of the Axial > > Age, a period from 900 to 200 B.C., when all the world's major religions > > came into being at much the same time. > > "Major religions"? Perhaps you meant "modern organized religions". > Certainly the Inca, the Aztec, the Egyptian religions were as > "major" as religion could get, at the time. > Needless to say, I've missed a few, but let's continue... > > > It shows what the religions have in common, how profoundly similar they are, > > right across the board, how none of them are particularly interested in > > doctrines or beliefs or metaphysics. They're interested in behavior and, > > above all, they emphasize the importance of compassion and nonviolence. > > Well, perhaps people suddenly discovered that humanism > was more important than myth and belief? Why attribute > such a thing to religion, rather than human maturity? > > > The book is also a kind of critique of the way we are religious today, > > because very often people like Buddha or Jesus would be rather astonished at > > the kind of religions that are going on in their name. This is the kind of > > religiosity, for example, that they wanted to get rid of. > > Jesus is in heaven and Buddha is dead - this is an argument from > personification and projection. I invite anyone to prove motives > or intentions from such sources. > > > I'm trying very hard to be optimistic because it's very dangerous to be > > pessimistic. Pessimism and despair lead to nihilistic terrorism. We must > > keep optimistic. It's very hard, but we have to keep optimistic. The > > alternative is unthinkable. > > Buddhism accepts what happens. It's neither optimistic nor > pessimistic. Nature - the universe of which we are part - makes > no determination one way or the other. Nature is a Buddhist. > WOW! "Pessimism and despair lead to nihilistic terrorism" > this sounds something like the creationist's claim that accepting > evolution leads to godlessness and thence to immorality (as if > morality were inscribed in star formations). > > > Increasingly now, more groups are going to have powers of destruction that > > were previously the preserve only of the nation-states (political units of > > organization). Nineteen men with box cutters and penknives brought the > > United States to its knees. It's only a matter of time before one of these > > groups gets a nuclear weapon. This is catastrophic. We have got to sort > > these problems out. > > A long time ago, the Mongol empire, and many empires after > that, held the same sway and influence. In fact, they conquered > the known world many times over. The 911 terrorists brought > nothing to it's knees. We will do that ourselves, through fear, > paranoia and retreat from our own principles. Thinking that *WE* > (yes, that's the imperial WE) have the answer is about as > Buddhistically stupid as I can imagine. > > Your book, Ms. Armstrong, is nothing but an appeal to religion, an > empty injunction of humanity and a search for a father figure. > You should consider your own actions and decisions, your own > understanding, your own ga-ga-ism. Surely you know that there > is indeed a principle of survival, and that it actually applies. Surely > you know that the universe doesn't give a damn what you think. Right on, Jo! Dunno how I missed reading that one... It seems the new (sigh!) strategy from the RR (not Rolls Royce, the gurus own all of them) is to link morality with their hallucinations in the rather obvious "no religion; no ,morality" ploy. Sam Harris' book will no doubt occupy a warm spot in many Christian fireplaces this winter. 'Specially since it's cheaper than gas... http://www.samharris.org/ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/there-is-no-god-and-you-_b_8459.html Personally, I'm heating the house with free bibles from hotel rooms. From mike at lamrim.org.uk Sun Oct 9 14:39:26 2005 From: mike at lamrim.org.uk (Mike Austin) Date: Sun Oct 9 14:46:44 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Gender on Buddha-l In-Reply-To: <1128870711.4380.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <3luroIQH+8RDFw7l@clara.net> <1128781640.4379.12.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1128805361.5717.86.camel@localhost.localdomain> <004501c5cc65$7beb0450$2930cece@charlie> <62cb2589a3b0bbdec0c863a7e0d5e7e0@mindspring.com> <1128870711.4380.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <+TzJ1rk+$XSDFwxa@clara.net> In message <1128870711.4380.13.camel@localhost.localdomain>, Richard P. Hayes writes >Yes, but so is the male point of view. The fact is that points of view >are points of view and that there is no such thing as male and female >points of view. Right. By distinguishing between them, one creates the very problem that one seeks to eliminate. How adept we are at creating dukkha from, well, nothing at all really. -- Metta Mike Austin From mike at lamrim.org.uk Sun Oct 9 15:27:30 2005 From: mike at lamrim.org.uk (Mike Austin) Date: Sun Oct 9 15:36:46 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Diversions, distractions and off-topic discussions In-Reply-To: <515280680.20051009040457@kungzhi.org> References: <3luroIQH+8RDFw7l@clara.net> <1073114520.20051008172212@kungzhi.org> <6J+oj8XKOBSDFwwJ@clara.net> <515280680.20051009040457@kungzhi.org> Message-ID: In message <515280680.20051009040457@kungzhi.org>, Benito Carral writes > I don't know if you assume that I don't know what >the Old Guy said, that's up to you, but I would no say >that "we are ruling him out" just "updating his tought" >so it can be useful for us here and now. What we forget, we don't know - until reminded. That is one advantage of spending time with other practitioners. I find that the occasional quote from the Buddha is a welcome reminder for the wandering mind. In fact, I think that a few more short quotes (as part of ongoing threads) would be enormously beneficial. Many off-topic posts would not even arise in the mind, let alone get posted. -- Metta Mike Austin From franzmetcalf at earthlink.net Sun Oct 9 15:48:17 2005 From: franzmetcalf at earthlink.net (Franz Metcalf) Date: Sun Oct 9 15:57:58 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Teaching Zen Buddhist philosophy In-Reply-To: <1128875107.5654.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1128875107.5654.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: Richard, I am intellectually salivating over your course (if this phrase causes anyone to form any unappealing mental image, I'm sorry). Like you, I've used mostly "the classics" when teaching Buddhist courses, but I can still have a go at contemporaries, just for fun. The exception to the classics is Janwillem van de Wetering's _The Empty Mirror_ (most recently in print through St. Martin's Griffin, 1999). It has what might be an excellent balance of philosophical rumination and rather sordid life for a course taught out of the philosophy department. My students love this book; I do too. His recent _Afterzen_ (St. Martin's, 1999) continues wrestling with the moral mess of contemporary Zen practice, but to my mind it's a bit scattered and depends on reading the first book (and that would be too much JvdW for one course). As for contemporary possibilities--in addition to the authors you mention--how about _The Heart of Being: Moral and Ethical Teachings of Zen Buddhism_, by John Daido Loori Roshi (Tuttle, 1996)? I confess I have not read it and it may be too close to Aitken Roshi's wonderful _The Mind of Clover_ (which I'm sure you were thinking of when you mentioned him in your post). If I had to choose two and only two contemporary authors on Zen ethics is would surely be Aitken and Loy.) (BTW: by mentioning me in the same sentence as Aitken Roshi and Professor Loy, I think you set in motion mental events that are going to cost me several lifetimes of ahamkaara-reducing practice. Still, as for this lifetime, thank you.) In the context of Zen ethics I think I might have students read Brian Victoria's work. I'm wondering if chapter seven (on "imperial-way" Buddhism) of _Zen at War_ or chapter five (on Yasutani Roshi) of _Zen War Stories_ could be read out of context of the remainder of those books. Finally, I love the heart (or should I say "brain"? Let's go with "shin") of _Zen and the Brain_, but I can't imagine assigning that thing to undergraduates. A few well-chosen chapters--or really excerpts from chapters--would suffice to raise its central questions (and I don't think Austin pretends to give final answers to the questions, anyway). Like you, I'm curious if anyone has used this book to good effect in teaching. I hope others will chime in with their own thoughts. And, in light of Joy's recent plaint, I hope someone can correct for my gender-imbalanced recommendations. Franz From StormyTet at aol.com Sun Oct 9 16:24:14 2005 From: StormyTet at aol.com (StormyTet@aol.com) Date: Sun Oct 9 16:27:56 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Gender on Buddha-l Message-ID: In a message dated 10/9/2005 11:39:30 A.M. Central Daylight Time, rhayes@unm.edu writes: Joanna: > Sorry but that's wrong----if you hold to that view, then you have no concept > of culture whatsoever, thanks to an apparent decision to disregard some very > huge social realities. RH: Sorry, but that's not an argument. If you'd like to convince me, you'll have to provide some evidence. Or is evidence a guy thing? Hi Richard, Joanna, and Dylan, Richard Hayes seemed to suggest that there was no male point of view vs. female. Well, my early comments about mothering/academics and detachment are a good example. The Buddha left his child. It hurt him, but he left. The stigma associated with this was minimal and even today when a man is across the country and sees his children periodically he does not face the same stigmatization as a mother who has pursued her career. My son currently spends the week days with his father and step mother and the weekends with me. That in itself is enough to make people double-take me. Just recently I wrote an Opinion editorial in a newspaper and my son was mentioned. My editor loved it but told me it was 'rather gratuitous.' I asked him why. He told me because I "hardly see my son." Well, the truth is that me and my son are very close but I have compartmentalized my work/academic career and those in that part of my life do not really have a clue concerning my relationship with my son. It is not good for my career to come across as someone who has emotional distractions -- I instead look like a cold hearted 'bad' mother -- but that is okay as long as I 'stay up with the boys.' I know that there will be little toleration for phone calls from school during meetings, being home with a sick child, or failing to meet a deadline because I was too busy being a mother, etc. For a year me and my son have been talking about me going away to finish my doctorate. The tears have flowed a lot. Half the time I tell him and myself that it is important for individuals to follow their dreams. Sam knows that he is not to get married or have kids until he is done with his education. My career prospects and financial stability will be greatly limited if I do not finish my Ph.D. On the other hand, I have just about decided that I can't be away from him that much. Men, I would conjecture, are far more emotionally liberated to make choices based on economic and creative interests than women. I am fully aware that I have internalized the critique against mothers who are 'too independent.' That internalization makes me susceptible emotionally in ways that men are not. Perhaps in a perfectly androgynous world men and women would not have different opinions, but in this world, the socialization is strong and insidious. As it stands, men are more often encouraged to live up to their full potential and women are encouraged to be nurturing caregivers. Trying to fit that mold, ironically enough made me sick with RA years ago. Meditation saved me from the effects of RA too, plus a commitment to live up to my potential. I have been trained to be aware of the stereotypes and 'frames' in which women and men are represented in our media. The truth is that women are less often pictured in positions of authority or outside of the home. Older men are more often depicted as leaders in media representations. Older women are less likely to have life goals in media representations. There are more young women to older men in media representations. Culture is a social construction and the truth is that women face a different set of pressures than men do. This is going to have an impact on how we perceive and thus an impact on our opinions on certain key issues. Ultimately, it is I who has to figure out the best course for me and my son, but believe me, there are plenty of voices out there that press a woman toward accepting a certain socially acceptable path and it is very different than the path that a man is socialized toward. Btw, Richard, I will probably be at UNM for a visit in late January. I would love any advice concerning where to find affordable accommodations for a week. Stormy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20051009/3e9821b3/attachment.htm From StormyTet at aol.com Sun Oct 9 16:31:57 2005 From: StormyTet at aol.com (StormyTet@aol.com) Date: Sun Oct 9 16:36:49 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Gender on Buddha-l Message-ID: <6.4f15af05.307af45d@aol.com> In a message dated 10/9/2005 1:09:50 P.M. Central Daylight Time, junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu writes: I tend to agree with Richard. There are differing points of view between the tall and the short and between those who look up and those who look down (as a matter of relative truth) but I fail to see how there can be different male and female points of view, unless they fall within the tall/short dichotomy. Hi, Just recently I was reading an audience reception study on the movie "Thelma and Louise." The men who viewed the movie almost unanimously hated the film and saw it as male-bashing. The women tended to see it as liberating. The startling point is that the women were very, very aware of the rape scene and the brutality the women faced. The men were more concerned about the idea that men were represented like this -- their point being that not all men are rapists. They were not concerned as much about the rape as the bad light it threw upon their gender. It takes sensitivity and truly listening to women to hear their difference of opinions. In a world where white men are predominantly invisible in their hegemony a man has to truly desire to see from a different position in order to do so. It does not surprise me that you do not see that there is gender differences. For you to see such thing, you would have to realize that your way of percieving was not the only way. Why would you be naturally drawn to do such a thing? Stormy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20051009/d4585b0c/attachment.html From mike at lamrim.org.uk Sun Oct 9 17:09:04 2005 From: mike at lamrim.org.uk (Mike Austin) Date: Sun Oct 9 17:16:48 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Gender on Buddha-l In-Reply-To: <6.4f15af05.307af45d@aol.com> References: <6.4f15af05.307af45d@aol.com> Message-ID: In message <6.4f15af05.307af45d@aol.com>, StormyTet@aol.com writes >It takes sensitivity and truly listening to women to hear their >difference of opinions. In a world where white men are predominantly >invisible in their hegemony a man has to truly desire to see from a >different position in order to do so. It does not surprise me that you >do not see that there is gender differences. For you to see such thing, >you would have to realize that your way of percieving was not the only >way.? Why would you be naturally drawn to do such a thing? Er, compassion? The point is, as previously mentioned, that views may be split up into male/female, short/tall, fat/thin, or whatever categories one chooses. Would one suggest there is a generic short person's point of view as opposed to a generic tall person's point of view? Then, even amongst women, there may be this group of women's point of view and that group of women's point of view. As I said earlier, if we make discriminations, we will find them. There then comes the next step of asserting that they exist independent of our own mental constructs. Once we establish this in our mental continuum, I think we will find it hard to cultivate compassion, because we will tend to be distracted by our labels and not relate to the individual. -- Metta Mike Austin From curt at cola.iges.org Sun Oct 9 17:14:13 2005 From: curt at cola.iges.org (curt) Date: Sun Oct 9 17:18:00 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Teaching Zen Buddhist philosophy In-Reply-To: <1128875107.5654.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1128875107.5654.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <4349A445.9090904@cola.iges.org> The main problem with chucking the "classics" and replacing them with "contemporary" authors is that you'll have to change the name of the course from "Zen Buddhist Philosophy" to "Zen Buddhist Pablum". A better idea would be to use some of the material that is actual studied in the traditional Zen "curriculum" - especially "The Sutra of Perfect Enlightenment" and "The Awakening of Faith". Since Packer rejects the label of Zen I see no reason to go out one's way to include her in a class on Zen - unless you genuinely find her writings to be insightful in and of themselves. Rather than Packer you would be much better off with Lenore Friedman's "Meetings with Remarkable Women" - not exclusively Zen, but a very interesting overview and extremely accessible (and Packer is in there). And if you end up a little short on contemporary women authors, you could try to compensate by focusing on the extremely interesting area of the history of women teachers in Zen. Also, there are plenty of good editions of English translations of "The Records" of various big shot Masters in addition to Chinul (whom I consider to be the best) and Dogen. Lin Chi, Hakuin, Matsu, Ta Hui all come to mind. So I would say there's plenty of material that you could use without resorting to contemporary Western writers. Don't get me wrong, some of my best friends are contemporary western zen teachers. - Curt Richard P. Hayes wrote: >Next semester I am scheduled to teach a course on Zen Buddhist >philosophy (in the philosophy department, not in religious studies). >Last time I taught the course I had the students read, among other >things, The Lankavatara Sutra, the Diamond-cutter sutra, The Platform >Sutra, some writings by Chinul, some writings by Dogen and a book by >David Loy. The class got rave reviews, so I could just repeat it. But >the fact is, I am really sick of the old standards (the majority of >which I don't find at all inspiring anyway) and would like to have a >change of pace. > >So I have decided to try something different (for me). Rather than >giving a lot of historical background, I am thinking of having students >read five or six books by contemporary Western writers who have been >influenced by their Zen practice. The people whose works I have been >thinking of are Robert Aitken, Joko Beck, Jan Chozen Bays, Toni Packer, >Bernie Glassman and Ruben Habito. > >If possible I'd like to have a good balance of male and female authors, >and I'd like to have at least one writer who, like Packer, has abandoned >the Buddhist and Zen labels altogether, and I'd like to have a couple of >people whose vision of Zen includes religious traditions other than >Buddhism (like Habito and Glassman). I also want to have a book that >deals significantly with ethics (as do Aitken, Franz Metcalf and David >Loy). > >My question is: do any of you have any experience teaching any of these >authors in an academic context? If so, how did it go? Are there other >authors you would recommend whose works fit within the guidelines I have >sketched above? > >Incidentally, I was toying with the idea of having people read Austin's >Zen and the Brain, which I find captivating, but in the end I decided >against using the whole book. I may include a few excerpts, since >several of the people who keep taking my courses are science majors who >seem to like to grapple with the sorts of things that Austin grapples >with. Have any of you taught from his book? How did it go? > >Any advice will be gratefully received. > > > From bsimon at toad.net Sun Oct 9 17:38:13 2005 From: bsimon at toad.net (Bernie Simon) Date: Sun Oct 9 17:46:47 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Gender on Buddha-l Message-ID: <0092f62694ceaca5cc54cc9d7c68cbbc@toad.net> The difference between the male and female point of view is the difference between the point of view (pov) of the oppressor and the oppressed. I think that somewhere in Edward Conze's collection of essays, Thirty Years of Buddhist Studies, he writes that while the oppressed understands the pov of the oppressor, the reverse is not true. The oppressor can't be bothered to think in other terms, sees their own pov as the way things are and not a pov at all, and the oppressed pov as deviant. ---- It's all good From s.hodge at padmacholing.freeserve.co.uk Sun Oct 9 17:40:36 2005 From: s.hodge at padmacholing.freeserve.co.uk (Stephen Hodge) Date: Sun Oct 9 17:46:52 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo References: <1127942930.6308.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> <433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net><617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org> <4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net><1359619694.20051004213630@kungzhi.org> <43441B56.7080303@nerim.net><1479321719.20051006043947@kungzhi.org><003c01c5ca43$01172200$c8369c04@Dan><4344DA9B.8040908@xs4all.nl> <00bb01c5ca59$2aa93700$c8369c04@Dan> <1128621156.4783.55.camel@localhost.localdomain><008901c5cabf$30ff5010$bc369c04@Dan> <43461940.1060905@nerim.net><022701c5cb19$ff594ab0$bc369c04@Dan> <43465FC4.7080207@nerim.net><019701c5cbf4$23ed7330$e51b9c04@Dan><4347BFB4.9040105@nerim.net><022301c5cc15$ed402270$e51b9c04@Dan><006601c5cc37$a5658a90$767c4e51@zen> <00dd01c5ccbe$14f46260$f6339c04@Dan> Message-ID: <005901c5cd2b$1b53c610$53644e51@zen> Dear Dan, > Bodhidharma told me that I'm already Buddha. Was he lying? Is Methuselah your middle name, perchance ? Best wishes, Stephen Hodge From s.hodge at padmacholing.freeserve.co.uk Sun Oct 9 17:38:40 2005 From: s.hodge at padmacholing.freeserve.co.uk (Stephen Hodge) Date: Sun Oct 9 17:46:57 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Gender and diversions References: <3luroIQH+8RDFw7l@clara.net><1128781640.4379.12.camel@localhost.localdomain><1128805361.5717.86.camel@localhost.localdomain><004501c5cc65$7beb0450$2930cece@charlie> <5fdce30417f749d9d83981d4518030aa@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <005801c5cd2b$1a80e5b0$53644e51@zen> Jim Peavler wrote: > I, on the other hand like to be given links to outside, supportive > materials. [snip] On my web browser I have a whole folder named "jkirk" > where I have collected a whole library of very interesting resource. Ditto for myself. Also I have often found these links etc to be worth forwarding to others in my small circle of friends. When Joanna has raised topics for discussion, I have not always responded either because I do not know enough about the topic to contribute meaningfully or pressing domestic concerns have prevented a response. I do hope that Joanna will not feel her efforts are entirely unappreciated, although I have noticed that her posts attempting to initiate discussions do indeed go unreplied more often than not. Best wishes, Stephen Hodge From s.hodge at padmacholing.freeserve.co.uk Sun Oct 9 17:31:19 2005 From: s.hodge at padmacholing.freeserve.co.uk (Stephen Hodge) Date: Sun Oct 9 17:47:01 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo References: <1127942930.6308.49.camel@localhost.localdomain><433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net><617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org><4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net><1359619694.20051004213630@kungzhi.org><43441B56.7080303@nerim.net><1479321719.20051006043947@kungzhi.org><003c01c5ca43$01172200$c8369c04@Dan><4344DA9B.8040908@xs4all.nl><00bb01c5ca59$2aa93700$c8369c04@Dan><1128621156.4783.55.camel@localhost.localdomain><008901c5cabf$30ff5010$bc369c04@Dan> <43461940.1060905@nerim.net><022701c5cb19$ff594ab0$bc369c04@Dan><014501c5cbe8$4a523580$e51b9c04@Dan><004c01c5cc35$b804c320$767c4e51@zen><006b01c5cca5$0ab2d750$f6339c04@Dan><1128869849.4380.2.camel@localhost.localdomain> <019901c5ccee$193ae4e0$f6339c04@Dan> Message-ID: <005701c5cd2b$199a2f30$53644e51@zen> Dear Dan, You wrote: > You are right, Richard. That was over the line, and realized it as soon as > I > hit the send button. I apologize to Stephen. OK, apology accepted -- though in the course of my life I have often noticed that aspersions etc that we cast at others often better fit ourselves. Best wishes, Stephen Hodge From rhayes at unm.edu Sun Oct 9 18:04:39 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Sun Oct 9 18:06:53 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Gender on Buddha-l In-Reply-To: <0092f62694ceaca5cc54cc9d7c68cbbc@toad.net> References: <0092f62694ceaca5cc54cc9d7c68cbbc@toad.net> Message-ID: <1128902680.8589.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Sun, 2005-10-09 at 19:38 -0400, Bernie Simon wrote: > The difference between the male and female point of view is the > difference between the point of view (pov) of the oppressor and the > oppressed. What nonsense. I have never felt oppressed by women, although I have felt dominated by a few. But that's only because I'm rather shy and retiring and can easily be dominated by anyone who is aggressive. Generally speaking, I think an analysis that begins with this false dichotomy of oppressor/oppressed is going to end up being a very poor one. The truth is we all have oppressive moments and we are all at times oppressed. No one falls neatly into one category or the other. -- Richard Hayes *** "When the power of love is greater than the love of power, we will have peace." ---Jimi Hendrix From bclough at aucegypt.edu Sun Oct 9 17:54:49 2005 From: bclough at aucegypt.edu (bclough) Date: Sun Oct 9 18:06:55 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Diversions, distractions and off-topic discussions Message-ID: >> Mike Austin writes: > >..."There are these ten topics of [proper] conversation. Which ten? Talk on modesty, on contentment, on seclusion, on non->>>>>>> entanglement, on arousing persistence, on virtue, on concentration, on discernment, on release, and on the knowledge & vision of release ..." >Lance Cousins writes: > > I quite agree that these are good topics for discussion for both > monks and lay people and would personally find Buddha-L more > interesting if it were discussing them more. While I wholeheartedly agree with points made here concerning why Buddhists should be concerned with politics, I find myself concurring with Mike and Lance that more conversations on the above topics would be most welcome on Buddha-L. Brad Clough From rhayes at unm.edu Sun Oct 9 18:11:27 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Sun Oct 9 18:16:47 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Teaching Zen Buddhist philosophy In-Reply-To: <4349A445.9090904@cola.iges.org> References: <1128875107.5654.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4349A445.9090904@cola.iges.org> Message-ID: <1128903088.8589.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Sun, 2005-10-09 at 19:14 -0400, curt wrote: > A better idea would be to use some of the material that is actual > studied in the > traditional Zen "curriculum" - especially "The Sutra of Perfect > Enlightenment" and "The Awakening of Faith". As I said, I have done that in the past. I've been teaching those things for twenty-five years. I'm looking for a change of pace. Besides, I am beginning to understand what my own Zen master used to say: "Reading sutras and koan collections for insight is like eating vomit for nourishment." > Since Packer rejects the label of Zen I see no reason to go out one's > way to include her in a class on Zen As I said, I want to include writers who spent a significant amount of time practicing Zen. Packer was chosen to replace Kapleau when he retired. She has all the credentials one could ask for. Not only that, but she had the courage to drop her Zen persona, and even her Buddhist persona. -- Richard Hayes From mike at lamrim.org.uk Sun Oct 9 18:19:34 2005 From: mike at lamrim.org.uk (Mike Austin) Date: Sun Oct 9 18:26:51 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Gender on Buddha-l In-Reply-To: <0092f62694ceaca5cc54cc9d7c68cbbc@toad.net> References: <0092f62694ceaca5cc54cc9d7c68cbbc@toad.net> Message-ID: In message <0092f62694ceaca5cc54cc9d7c68cbbc@toad.net>, Bernie Simon writes >The difference between the male and female point of view is the >difference between the point of view (pov) of the oppressor and the >oppressed. I think that somewhere in Edward Conze's collection of >essays, Thirty Years of Buddhist Studies, he writes that while the >oppressed understands the pov of the oppressor, the reverse is not >true. The oppressor can't be bothered to think in other terms, sees >their own pov as the way things are and not a pov at all, and the >oppressed pov as deviant. Hehe! Off we go with another generalisation of points of view. Is there a generic oppressor's point of view as opposed to an oppressed person's point of view? I don't see how this withstands reason any more than the supposed difference between generic male and female points of view. In the example you give, one might even suggest that a knowledge of the oppressed person's point of view by the oppressor could have provided an advantage that helped create the situation. -- Metta Mike Austin From s.hodge at padmacholing.freeserve.co.uk Sun Oct 9 18:21:14 2005 From: s.hodge at padmacholing.freeserve.co.uk (Stephen Hodge) Date: Sun Oct 9 18:26:59 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Gender on Buddha-l References: <6.4f15af05.307af45d@aol.com> Message-ID: <009201c5cd30$9acae680$53644e51@zen> Dear Mike, > Would one suggest there is a generic short person's point of view as > opposed to a generic tall person's point of view? Actually, yes. Tall people literally look down on many others and I believe, from unsystematic personal observation, this can lead to various personality traits (in the case of males) that often translate into certain particular, though obvious, attitudes. Similarly, short people (again usually male), who of necessity have to look up literally to many others, often seem to me (who FYI happens taller than average) to have some "point" to prove to the world -- a trait seemingly exacerbated if they also happened to be bald and perhaps overweight. I wonder, therefore, how tall are Dan Lusthaus and Richard Hayes, for example. Perhaps a new and helpful Buddha-L posting rule could be implemented which stipulates that male subscribers should compulsorily state their height (and weight). Best wishes, Stephen Hodge From wongwf at comp.nus.edu.sg Sun Oct 9 18:45:04 2005 From: wongwf at comp.nus.edu.sg (Wong Weng Fai) Date: Sun Oct 9 18:46:50 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] URL In-Reply-To: <01dc01c5ccf8$5237ee00$f6339c04@Dan> References: <01dc01c5ccf8$5237ee00$f6339c04@Dan> Message-ID: > Here is the URL I mentioned yesterday: > > http://plungepontificates.blogspot.com/2005/05/decision-to-drop-atomic-bomb-on.html > > Stan Ziobro In "Control Room", the documentary about Al Jazeera and the Iraq war (a "must-see" film if you ask me), Samir Khader, a senior producer of Al Jazeera concluded: "Who thinks, now, in the United States about what happened in Somalia in 1993? Nobody. Who thinks about what happened in Bosnia-Herzegovina? There is only one single thing that will be left: victory. People like victory, they don't like justification. Once you are victorious that's it." W.F. Wong From leedillion at gmail.com Sun Oct 9 18:50:51 2005 From: leedillion at gmail.com (Lee Dillion) Date: Sun Oct 9 18:57:59 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Gender on Buddha-l In-Reply-To: References: <0092f62694ceaca5cc54cc9d7c68cbbc@toad.net> Message-ID: <4349BAEB.70908@gmail.com> Hi Mike: Your point (that knowledge of the oppressed person's point of view by the oppressor could have provided an advantage that helped create the situation) seems likely to me. See, for example, a recent article in the NY Times on "Our Inner Ape" where it is noted: "Like humans, chimps can be ruthless toward individuals who are not part of their troop. De Waal explains that large-brained animals capable of using empathy to do kind things for others are also capable of great cruelty, because they can imagine what their victims will feel." http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/09/books/review/09grandin.html Seems we can choose Conze or De Waal, depending on which framing device works best for our particular argument. Lee Mike Austin wrote: > In message <0092f62694ceaca5cc54cc9d7c68cbbc@toad.net>, Bernie Simon > writes > >> The difference between the male and female point of view is the >> difference between the point of view (pov) of the oppressor and the >> oppressed. I think that somewhere in Edward Conze's collection of >> essays, Thirty Years of Buddhist Studies, he writes that while the >> oppressed understands the pov of the oppressor, the reverse is not >> true. The oppressor can't be bothered to think in other terms, sees >> their own pov as the way things are and not a pov at all, and the >> oppressed pov as deviant. > > > Hehe! Off we go with another generalisation of points of view. Is there > a generic oppressor's point of view as opposed to an oppressed person's > point of view? I don't see how this withstands reason any more than the > supposed difference between generic male and female points of view. > > In the example you give, one might even suggest that a knowledge of the > oppressed person's point of view by the oppressor could have provided an > advantage that helped create the situation. > From mike at lamrim.org.uk Sun Oct 9 19:13:19 2005 From: mike at lamrim.org.uk (Mike Austin) Date: Sun Oct 9 19:16:51 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Gender on Buddha-l In-Reply-To: <009201c5cd30$9acae680$53644e51@zen> References: <6.4f15af05.307af45d@aol.com> <009201c5cd30$9acae680$53644e51@zen> Message-ID: In message <009201c5cd30$9acae680$53644e51@zen>, Stephen Hodge writes >Dear Mike, > >> Would one suggest there is a generic short person's point of view as >>opposed to a generic tall person's point of view? > >Actually, yes. Tall people literally look down on many others and I >believe, from unsystematic personal observation, this can lead to >various personality traits (in the case of males) that often translate >into certain particular, though obvious, attitudes. Similarly, short >people (again usually male), who of necessity have to look up literally >to many others, often seem to me (who FYI happens taller than average) >to have some "point" to prove to the world I have also noticed a similar tendency in some short people. I would not read a generic point of view into this. I would not even be able to say that it is statistically significant. But, in any case, "There are lies, damn lies and statistics". What is of interest to me is whether such categorisations help or hinder us when trying to help others. On one hand, one might seek to formulate one's responses to others for the best results from a statistical basis. On the other hand, one would only be addressing the probable needs of an imaginary, non-existent generic being. The question I ask myself is: how would a Bodhisattva do it? As much as I enjoy analysis, I instinctively feel that the categorisations would have to go. -- Metta Mike Austin From bcarral at kungzhi.org Sun Oct 9 19:35:04 2005 From: bcarral at kungzhi.org (Benito Carral) Date: Sun Oct 9 19:36:50 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Teaching Zen Buddhist philosophy In-Reply-To: <1128875107.5654.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1128875107.5654.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1692877041.20051010033504@kungzhi.org> On Sunday, October 9, 2005, Richard P. Hayes wrote: > Rather than giving a lot of historical background, I > am thinking of having students read five or six books > by contemporary Western writers who have been > influenced by their Zen practice. I'm not sure that this approach you are suggesting will fulfill the goal of your course. Are you students interested in knowing about Zen philosophy or about what Westerners have done with it? Maybe you could find some balance. I would suggest to include some books by cotemporary and classical Zen teachers as Thich Nhat Hanh, Sheng-yen, Jing Hui, Hsing Yun, Chan Kong... you could also think on Joanna Macy, just to mention a few. Best wishes, Beni From bcarral at kungzhi.org Sun Oct 9 20:24:24 2005 From: bcarral at kungzhi.org (Benito Carral) Date: Sun Oct 9 20:26:54 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Gender on Buddha-l In-Reply-To: References: <6.4f15af05.307af45d@aol.com> <009201c5cd30$9acae680$53644e51@zen> Message-ID: <1623413076.20051010042424@kungzhi.org> Dear fellows, Just my two cents. I would start with a rather silly statement, "Women are not what they used to be." I mean that some decades ago masculine and femenine roles were more clearly defined. I know that many people don't like the "postmodern" label, but in our postmodern world, at least in the one I use to live, gender roles are quite blurred nowadays. Many of my friends who are women don't feel the duty of fulfill the dated roles of housewive and caregivers, most of them look for fulfillment in professional life and relationships not based on commitment or sexual fidelity. I'm not saying this is good or bad, just trying to represent the reality I'm familiar with. If we buy the postmodern discourse, there are so many different roles out there that talking about masculine and femine roles is not useful anymore. However I don't buy such discourse here. It's my experience that in our globalized world there are not many differences between women and men. Maybe such differences are more significant to middle-aged and grown-up individuals. It's clear to me that free market forces are interested in creating "free (individualist) individuals" no matter if they have been born women or men. So I would say that we are in a world in transition. Keeping that in mind, I would say that the conflict between being mothers or professionals is a question of deciding what a role one wants to play. (And as I have said before, it seems that new generations are much less exposed to such a conflict--and I'm deliverately leaving aside men conflicts and gender studies's terminology becasue maybe it would too much for this post.) There is also an interesting and related question, the return to religious orthodoxy by many young and educated women who have rejected the new role that free market forces are trying to sell them (if someone is interested in this phenomenon, I would recommend _Rachel's Daughters: Newly Orthodox Jewish Women_ by Debra Rennee Kaufman. Although it is about the Jewish tradition, it also covers a lot of general topics related with the main issue.) Bringing the discussion to a more Buddhist ground, I think that an interesting question to those (women and men) who have adopted the new individualist role is how it fits with the Buddhist moral view. Is looking fulfillment in work in harmony with right livehood (given than employers use to be greed driven corporations)? Best wishes, Beni From bcarral at kungzhi.org Sun Oct 9 20:33:22 2005 From: bcarral at kungzhi.org (Benito Carral) Date: Sun Oct 9 20:37:59 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: <43462606.40507@nerim.net> References: <1127942930.6308.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> <433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net><617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org> <4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net><1359619694.20051004213630@kungzhi.org> <43441B56.7080303@nerim.net> <1479321719.20051006043947@kungzhi.org><003c01c5ca43$01172200$c8369c04@Dan> <4344DBFE.8030202@nerim.net> <00c701c5ca62$e5c7f5e0$c8369c04@Dan> <4345220A.5040309@nerim.net> <1667485633.20051007043716@kungzhi.org> <43462606.40507@nerim.net> Message-ID: <1591830279.20051010043322@kungzhi.org> On Friday, October 7, 2005, Joy Vriens wrote: >> I agree. As far as I know, the Old Indian guy taugh >> us not to kill any sentient being and didn't >> differentiate between "good" and "bad" individuals >> in this respect. > But apart from the Old Guy (thera pudgala?) telling > us to do so in order to be a good Buddhist, it is > also IMO an obligation that comes with the > self-attributed task of wanting to spread enlightened > values. I almost agree with here you but I don't share all the "enlightened values." For example, I wouldn't like to see a democratic sangha nor would like to spread the individualist view of the human being. I can't imagine monks and nuns saying to the Old Guy what he should teach or what the ethical trainings should be nor corporations and their global and national agents deciding about that. But I'm a stupid postmodern traditionalist, so what do I know? Best wishes, Beni From bcarral at kungzhi.org Sun Oct 9 20:49:30 2005 From: bcarral at kungzhi.org (Benito Carral) Date: Sun Oct 9 20:56:50 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Petition on the Inclusion of Women's Voices (Parliament of the World's Religions) In-Reply-To: <1233778238.20051009045545@kungzhi.org> References: <1233778238.20051009045545@kungzhi.org> Message-ID: <918000775.20051010044930@kungzhi.org> On Sunday, October 9, 2005, Benito Carral wrote: > Petition on the Inclusion of Women's Voices I have not seen any comment on this post yet and would really like to know what do you think about it. Best wishes, Beni From rbzeuschner at adelphia.net Sun Oct 9 21:08:13 2005 From: rbzeuschner at adelphia.net (Bob Zeuschner) Date: Sun Oct 9 21:16:50 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Teaching Zen Buddhist philosophy In-Reply-To: <1692877041.20051010033504@kungzhi.org> References: <1128875107.5654.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1692877041.20051010033504@kungzhi.org> Message-ID: <4349DB1D.7090602@adelphia.net> I might suggest Hisamatsu Shin'ichi's "Critical Sermons of the Zen Tradition: Hisamatsu's Talks on Linji" (Univ. of Hawaii, 2002). Benito Carral wrote: > some balance. I would suggest to include some books by > cotemporary and classical Zen teachers as Thich Nhat > Hanh, Sheng-yen, Jing Hui, Hsing Yun, Chan Kong... you > could also think on Joanna Macy, just to mention a few. From jkirk at spro.net Sun Oct 9 21:30:03 2005 From: jkirk at spro.net (jkirk) Date: Sun Oct 9 21:36:50 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Gender on Buddha-l References: <3luroIQH+8RDFw7l@clara.net><1128781640.4379.12.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1128805361.5717.86.camel@localhost.localdomain><004501c5cc65$7beb0450$2930cece@charlie><62cb2589a3b0bbdec0c863a7e0d5e7e0@mindspring.com> <1128870711.4380.13.camel@localhost.localdomain><00a501c5ccea$a355a600$2930cece@charlie> <43496658.5090407@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <001301c5cd4a$e7108260$2930cece@charlie> > If that's a fact I wonder if a guy could have a female point of view. If > so, which kind of male arguments could a female produce to convince a male > to give up his 'natural' point of view, if not I fail to see how you could > blame him. I remember a line from Chuang Tse saying that if there are > two points of view any choice means take sides. > Maybe you should redefine your objections. Personally I have always > enjoyed your info an d I hope you'll keep up the good work. > > Erik ============ And BTW, I don't support ideas of genetic differences between men and women (i.e., nature, or 'natural 'points of view) so far as 'views' are concerned. Thanks, glad to be of service once in a while, and the view is mutual. JK From ghoti at consultron.ca Sun Oct 9 21:47:10 2005 From: ghoti at consultron.ca (Tom Troughton) Date: Sun Oct 9 21:56:52 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Gender on Buddha-l In-Reply-To: <1128902680.8589.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <200510100350.j9A3oB9X021037@mail2.magma.ca> On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 18:04:39 -0600, Richard P. Hayes wrote: >Generally speaking, I think an analysis that begins with this false >dichotomy of oppressor/oppressed is going to end up being a very poor >one. The truth is we all have oppressive moments and we are all at times >oppressed. No one falls neatly into one category or the other. Is the usefulness of categories determined by their neatness? Best wishes Tom From StormyTet at aol.com Sun Oct 9 21:47:14 2005 From: StormyTet at aol.com (StormyTet@aol.com) Date: Sun Oct 9 21:56:54 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Gender on Buddha-l Message-ID: In a message dated 10/9/2005 8:19:44 P.M. Central Daylight Time, mike@lamrim.org.uk writes: What is of interest to me is whether such categorisations help or hinder us when trying to help others. On one hand, one might seek to formulate one's responses to others for the best results from a statistical basis. On the other hand, one would only be addressing the probable needs of an imaginary, non-existent generic being. The question I ask myself is: how would a Bodhisattva do it? As much as I enjoy analysis, I instinctively feel that the categorisations would have to go. Mike, Recently in an urban anthropology course I came across the idea of "Signifying' -- as it was explained, signifying is where a group of black males in urban enviornments, egged on by black females, have rhyming wars. These kids literally try to aggravate their opponents into either hitting them or giving up. One of the main focuses for rhyming is the sexually perverse behavior of the opponents mother. My initial reaction to this was to see it as a pathology of the urban environment. And at a certain level it may very well be. The book I read, "Cool Pose," argued that this may be more properly viewed as an initiatory rite of these youths. In other words, if you can deal with someone talking about your mother in sexually deragotory ways you can deal with anything society will throw at you. In my white, non-urban upbringing, my initial response to this was to see only pathology.The analysis, for me, was valuable in that I will respond out of a shared humanity instead of a reaction to a seeming anomaly. I can understand rites of passage. It took the analysis for me to understand the value of these particular rites. My point being that a Bodhisattva may need clarifications in order to understand how to respond appropriately to a significantly foreign cultural cue. Stormy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20051009/dc2faeec/attachment.html From jkirk at spro.net Sun Oct 9 22:04:32 2005 From: jkirk at spro.net (jkirk) Date: Sun Oct 9 22:06:56 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Karen Armstrong was in Boise last night References: <00bc01c5c9d6$fb5679e0$2930cece@charlie> Message-ID: <001b01c5cd4f$b8b00120$2930cece@charlie> >> Your book, Ms. Armstrong, is nothing but an appeal to religion, an >> empty injunction of humanity and a search for a father figure. >> You should consider your own actions and decisions, your own >> understanding, your own ga-ga-ism. Surely you know that there >> is indeed a principle of survival, and that it actually applies. Surely >> you know that the universe doesn't give a damn what you think. > ================ I gather that this comment (below) is from Chan Fu. I don't know who wrote the one above th eline, and I don't give a damn either. >Right on, Jo! > Dunno how I missed reading that one... > > It seems the new (sigh!) strategy from the RR (not Rolls Royce, > the gurus own all of them) is to link morality with their hallucinations > in the rather obvious "no religion; no ,morality" ploy. > > Sam Harris' book will no doubt occupy a warm spot in many > Christian fireplaces this winter. 'Specially since it's cheaper than > gas... > http://www.samharris.org/ > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/there-is-no-god-and-you-_b_8459.html > > Personally, I'm heating the house with free bibles from hotel rooms. ======== Now CF, if you want to reply to something please do not include the entire history of some thread in your post (which you did here but I deleted most of it), or if you must do it, please retain who wrote the stuff!! The way it is or was, impossible to decipher. Thanks, JK From jkirk at spro.net Sun Oct 9 21:57:58 2005 From: jkirk at spro.net (jkirk) Date: Sun Oct 9 22:07:02 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] An experiment (Gender on Buddha-l) References: Message-ID: <001701c5cd4e$cdefb8b0$2930cece@charlie> > > Taking these two tests is a very interesting experiment for a buddhist > practitioner: > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,937913,00.html > > While being a rabid techologist and maniacally science-oriented, > I actually found it difficult to answer many questions on the S > test from my usual perspective of just not thinking about such > things in the way the questions imply. It's great fun. > > cf (high "B") ============== Hi CF, This kind of research is not especially new, it's been around for some time, and I always find it of interest. However, I'm not persuaded that such ingrained differences, or effects of hormones, etc., 'create' views, i.e., systems of cultural ideas, or even non-systems of cultural ideas. But I won't spend time on this Buddha-L list on behavioral research at the infant or toddler levels. There is already a large body of research and writing on issues of gender vis a vis adults (leaving aside the infants and toddlers)--on views and behaviors--as part of cultural and social analysis. I think that scholars by now have abundantly made the case that different cultures operate differentially in terms of gender, among other aspects of humanity, and maintain, support, or change the views that go with it. Nobody has called for "taking sides." Certainly not I. I have finally grown well aware of the male partisanship that is typical of probably the majority of this list's members who write in frequently, and having brought this characteristic out, I don't intend to beat my head against this wall. I will, though, continue where relevant to bring out gender issues in Buddhist literature and practice. Joanna From jkirk at spro.net Sun Oct 9 22:08:09 2005 From: jkirk at spro.net (jkirk) Date: Sun Oct 9 22:16:53 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Gender on Buddha-l References: <3luroIQH+8RDFw7l@clara.net><1128781640.4379.12.camel@localhost.localdomain><1128805361.5717.86.camel@localhost.localdomain><004501c5cc65$7beb0450$2930cece@charlie><62cb2589a3b0bbdec0c863a7e0d5e7e0@mindspring.com><1128870711.4380.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> <+TzJ1rk+$XSDFwxa@clara.net> Message-ID: <001f01c5cd50$39edca10$2930cece@charlie> > >>Yes, but so is the male point of view. The fact is that points of view >>are points of view and that there is no such thing as male and female >>points of view. > > Right. By distinguishing between them, one creates the very problem that > one seeks to eliminate. How adept we are at creating dukkha from, well, > nothing at all really. > > -- > Metta > Mike Austin =============== How utterly silly. If you are thinking at all, instead of just vegetating, you are inevitably making distinctions. There is a difference between pointing out differences in order to learn more about whatever is under observation, or to bring hitherto hidden aspects to light-- and getting attached to them as dogmas. But there is also getting attached to non-thinking as a dogma too. Enjoy your dogmas, boys. JK From jkirk at spro.net Sun Oct 9 22:45:11 2005 From: jkirk at spro.net (jkirk) Date: Sun Oct 9 22:46:51 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Gender on Buddha-l References: <0092f62694ceaca5cc54cc9d7c68cbbc@toad.net> Message-ID: <007401c5cd55$6658ff70$2930cece@charlie> Well put Bernie--and unfortunately I still haven't been able to read Conze. Joanna ==================================== From: "Bernie Simon" > The difference between the male and female point of view is the > difference between the point of view (pov) of the oppressor and the > oppressed. I think that somewhere in Edward Conze's collection of > essays, Thirty Years of Buddhist Studies, he writes that while the > oppressed understands the pov of the oppressor, the reverse is not > true. The oppressor can't be bothered to think in other terms, sees > their own pov as the way things are and not a pov at all, and the > oppressed pov as deviant. > > ---- > It's all good > > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From jkirk at spro.net Sun Oct 9 22:41:58 2005 From: jkirk at spro.net (jkirk) Date: Sun Oct 9 22:48:06 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re-sending-- Gender on Buddha-l Message-ID: <006a01c5cd54$f33f0e30$2930cece@charlie> Re-sending as previous post was too long. Hi Stormy, Thanks for taking the time to put the case for gender differences and cultures in this post and in the next as well. I've had to do it so often that I'm just not up to it any more. Best wishes, Joanna ========= -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20051009/4889c15b/attachment.html From jkirk at spro.net Sun Oct 9 23:04:46 2005 From: jkirk at spro.net (jkirk) Date: Sun Oct 9 23:06:54 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] URL References: <01dc01c5ccf8$5237ee00$f6339c04@Dan> Message-ID: <009901c5cd58$229cba80$2930cece@charlie> Yes, it's like a football game. JK ------------------------------------------- > >> Here is the URL I mentioned yesterday: >> >> http://plungepontificates.blogspot.com/2005/05/decision-to-drop-atomic-bomb-on.html >> >> Stan Ziobro > > In "Control Room", the documentary about Al Jazeera and the Iraq war (a > "must-see" film if you ask me), Samir Khader, a senior producer of Al > Jazeera concluded: > > "Who thinks, now, in the United States about what happened in Somalia in > 1993? Nobody. Who thinks about what happened in Bosnia-Herzegovina? > There is only one single thing that will be left: victory. People like > victory, they don't like justification. Once you are victorious that's > it." > > W.F. Wong From jkirk at spro.net Sun Oct 9 22:58:12 2005 From: jkirk at spro.net (jkirk) Date: Sun Oct 9 23:07:00 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Gender on Buddha-l References: <0092f62694ceaca5cc54cc9d7c68cbbc@toad.net> <1128902680.8589.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <008001c5cd57$37c58eb0$2930cece@charlie> > Generally speaking, I think an analysis that begins with this false > dichotomy of oppressor/oppressed is going to end up being a very poor > one. The truth is we all have oppressive moments and we are all at times > oppressed. No one falls neatly into one category or the other. > > -- > Richard Hayes >====================== Au contraire, Richard, there are individual oppressive moments and then there are oppressive social structures that affect hundreds of people simultaneously, in varying degrees, of course. Accepted and practiced gender dominance is one of those oppressive social structures Bernie was referring to, as I took it. It's time to dump the erection of the Sacred Dichotomy in this discussion. In my case at least, and I have said this before: any analytical generalization I make is to be taken as a "more or less" statement, not as a purely dualistic either/or. Deal with it. Joanna From jkirk at spro.net Sun Oct 9 23:23:53 2005 From: jkirk at spro.net (jkirk) Date: Sun Oct 9 23:26:54 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Gender on Buddha-l References: <0092f62694ceaca5cc54cc9d7c68cbbc@toad.net> Message-ID: <00da01c5cd5a$ce703ce0$2930cece@charlie> > > Hehe! Off we go with another generalisation of points of view. Is there a > generic oppressor's point of view as opposed to an oppressed person's > point of view? I don't see how this withstands reason any more than the > supposed difference between generic male and female points of view. > > In the example you give, one might even suggest that a knowledge of the > oppressed person's point of view by the oppressor could have provided an > advantage that helped create the situation. > > -- > Metta > Mike Austin ==================== > Generally speaking, I think an analysis that begins with this false > dichotomy of oppressor/oppressed is going to end up being a very poor > one. The truth is we all have oppressive moments and we are all at times > oppressed. No one falls neatly into one category or the other. > > -- > Richard Hayes >====================== Au contraire, Richard and Mike, there are individual oppressive moments and then there are oppressive social structures that affect hundreds of people simultaneously, in varying degrees, of course. Accepted and practiced gender dominance is one of those oppressive social structures Bernie was referring to, as I took it. It's time to dump the erection of the Sacred Dichotomy in this discussion. In my case at least, and I have said this before: any analytical generalization I make is to be taken as a "more or less" statement, not as a purely dualistic either/or. Deal with it. Joanna From jkirk at spro.net Sun Oct 9 23:20:51 2005 From: jkirk at spro.net (jkirk) Date: Sun Oct 9 23:26:56 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Gender and diversions References: <3luroIQH+8RDFw7l@clara.net><1128781640.4379.12.camel@localhost.localdomain><1128805361.5717.86.camel@localhost.localdomain><004501c5cc65$7beb0450$2930cece@charlie><5fdce30417f749d9d83981d4518030aa@mindspring.com> <005801c5cd2b$1a80e5b0$53644e51@zen> Message-ID: <00d701c5cd5a$61c26e10$2930cece@charlie> Dear Stephen, You are distinctly not one of the offenders of sweet charity and clarity that I referred to in my manifesto ;) In fact, you are a cherished friend. I know that you are very busy and have various health situations to contend with, and I don't expect you always to reply to my stuff. And thanks for the moral support. Best wishes and cheers, Joanna =========================== ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stephen Hodge" To: "Buddhist discussion forum" Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2005 5:38 PM Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] Gender and diversions > Jim Peavler wrote: > >> I, on the other hand like to be given links to outside, supportive >> materials. [snip] On my web browser I have a whole folder named "jkirk" >> where I have collected a whole library of very interesting resource. > > Ditto for myself. Also I have often found these links etc to be worth > forwarding to others in my small circle of friends. When Joanna has > raised topics for discussion, I have not always responded either because I > do not know enough about the topic to contribute meaningfully or pressing > domestic concerns have prevented a response. I do hope that Joanna will > not feel her efforts are entirely unappreciated, although I have noticed > that her posts attempting to initiate discussions do indeed go unreplied > more often than not. > > Best wishes, > Stephen Hodge > > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From c_castell at yahoo.com Mon Oct 10 00:54:20 2005 From: c_castell at yahoo.com (Catalina Castell-du Payrat) Date: Mon Oct 10 00:56:58 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: <019701c5cbf4$23ed7330$e51b9c04@Dan> Message-ID: <20051010065420.64909.qmail@web60820.mail.yahoo.com> Hi Dan, I just see you justify violence. And that your "opinions" are just that: justifications... Catalina Catalina Castell - du Payrat c_castell@yahoo.com --------------------------------- Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20051009/2242bc63/attachment.htm From mike at lamrim.org.uk Mon Oct 10 01:03:10 2005 From: mike at lamrim.org.uk (Mike Austin) Date: Mon Oct 10 01:06:54 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Gender on Buddha-l In-Reply-To: <001f01c5cd50$39edca10$2930cece@charlie> References: <3luroIQH+8RDFw7l@clara.net> <1128781640.4379.12.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1128805361.5717.86.camel@localhost.localdomain> <004501c5cc65$7beb0450$2930cece@charlie> <62cb2589a3b0bbdec0c863a7e0d5e7e0@mindspring.com> <1128870711.4380.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> <+TzJ1rk+$XSDFwxa@clara.net> <001f01c5cd50$39edca10$2930cece@charlie> Message-ID: In message <001f01c5cd50$39edca10$2930cece@charlie>, jkirk writes > >>>Yes, but so is the male point of view. The fact is that points of view >>>are points of view and that there is no such thing as male and female >>>points of view. >> >> Right. By distinguishing between them, one creates the very problem >>that one seeks to eliminate. How adept we are at creating dukkha >>from, well, nothing at all really. >> >> -- Metta >> Mike Austin >=============== >How utterly silly. If you are thinking at all, instead of just >vegetating, you are inevitably making distinctions. There is a >difference between pointing out >differences in order to learn more about whatever is under observation, >or to bring hitherto hidden aspects to light-- and getting attached to >them as dogmas. >But there is also getting attached to non-thinking as a dogma too. >Enjoy your dogmas, boys. >JK Of course, one makes distinctions in one's process of thinking. It is a universal application of a particular distinction that makes it a dogma. You have established a dogma here - the principle that there is a 'male viewpoint' and a 'female viewpoint'. But Richard and I are simply having none of it. -- Metta Mike Austin From dlusthau at mailer.fsu.edu Mon Oct 10 01:15:35 2005 From: dlusthau at mailer.fsu.edu (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Mon Oct 10 01:16:55 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo References: <1127942930.6308.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> <433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net><617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org> <4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net><1359619694.20051004213630@kungzhi.org> <43441B56.7080303@nerim.net><1479321719.20051006043947@kungzhi.org><003c01c5ca43$01172200$c8369c04@Dan><4344DA9B.8040908@xs4all.nl> <00bb01c5ca59$2aa93700$c8369c04@Dan> <1128621156.4783.55.camel@localhost.localdomain><008901c5cabf$30ff5010$bc369c04@Dan> <43461940.1060905@nerim.net><022701c5cb19$ff594ab0$bc369c04@Dan> <43465FC4.7080207@nerim.net><019701c5cbf4$23ed7330$e51b9c04@Dan><4347BFB4.9040105@nerim.net><022301c5cc15$ed402270$e51b9c04@Dan><006601c5cc37$a5658a90$767c4e51@zen><00dd01c5ccbe$14f46260$f6339c04@Dan> <005901c5cd2b$1b53c610$53644e51@zen> Message-ID: <0c4301c5cd6a$6c527d60$a5369c04@Dan> Dear Stephen, > Is Methuselah your middle name, perchance ? He's my younger brother. Dan From joy.vriens at nerim.net Mon Oct 10 01:26:04 2005 From: joy.vriens at nerim.net (Joy Vriens) Date: Mon Oct 10 01:28:06 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: <022301c5cc15$ed402270$e51b9c04@Dan> References: <1127942930.6308.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> <433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net><617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org> <4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net><1359619694.20051004213630@kungzhi.org> <43441B56.7080303@nerim.net><1479321719.20051006043947@kungzhi.org><003c01c5ca43$01172200$c8369c04@Dan><4344DA9B.8040908@xs4all.nl> <00bb01c5ca59$2aa93700$c8369c04@Dan> <1128621156.4783.55.camel@localhost.localdomain><008901c5cabf$30ff5010$bc369c04@Dan> <43461940.1060905@nerim.net><022701c5cb19$ff594ab0$bc369c04@Dan> <43465FC4.7080207@nerim.net><019701c5cbf4$23ed7330$e51b9c04@Dan> <4347BFB4.9040105@nerim.net> <022301c5cc15$ed402270$e51b9c04@Dan> Message-ID: <434A178C.9050400@nerim.net> Dan Lusthaus wrote: >>There also is the alternative of a more multilateral approach, >>where one admits one hasn't the monopoly on right view and action. > When such options, pursue them. When those options are exhausted, more > forceful means may be necessary. You haven't convinced me that the forceful means used in H and N were necessary. But as you said in a message to Mike: > Such discourse can influence how people think (minds don't change that > often, but seeds can be crossplanted for later sprouting), and gradually > improve things. The seeds have been received and can indeed sprout later. Whether it will improve things I don't know. >>Everybody seems to be lost in darkness, except the USA, > Actually that would be a very poor reading of my politics. As Lance > suggested, both demonizing or sanctifying the US (or Muslims, or whatever) > are extremes. That doesn't mean one turns to artificial parities -- > pretending something pernicious is better than it is, nor pretending > something good is worse than it is. It means seeing things as they are, > yathaabhuutam. I agree with this wisdom, but the leap of faith towards belief in the possibility of seeing things as they are (yathaabhuutam) is too big for me at the moment. > I did not vote for either Bush senior or junior, some of my > students when I taught in Florida (I don't live there now -- thank goodness) > thought I was a hopeless Liberal (probably similar to what Richard is > undergoing with his current crop of students), and probably with as equal > conviction that they were reading me correctly as some members of this list > suspect I am a fanatical rightwing flagwaving American nationalist. No, I see you as someone who doesn't want others to settle in easy generalisations (sometimes by giving other a taste of their own medecine). And that is a very endearing quality IMO. > ...so he asked Buddha Har"sitaagaara, "Is the right right?" > > Har"sitaagaara replied: "I do not hold that view." > > "Is the left right?" > > Har"sitaagaara replied: "I do not hold that view." > > "Are both the right and left right?" > > Har"sitaagaara replied: "I do not hold that view." > > "Are neither the right nor left right?" > > Har"sitaagaara replied: "Let me think about that one..." Something tells me I desperately need the translation of that Buddha's name. >>But I think Rabbi Petura was right > I thought you would. The point of that ethical tradition is that both > opinions are recorded, and it was not a true/false question, so they both > provide legitimate responses. Note that Akiva does not mandate that he MUST > drink his own water, Akiva only allows that he would not be wrong to do so. I see your point, but how can you say that "he would not be wrong to do so" if he would feel guilty for it the rest of his life? Not wrong with regard to an absolute right or wrong, but simply wrong because it poisons the rest of his life. Joy From joy.vriens at nerim.net Mon Oct 10 01:35:10 2005 From: joy.vriens at nerim.net (Joy Vriens) Date: Mon Oct 10 01:37:12 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: <006601c5cc37$a5658a90$767c4e51@zen> References: <1127942930.6308.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> <433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net><617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org> <4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net><1359619694.20051004213630@kungzhi.org> <43441B56.7080303@nerim.net><1479321719.20051006043947@kungzhi.org><003c01c5ca43$01172200$c8369c04@Dan><4344DA9B.8040908@xs4all.nl> <00bb01c5ca59$2aa93700$c8369c04@Dan> <1128621156.4783.55.camel@localhost.localdomain><008901c5cabf$30ff5010$bc369c04@Dan> <43461940.1060905@nerim.net><022701c5cb19$ff594ab0$bc369c04@Dan> <43465FC4.7080207@nerim.net><019701c5cbf4$23ed7330$e51b9c04@Dan><4347BFB4.9040105@nerim.net> <022301c5cc15$ed402270$e51b9c04@Dan> <006601c5cc37$a5658a90$767c4e51@zen> Message-ID: <434A19AE.6060809@nerim.net> Stephen Hodge wrote: > PS: For those who haven't realized, "Har`sitaaagaara" is Dan's attempt > to Sanskitize "Lusthaus". That explains it. Thanks. From joy.vriens at nerim.net Mon Oct 10 01:34:02 2005 From: joy.vriens at nerim.net (Joy Vriens) Date: Mon Oct 10 01:37:32 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Diversions, distractions and off-topic discussions In-Reply-To: References: <3luroIQH+8RDFw7l@clara.net> <1128781640.4379.12.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <434A196A.9070509@nerim.net> Mike Austin wrote: > From AN X69 Kathavatthu Sutta (Topics of Conversation) > > "It isn't right, monks, that sons of good families, on having gone forth > out of faith from home to the homeless life, should get engaged in such > topics of conversation, i.e., conversation about kings, robbers, & > ministers of state... talk of whether things exist or not. > > "There are these ten topics of [proper] conversation. Which ten? Talk on > modesty, on contentment, on seclusion, on non-entanglement, on arousing > persistence, on virtue, on concentration, on discernment, on release, > and on the knowledge & vision of release. These are the ten topics of > conversation. If you were to engage repeatedly in these ten topics of > conversation, you would outshine even the sun & moon, so mighty, so > powerful -- to say nothing of the wanderers of other sects." The last sentence is very ironic and therefore very funny. It pulls away the rug on which the whole argument is standing IMO. "...to say nothing of the wanderers of other sects". Joy From dlusthau at mailer.fsu.edu Mon Oct 10 01:41:05 2005 From: dlusthau at mailer.fsu.edu (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Mon Oct 10 01:47:00 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Teaching Zen Buddhist philosophy References: <1128875107.5654.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <0c8b01c5cd6d$facac810$a5369c04@Dan> Richard, I second Franz's suggestion to include Brian Victoria (the first book stands on its own better -- and a new edition is due out; the second is more vivid, focusing on specific individuals and their contexts - we used the second, and the students enjoyed struggling with the way it challenged their presuppositions and fantasies). Last spring I taught a Zen course, using Victoria as the climactic text (and was fortunate enough to get Victoria to come to the class). He is an ordained Soto priest, currently married, so he fits the criteria you've specified. And he certainly raises the important questions. Dan Lusthaus From jehms at xs4all.nl Mon Oct 10 01:48:36 2005 From: jehms at xs4all.nl (Erik Hoogcarspel) Date: Mon Oct 10 01:56:54 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] yoga(TM) Message-ID: <434A1CD4.3040405@xs4all.nl> The madness of capitalism: shortly people will have to buy the right to do a form of meditation or a sadhana to patentholders. http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level.php?cat=Trends&loid=8.0.215680098&par=0 -- Erik www.xs4all.nl/~jehms From joy.vriens at nerim.net Mon Oct 10 01:50:10 2005 From: joy.vriens at nerim.net (Joy Vriens) Date: Mon Oct 10 01:57:00 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Statistics In-Reply-To: <1128831977.6887.37.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1128831977.6887.37.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <434A1D32.7040101@nerim.net> Richard P. Hayes wrote: > Here we are, eight days into October, and > already we have six contributors who have sent more that twenty messages > this month. The most frequent contributors have been: > Benito Carral, 30 messages > Joy Vriens, 29 > Chan Fu, 26 > Richard Hayes, 24 > Joanna Kirkpatrick, 23 > Dan Lusthaus, 23 All my friends and family members can testify that I am a very silent, quiet and thoughtful person and that this "Joy Vriens" can only be an impostor. So that is my excuse. Joy PS Benito disappoints me a lot, what an attention craver, 30 messages in eight days! From jehms at xs4all.nl Mon Oct 10 02:11:12 2005 From: jehms at xs4all.nl (Erik Hoogcarspel) Date: Mon Oct 10 02:16:55 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Gender on Buddha-l In-Reply-To: <0092f62694ceaca5cc54cc9d7c68cbbc@toad.net> References: <0092f62694ceaca5cc54cc9d7c68cbbc@toad.net> Message-ID: <434A2220.4020706@xs4all.nl> Bernie Simon schreef: > The difference between the male and female point of view is the > difference between the point of view (pov) of the oppressor and the > oppressed. I think that somewhere in Edward Conze's collection of > essays, Thirty Years of Buddhist Studies, he writes that while the > oppressed understands the pov of the oppressor, the reverse is not > true. The oppressor can't be bothered to think in other terms, sees > their own pov as the way things are and not a pov at all, and the > oppressed pov as deviant. > > - This is crap of the worst kind. And backed up by an authority argument. Think if you can! This is about justice. And this discussion wouldn't be possible if justice wouldn't supposed to be a shared value and have shared norms. If women or any other group have less power or freedom then other groups we find this wrong, whether we are guys or girls. Now to say to a member of a group that he's unjust because he's not a memeber of an oppressed group is just bad reasoning. An individual cannot be responsable for the structure of a social field. My wife and I share our domestic duties as well as we can, but that doesn't mean that the differences in male and female social role patterns will stop. The world isn't just, it never was. We can only try, can we? A good way to start in the U.S. would be to change the administration and we cannot say that Richard doesn't try. :-) Erik www.xs4all.nl/~jehms From joy.vriens at nerim.net Mon Oct 10 02:22:23 2005 From: joy.vriens at nerim.net (Joy Vriens) Date: Mon Oct 10 02:26:54 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Gender on Buddha-l In-Reply-To: <+TzJ1rk+$XSDFwxa@clara.net> References: <3luroIQH+8RDFw7l@clara.net> <1128781640.4379.12.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1128805361.5717.86.camel@localhost.localdomain> <004501c5cc65$7beb0450$2930cece@charlie> <62cb2589a3b0bbdec0c863a7e0d5e7e0@mindspring.com> <1128870711.4380.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> <+TzJ1rk+$XSDFwxa@clara.net> Message-ID: <434A24BF.2040607@nerim.net> Mike Austin wrote: >> Yes, but so is the male point of view. The fact is that points of view >> are points of view and that there is no such thing as male and female >> points of view. > Right. By distinguishing between them, one creates the very problem that > one seeks to eliminate. How adept we are at creating dukkha from, well, > nothing at all really. That's a Buddhist point of view, right, the one we would like to see more of on this list? From jehms at xs4all.nl Mon Oct 10 02:27:48 2005 From: jehms at xs4all.nl (Erik Hoogcarspel) Date: Mon Oct 10 02:36:56 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] An experiment (Gender on Buddha-l) In-Reply-To: <001701c5cd4e$cdefb8b0$2930cece@charlie> References: <001701c5cd4e$cdefb8b0$2930cece@charlie> Message-ID: <434A2604.2080101@xs4all.nl> jkirk schreef: >> >> Taking these two tests is a very interesting experiment for a buddhist >> practitioner: >> >> http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,937913,00.html >> >> While being a rabid techologist and maniacally science-oriented, >> I actually found it difficult to answer many questions on the S >> test from my usual perspective of just not thinking about such >> things in the way the questions imply. It's great fun. >> >> cf (high "B") > > ============== > Hi CF, > > This kind of research is not especially new, it's been around for some > time, > and I always find it of interest. However, I'm not persuaded that such > ingrained > differences, or effects of hormones, etc., 'create' views, i.e., > systems of cultural ideas, or even non-systems of cultural ideas. But > I won't spend time on this Buddha-L list on behavioral research at the > infant or toddler levels. There is already a large body of research > and writing on issues of gender vis a vis adults (leaving aside the > infants and toddlers)--on views and behaviors--as part of cultural and > social analysis. > I think that scholars by now have abundantly made the case that > different cultures operate differentially in terms of gender, among > other aspects of humanity, and maintain, support, or change the views > that go with it. Nobody has called for "taking sides." Certainly not I. > I have finally grown well aware of the male partisanship that is > typical of probably the majority of this list's members who write in > frequently, and having brought this characteristic out, I don't intend > to beat my head against this wall. I will, though, continue where > relevant to bring out gender issues in Buddhist literature and practice. I just read an article which confirms the differences between male and female thinking. Female and male brains are slightly different. Men use f.i. for speach mainly the left part of the brain and women both. These kind of physical differences are wellknown, but new to me was that men and women behave much more the same way as they're supposed to do given these differences. In other words they get the same results in different ways, probably because they want to. This confirms the importance of social cohesion. I wonder if ths has any relevance for meditation techniques. Erik www.xs4all.nl/~jehms From joy.vriens at nerim.net Mon Oct 10 02:44:33 2005 From: joy.vriens at nerim.net (Joy Vriens) Date: Mon Oct 10 02:47:04 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: <1591830279.20051010043322@kungzhi.org> References: <1127942930.6308.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> <433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net><617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org> <4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net><1359619694.20051004213630@kungzhi.org> <43441B56.7080303@nerim.net> <1479321719.20051006043947@kungzhi.org><003c01c5ca43$01172200$c8369c04@Dan> <4344DBFE.8030202@nerim.net> <00c701c5ca62$e5c7f5e0$c8369c04@Dan> <4345220A.5040309@nerim.net> <1667485633.20051007043716@kungzhi.org> <43462606.40507@nerim.net> <1591830279.20051010043322@kungzhi.org> Message-ID: <434A29F1.7080700@nerim.net> Benito Carral wrote: > I almost agree with here you but I don't share all > the "enlightened values." For example, I wouldn't like > to see a democratic sangha nor would like to spread the > individualist view of the human being. I can't imagine > monks and nuns saying to the Old Guy what he should > teach Yet it is very likely that is the way it happened. There seemed to have been a sort of egality in the early communities (they called each other "friend", the Elder approach being something from later times). Also, imagine you start a new religion or religious system. You would start by sharing your ideas with others. You wouldn't have the authority of an "Old Guy" (generalissimo) right from the start. Also the contradictory views and practices and schisms in early Buddhism show that there must have been quite a lot of debate, which is only possible if there isn't an "Old Guy" dictating the rules. The Buddha specified (if we can go by the canon) that some Vinaya minor rules could be abolished, which shows a certain openness to debate about their utility. There also is Ananda's influence of allowing more of a female point of view in the Sangha etc. So I am not so sure. Joy > But I'm a stupid postmodern > traditionalist, so what do I know? Well, that. :-) And you now know you are a chatterbox (30 messages Beni, really...) From dlusthau at mailer.fsu.edu Mon Oct 10 02:41:40 2005 From: dlusthau at mailer.fsu.edu (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Mon Oct 10 02:47:11 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo References: <1127942930.6308.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> <433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net><617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org> <4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net><1359619694.20051004213630@kungzhi.org> <43441B56.7080303@nerim.net><1479321719.20051006043947@kungzhi.org><003c01c5ca43$01172200$c8369c04@Dan><4344DA9B.8040908@xs4all.nl> <00bb01c5ca59$2aa93700$c8369c04@Dan> <1128621156.4783.55.camel@localhost.localdomain><008901c5cabf$30ff5010$bc369c04@Dan> <43461940.1060905@nerim.net><022701c5cb19$ff594ab0$bc369c04@Dan> <43465FC4.7080207@nerim.net><019701c5cbf4$23ed7330$e51b9c04@Dan> <4347BFB4.9040105@nerim.net><022301c5cc15$ed402270$e51b9c04@Dan> <434A178C.9050400@nerim.net> Message-ID: <0cdb01c5cd76$719b8620$a5369c04@Dan> Dear Joy, > I agree with this wisdom, but the leap of faith towards belief in the > possibility of seeing things as they are (yathaabhuutam) is too big for > me at the moment. Maybe not a leap, but baby steps -- hearing, thinking, meditation. Paying careful attention to the evidence and the arguments of others, thinking critically and clearly about it, and then pondering further in as many registers and as focused a way as possible -- while still listening, thinking, etc... > No, I see you as someone who doesn't want others to settle in easy > generalisations (sometimes by giving other a taste of their own > medecine). And that is a very endearing quality IMO. Thank you. I also find your earnestness endearing. > I see your point, but how can you say that "he would not be wrong to do > so" if he would feel guilty for it the rest of his life? Not wrong with > regard to an absolute right or wrong, but simply wrong because it > poisons the rest of his life. The alternative is that no one would have come out of the camps alive. That would have been wrong and unnecessary. The remainder of their lives were certainly impacted, but they had lives, produced families, had children and grandchildren, etc., who not only could help dispel the poison, but perhaps help others not repeat this again with still others. We are all haunted by their memories because they survived as witnesses with memory. Surviving is difficult. best, Dan From jehms at xs4all.nl Mon Oct 10 03:05:17 2005 From: jehms at xs4all.nl (Erik Hoogcarspel) Date: Mon Oct 10 03:06:56 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Petition on the Inclusion of Women's Voices (Parliament of the World's Religions) In-Reply-To: <918000775.20051010044930@kungzhi.org> References: <1233778238.20051009045545@kungzhi.org> <918000775.20051010044930@kungzhi.org> Message-ID: <434A2ECD.2020500@xs4all.nl> Benito Carral schreef: >On Sunday, October 9, 2005, Benito Carral wrote: > > > >>Petition on the Inclusion of Women's Voices >> >> > > I have not seen any comment on this post yet and >would really like to know what do you think about it. > > > We need many voices to create harmony. Erik www.xs4all.nl/~jehms From selwyn at ntlworld.com Mon Oct 10 03:06:01 2005 From: selwyn at ntlworld.com (L.S. Cousins) Date: Mon Oct 10 03:18:05 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Diversions, distractions and off-topic discussions In-Reply-To: <434A196A.9070509@nerim.net> References: <3luroIQH+8RDFw7l@clara.net> <1128781640.4379.12.camel@localhost.localdomain> <434A196A.9070509@nerim.net> Message-ID: Joy Vriens comments: >> From AN X69 Kathavatthu Sutta (Topics of Conversation) >> >>"It isn't right, monks, that sons of good families, on having gone >>forth out of faith from home to the homeless life, should get >>engaged in such topics of conversation, i.e., conversation about >>kings, robbers, & ministers of state... talk of whether things >>exist or not. >> >>"There are these ten topics of [proper] conversation. Which ten? >>Talk on modesty, on contentment, on seclusion, on non-entanglement, >>on arousing persistence, on virtue, on concentration, on >>discernment, on release, and on the knowledge & vision of release. >>These are the ten topics of conversation. If you were to engage >>repeatedly in these ten topics of conversation, you would outshine >>even the sun & moon, so mighty, so powerful -- to say nothing of >>the wanderers of other sects." > >The last sentence is very ironic and therefore very funny. It pulls >away the rug on which the whole argument is standing IMO. "...to >say nothing of the wanderers of other sects". True but note that it is precisely the last phrase which is missing in the alternative version found in the adjacent sutta. Also, it actually says: "... your splendour (teja) would outshine even that of the sun & moon, so mighty, so powerful -- to say nothing of that of wanderers of other sects". It is far from obvious what this actually means. To me the argument presented here is very clear. If I am doing a lot of meditation, I can see that discussions of the first kind are mostly based on defilements. If one engages in them (except sometimes for teaching purposes), you have a lot of extra work to do when you go back to meditate. Conversely topics of the second kind become more interesting and can further meditation. But I have no idea how you convince people of this, if they have not experienced it or have forgotten their past experience of that. Lance Cousins From selwyn at ntlworld.com Mon Oct 10 03:18:01 2005 From: selwyn at ntlworld.com (L.S. Cousins) Date: Mon Oct 10 03:26:59 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo Message-ID: Dan, I tried to twice to respond to this, but hit the size limit both times. Here's my last try ! > If they were agreeing to >the Potsdam agreement, why only approach the Russians? In accordance with normal practice in wartime communication was via the embassies of a neutral power i.e. the Soviet Union (and subsequently Switzerland). >I have never seen any >plausible suggestion that the probings with Russians were anything other >than probings for a better deal (which did include a list of unacceptable >counter-demands/conditions that could hardly be taken as a valid offer of >surrender). If you have evidence to the contrary, please share it. Can you provide evidence of such a list after Potsdam ? >Having an Emperor, and believing in their >heart of hearts that the Russian people would still have warm and fuzzy >feelings about their own Czar on some level, they would understand -- unlike >the Zionistic Americans who were sovereignless -- Japanese demands to >preserve the emperor (one of the Potsdam conditions was elimination of the >Emperor system). The Japanese were obviously very confused about this. I find this hard to believe. They cannot have been unaware that Stalin was part of the group who murdered the whole of the Russian Imperial family. > > > The US repeatedly issued requests, though various > > >channels, asking for the Japanese surrender, which the Japanese >repeatedly refused, according to some accounts, in very harsh terms. > > > Earlier and irrelevant. > >Irrelevant? Because I take the above to refer to the period before Potsdam. >So your position is the Americans were gluttons for punishment >and eager or willing to sacrifice thousands or hundreds of thousands of >young Americans just to continue prosecute a war that was for all intents >and purposes over -- except for the Japanese penchant to take things to >their suicidal end -- so much so, that the Americans were closed to the idea >of Japanese surrender? I have no idea where you get this from. > And the alleged benefit from dragging things out just >a little more and taking these casualties was...? Or, that they were willing >to suffer all those losses just to see how their new toy bomb worked? > >Let's make this very, very clear. It was up to whom -- the Americans or the >Japanese -- to make the announcement that would end the war? No, I think it was a question of warning off the Soviets. Perhaps also a measure of vengeful feeling. There was quite a lot of racist hatred of the Japanese. >it was the common ethos of the military and the civilian >population, once the prospect that Japan might not the win the War, in spite >of their leader being a Deity He was a deity in a way similar to the Roman Emperors, not a Deity comparable to the Judeo-Christian Deity. >) to more pragmatic thinkers searching for the >best and most face-saving deal with which to end the hostilities (and >perhaps fight again some other day). The bombs decisively brought the >internal debate to a conclusion. But they didn't. Nobody changed their views after the dropping of the bombs. > > The crucial factors were Potsdam and probably the carpet bombing of >> Tokyo which killed 100,000 people - more than Hiroshima and Nagasaki >> combined and much closer to home. > >More wishful thinking, I'm afraid. Potsdam gave the pragmatists a new goal >or victory to seek -- a better deal than what Potsdam offered, and the >simple fact that they didn't surrender after either Tokyo or Hiroshima >undermines your idea. You don't seem to understand that processes take time ! >The war was already over from the military standpoint >[section omitted] > The pervasive suicidal ethos -- no Japanese I have >ever heard has suggested anything otherwise. On the contrary, if they say >anything, they offer contrite explanations -- more like excuses, really -- >for maybe thinking, in the last hours of the war, that all this suicidal >fervor might be *slightly* mistaken (that a very few have expressed remorse >at having been caught up in that frenzy suggests it is NOT a post-war >rationalization or self-justification, but a very real pervasive social >phenomenon, for which Zen played a not insignificant role). One might want >to question to what extremes they ultimately were willing to go in that >mode. Fortunately that hypothetical remains today just a hypothetical >precisely because of the two bombs. > >But to belabor the point, while the noose was tightening and the war was >effectively over, Germany has surrendered months earlier; but it was still >necessary to break the will of the Japanese govt. and get them to >acknowledge defeat, i.e., to surrender and cease hostilities. That they >surrendered on Aug. 10th seems to settle the matter. They sent a negotiating letter on Aug. 10th. They did not surrender. >It's noble to want to demonize the bomb. It's a demonic, terrible thing. But >inventing imaginary history to erroneously suggest it wasn't necessary or >used judiciously, or that it didn't accomplish what it accomplished, when >what one would really like to do is turn the clock back and try to prevent >the damn thing from being invented in the first place, is not the way to go. >That does not put the genie back in the bottle. I don't think this has anything to do with anything I have suggested. >So the Americans have distorted the record, and the Japanese have as well. In different ways, yes. >Only the BBC gets it right. I see. This is silly. Better to blame Google which produced this and various similar documents, when I was asked for documentation. > Might all this BBC blame game be an >attempt by some British to disown their role as Allies -- pawn the "guilt " >of the evil bomb off on the guys who saved Europe? I don't have any such idea and couldn't, since the project to develop the atom bomb was started by the British. Anyway, we finish paying for American help in WWII next year :-) > Remind me now, who bombed >Dresden? Let me repeat my views on Dresden: The German bombing of Rotterdam and subsequently of Coventry, Plymouth and elsewhere was a terrible thing and quite inexcusable. That makes the (even worse) subsequent bombing of Dresden and other German cities understandable. It doesn't make it excusable. > > But, to belabour the obvious, Germans (or Americans) in general are >> not responsible for the actions of some Germans, etc. They are not >> even responsible for all actions of the German government, >> particularly when that government was authoritarian in nature. The > > same goes for Japanese. The truth is that almost all participants in >> WWII have things of which to be ashamed. What we shouldn't do is drag >> up other people's wrong deeds selectively or exaggeratedly - usually >> out of unacknowledged hatred or vengefulness. Or because they do not >> belong to the same political or cultural grouping as us. > >I don't think that is what has been going on here. My wife and in-laws are >Japanese, and I am not on some vendetta against them (or vice versa). It is the language of what is now called stereotyping that I object to. I do not know what your motives are. >We >have been discussing the difference between the mythology and the historical >reality of the strategic use of the bomb. My objections have been precisely >to the selective and exaggerated nature of some otherwise popular opinions. >That is something quite different than inventing imaginary stories to make >one side better than it was, and the other worse than it was -- such as >asserting that the Japanese really had already surrendered -- they just >forgot to tell the people attacking them; No-one suggested that. It is simply clear that even had the bombs not been dropped they would have surrendered shortly. > or that the Americans were >scrambling for excuses to drop a bomb just because they are racists, There was a widespread anti-Japanese racist propaganda at the time. Such racist popular feeling would have ben a political consideration at the time among American decision makers, some of whom certainly had racist motives. Others probably didn't. Only Truman knew why he took the decision he did. And of course even he may not have known. >People make mistakes. In wartime those can be quite egregious. We could >probably generate a lengthy litany of Allied wrongs during the subsequent >Occupation of Japan (and the continued presence on Okinawa, etc.), But on >balance, I think we might agree that for the most part, the occupation was >benign and enabled, rather than hindered subsequent Japanese prosperity. For all I know that is true. >Certainly in comparison to the Japanese occupation of Korea and China, there >is actually no comparison. The Japanese colonization of Korea from 1894 has to be judged in the light of 19th century colonialism. It would appear at times in a rather favourable light if contrasted with, say German imperial rule in parts of Africa or the extension of American imperial rule in some parts of North America. Again if we look at Japanese militarism in the1930s, it is fairly obnoxious but not as bad as e.g. German or Russian militarism in the same period (or slightly later). Unfortunately, there was something of a plague of militarism in this period which caught on with many of those who like to be 'modern'. Well, I don't think we are going to agree. So perhaps we should call it a day. Lance Cousins From mike at lamrim.org.uk Mon Oct 10 04:56:30 2005 From: mike at lamrim.org.uk (Mike Austin) Date: Mon Oct 10 05:06:57 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Diversions, distractions and off-topic discussions In-Reply-To: <434A196A.9070509@nerim.net> References: <3luroIQH+8RDFw7l@clara.net> <1128781640.4379.12.camel@localhost.localdomain> <434A196A.9070509@nerim.net> Message-ID: In message <434A196A.9070509@nerim.net>, Joy Vriens writes >Mike Austin wrote: > >>f you were to engage repeatedly in these ten topics of conversation, >>you would outshine even the sun & moon, so mighty, so powerful -- to >>say nothing of the wanderers of other sects." > >The last sentence is very ironic and therefore very funny. It pulls >away the rug on which the whole argument is standing IMO. "...to say >nothing of the wanderers of other sects". Could you explain? -- Metta Mike Austin From mike at lamrim.org.uk Mon Oct 10 05:01:19 2005 From: mike at lamrim.org.uk (Mike Austin) Date: Mon Oct 10 05:07:03 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Gender on Buddha-l In-Reply-To: <434A24BF.2040607@nerim.net> References: <3luroIQH+8RDFw7l@clara.net> <1128781640.4379.12.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1128805361.5717.86.camel@localhost.localdomain> <004501c5cc65$7beb0450$2930cece@charlie> <62cb2589a3b0bbdec0c863a7e0d5e7e0@mindspring.com> <1128870711.4380.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> <+TzJ1rk+$XSDFwxa@clara.net> <434A24BF.2040607@nerim.net> Message-ID: In message <434A24BF.2040607@nerim.net>, Joy Vriens writes >Mike Austin wrote: > >>> Yes, but so is the male point of view. The fact is that points of view >>> are points of view and that there is no such thing as male and female >>> points of view. > >> Right. By distinguishing between them, one creates the very problem >>that one seeks to eliminate. How adept we are at creating dukkha >>from, well, nothing at all really. > >That's a Buddhist point of view, right, the one we would like to see >more of on this list? I'm glad you agree, Joy. -- Metta Mike Austin From dlusthau at mailer.fsu.edu Mon Oct 10 05:01:10 2005 From: dlusthau at mailer.fsu.edu (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Mon Oct 10 05:07:05 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo References: Message-ID: <0d3101c5cd89$ee867510$a5369c04@Dan> Lance, You may be right that neither of us will be able to change the other's mind. I appreciate your calm and patient responses, and therefore will respond this one last time to this thread. I do recommend a careful reading of the site that Stan Ziobri provided, since I think it is an accurate portrayal of the actual evidence, and as a comparison between what is stated there and what I posted here will show, it reaches very similar conclusions with very similar arguments to those I advanced. It includes materials from the Japanese archives which the Japanese claim record the actual debates among the leadership in the days between Hiroshima and Nagasaki, none of which, I am afraid, would support the interpretation you are giving to those events. As an aside, I have reviewed those materials in more detail previously, and have discussed what they say with Japanese for their sense of the veracity of those materials. My impression is that it records the personalities and debating points accurately, but probably becomes fictional when describing the noble way in which Hirohito was finally aroused to settle the deadlock. > In accordance with normal practice in wartime communication was via > the embassies of a neutral power i.e. the Soviet Union (and > subsequently Switzerland). Since I seem to be consistently misunderstanding your point about this, let me try one more time. Are you saying that the Japanese conveyed to the Allies, via the Soviets, terms of surrender, rather than attempting to engage the Soviets themselves in negotiations? If so, that would indeed be new and important information. I have never seen even the slightest suggestion of that. So, again, if you have such evidence, please share it. > Can you provide evidence of such a list after Potsdam ? It was similar to the list they drew up in the days between Hiroshima and Nagasaki (again, see the site posted by Stan): (from that site) http://plungepontificates.blogspot.com/2005/05/atomic-bomb-section-4-why-did-this.html ---- These conditions were: a.. That there be no military occupation of the homeland by the Allies. b.. That the armed forces be allowed to disarm and demobilize themselves voluntarily. c.. That war criminals be prosecuted by the Japanese government. These were non-negotiable, absolute conditions. Without them being met, the military members of the cabinet were adamantly against surrender. They were determined to fight on, even if it meant the destruction of Japan and millions being slaughtered. --- To repeat, this was in the days between Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as recorded in the Japanese archives. The reasons that the Allies would accept nothing less than unconditional surrender -- something long agreed to by FDR and Churchill years before, and reconfirmed by Truman when he took office -- can also be found on that site (and the sources it uses). The terms they had tried to discuss earlier with the Russians included additional conditions. > I find this hard to believe. They cannot have been unaware that > Stalin was part of the group who murdered the whole of the Russian > Imperial family. The Japanese thinking on this is admittedly so convoluted and distorted from what we might consider as reasonable, that it does seem unbelievable from our perspective, but nonetheless, that is what it was. If you study the Japanese domestic propaganda from the 30s and 40s you will find some very startling views of the world, including their views on the West, Jews, Russians, etc. As I warned, this could be a long detour, starting with the Japanese sending forces into the Soviet Union to support and return the Czar to power after the Russian Revolution had already been settled (how realistic was that?). The very short version would be, the members of the elite Japanese leadership who considered themselves Russian experts had been diplomats to Czarist Russia and still carried Romanticized notions of the Russians and the Russian spirit. That their negotiations with the Russians neither produced more favorable surrender terms nor prevented the Russians from entering the campaign against them is simply further evidence of how grieviously the Japanese misconceived the Soviet situation. > He was a deity in a way similar to the Roman Emperors, not a Deity > comparable to the Judeo-Christian Deity. But the Japanese drew a certainty that God, i.e., the Emperor (in a very similar sense to the way people in the West use that term), was on their side, and that their war of liberation of Asia was a divine mission. That rhetoric had its roots early in the 19th c, was the explicit raison d'etre for the Meiji Restoration, and was at full frenzy throughout the war. Brian Victoria and others have heavily documented that. (and even the Romans had their Caligulas) > Nobody changed their views after the dropping of the bombs. Please see the site for a documented alternate view. With this, I propose we close this thread. Should you care to discuss this further at some later date, I would humbly suggest that you read Ian Buruma's _The Wages of Guilt_ for some insight into the Japanese war and post-war mentality (contrasted with Germany), and Brian Victoria's two books, Zen at War and Zen War Stories. None of these specifically deal with the question of the bomb per se, but I don't think we can pursue this profitably until the very unusual -- from a Western perspective -- Japanese zeitgeist during WW II is taken into account. As Victoria shows, unfortunately, Buddhism was anything but a passive bystander in that. cheers, Dan From StormyTet at aol.com Mon Oct 10 05:12:00 2005 From: StormyTet at aol.com (StormyTet@aol.com) Date: Mon Oct 10 05:17:01 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re-sending-- Gender on Buddha-l Message-ID: <7a.7d8279a6.307ba680@aol.com> In a message dated 10/10/2005 12:37:20 A.M. Central Daylight Time, jkirk@spro.net writes: Hi Stormy, Thanks for taking the time to put the case for gender differences and cultures in this post and in the next as well. I've had to do it so often that I'm just not up to it any more. Best wishes, Joanna Thanks Joanna, I am about to return to my lurking role on Buddha-l. This thread has been valuable in terms of my meditation practice. For me, the importance of speaking up in regards to women's viewpoints is that many, many women are still deeply and negatively impacted by social structures and we have a long way to go in order to recognize our own voice, not to mention understanding what we are hearing. This seems to me to be a very relevant issue for male and female Buddhists simply because it has to do with our mental frameworks. Women and men have been taught to think in certain ways regarding gender roles and this thinking needs to be carefully analyzed in order to see if our thoughts, at the most basic level, cause harm or bring liberation. At one level, seeing beyond gender issues is very valuable, but it can be a sign of irresponsibility -- an unwillingness to process the information that could lead to greater liberation for everyone. Take care, Joanna. Stormy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20051010/31dfe03b/attachment.html From ziobro at wfu.edu Mon Oct 10 05:42:48 2005 From: ziobro at wfu.edu (Stanley J. Ziobro II) Date: Mon Oct 10 05:46:58 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] URL In-Reply-To: References: <01dc01c5ccf8$5237ee00$f6339c04@Dan> Message-ID: On Mon, 10 Oct 2005, Wong Weng Fai wrote: > > Here is the URL I mentioned yesterday: > > > > http://plungepontificates.blogspot.com/2005/05/decision-to-drop-atomic-bomb-on.html > > > > Stan Ziobro > > In "Control Room", the documentary about Al Jazeera and the Iraq war (a > "must-see" film if you ask me), Samir Khader, a senior producer of Al > Jazeera concluded: > > "Who thinks, now, in the United States about what happened in Somalia in > 1993? Nobody. Who thinks about what happened in Bosnia-Herzegovina? > There is only one single thing that will be left: victory. People like > victory, they don't like justification. Once you are victorious that's it." What victory does your post represent for you? I know people who remember Somalia and Bosnia-Herzegovina. Stan Ziobro From jpeavler at mindspring.com Mon Oct 10 06:45:35 2005 From: jpeavler at mindspring.com (Jim Peavler) Date: Mon Oct 10 06:46:57 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Gender on Buddha-l In-Reply-To: <1128902680.8589.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <0092f62694ceaca5cc54cc9d7c68cbbc@toad.net> <1128902680.8589.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: On Oct 9, 2005, at 6:04 PM, Richard P. Hayes wrote: > > Generally speaking, I think an analysis that begins with this false > dichotomy of oppressor/oppressed is going to end up being a very poor > one. The truth is we all have oppressive moments and we are all at > times > oppressed. No one falls neatly into one category or the other. Wasn't it that awful Bob Dylan who said, "Ya gotta serve somebody."? From jpeavler at mindspring.com Mon Oct 10 06:52:41 2005 From: jpeavler at mindspring.com (Jim Peavler) Date: Mon Oct 10 06:57:00 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Petition on the Inclusion of Women's Voices (Parliament of the World's Religions) In-Reply-To: <918000775.20051010044930@kungzhi.org> References: <1233778238.20051009045545@kungzhi.org> <918000775.20051010044930@kungzhi.org> Message-ID: I'm sorry. I think it is being ignored because it expresses a women's point of view. (Do I need a smiley here for the more constipated of our readers?) The Laundromat of Spiritual Cleansing On Oct 9, 2005, at 8:49 PM, Benito Carral wrote: > On Sunday, October 9, 2005, Benito Carral wrote: > >> Petition on the Inclusion of Women's Voices > > I have not seen any comment on this post yet and > would really like to know what do you think about it. > > Best wishes, > > Beni > > > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l > From jpeavler at mindspring.com Mon Oct 10 06:57:21 2005 From: jpeavler at mindspring.com (Jim Peavler) Date: Mon Oct 10 07:06:58 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] An experiment (Gender on Buddha-l) In-Reply-To: <001701c5cd4e$cdefb8b0$2930cece@charlie> References: <001701c5cd4e$cdefb8b0$2930cece@charlie> Message-ID: <36c013aba8ef2dfa2e2417c944b106ce@mindspring.com> I took the tests. Turns out I have Arsburgers Syndrome. I am being institutionalized Wednesday. Should be a good opportunity to do some serious meditating and list-making. From hans_vandergugten at yahoo.com Mon Oct 10 00:54:04 2005 From: hans_vandergugten at yahoo.com (Hans van der Gugten) Date: Mon Oct 10 07:33:59 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] did the Buddha really say this? Message-ID: <20051010065404.22555.qmail@web32109.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Good day to you, I am happy to be here, being able to read all the stuff you produce on and around buddhism. I have a question. In a yahoogroup where I read, a shri Lankan bhikku posts a lot of buddha texts. This for instance: QUOTE Friends: Which Intentional Actions (Kamma) influence Beauty? A student once asked the Buddha: Master Gotama, what is the cause and condition why some human beings are beautiful, while others are ugly ? The Blessed Buddha then explained: Here, friend, some man or woman is of an angry and irritable temperament, even when criticized a little, such one is offended, becomes angry, hostile, and resentful, and retorts with anger, hate and bitterness... Because of intending and performing such action, at the breakup of the body, right after death, such one is reborn in a state of affliction, in a miserable destination, in the painful purgatory, or even in the hells... But if such one at the breakup of the body, right after death, is not reborn in an state of deprivation, a painful destination, the purgatory, or in the hells, but instead comes back to the human state, then wherever such one is reborn such one is ugly, unattractive, unsightly and repulsive #! These are the actions, friend, leading to future ugliness: One is often angry, and of easily irritable temperament, even when criticized a little, such one is offended, becomes angry, hostile, resentful, & retorts hate & bitterness! However, friend, any man or woman, who is neither angry nor irritable even when criticized a lot, such one is not offended, does neither become angry, nor hostile, nor revengeful, nor does such display anger, hate, or bitterness, because of intending & undertaking such good action, at breakup of the body, right after death, such one reappears in a pleasurable and happy destination, even in the divine dimensions! But if at the breakup of the body, right after death, such one is not reborn in a happy destination, in the heavenly worlds, but instead comes back to a human state, then wherever such one reappears, such one is beautiful %! This is the way, friend, leading to beauty, one is not angry and of easily irritable temperament, even when criticized a little one is not offended, one does neither become angry, nor hostile, nor resentful, nor does one display any anger, hatred, nor any bitterness... #: Such one escapes hell, because the evil kamma is modified by past good! %: Such one miss heaven, because the good kamma is modified by past evil! Source: The Moderate speeches of the Buddha: The short speech on Action. MN 135 http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=25072X Full Text: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn135a.html --------------------------------- PS: Please include the word Samahita in any comment, since then will my automatic mail filters pick it up and I will see it & respond!! Bhikkhu Samahita, Sri Lanka. Friendship is the Greatest ... Let there be Calm & Free Bliss !!! UNQUOTE Is this imo childish idea about being reborn as a beauty, considered to be authentic buddha words? Can't be true, I guess. What do you know/think? Greetingz, hans www.n0by.de/n0/HansVanDerGugten.htm --------------------------------- Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20051009/c069659f/attachment.html From tomokono at blueyonder.co.uk Sun Oct 9 16:57:34 2005 From: tomokono at blueyonder.co.uk (Tomoyuki Kono) Date: Mon Oct 10 07:40:28 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: <013601c5ccdb$fa1918a0$f6339c04@Dan> References: <1127942930.6308.49.camel@localhost.localdomain><433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net><617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org><4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net><1359619694.20051004213630@kungzhi.org><43441B56.7080303@nerim.net><1479321719.20051006043947@kungzhi.org><003c01c5ca43$01172200$c8369c04@Dan><4344DA9B.8040908@xs4all.nl><00bb01c5ca59$2aa93700$c8369c04@Dan><1128621156.4783.55.camel@localhost.localdomain><008901c5cabf$30ff5010$bc369c04@Dan> <43461940.1060905@nerim.net><022701c5cb19$ff594ab0$bc369c04@Dan><014501c5cbe8$4a523580$e51b9c04@Dan><004c01c5cc35$b804c320$767c4e51@zen><006b01c5cca5$0ab2d750$f6339c04@Dan> <6BBF91E5-C2DE-4705-BB17-84C0D86A52F0@blueyonder.co.uk> <013601c5ccdb$fa1918a0$f6339c04@Dan> Message-ID: Dan, As you pointed out, the thread has run its course so I don't want to drag it unnecessarily. However, you have misrepresented my more than what I can bear in silence. So I think I deserve another say. If other Buddha-L participants are thoroughly fed up with this topic, they need only reach for the delete button just this time. I never said that the two examples I described as the *only* and *whole* truths. In the case of Sttinnett's book, his argument was based on previously classified documents many of which were released only after the Freedom of Information Act came into force in 2000. These are primary sources, so whatever version of event you find convincing, they need to be dealt with. As for the story behind the delayed ultimatum, this too is based on a journalist's discovery of previously unpublished/unnoticed testimonies by those who were directly involved in the event at the embassy. But the latter was just an anecdote; I never indulged in speculating about its historical implications. >> shown to be erroneous, as Robert Stinnett's well-researched book, Day >> of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor, has shown. >> > > That's probably the oldest "conspiracy" theory we have re: WW II > (anti-war > activists were already proposing that in the early '40s). As I said, the theory I refer to was proposed on the basis of the hitherto top-secret documents which became available as a result of their declassification in recent years. I know nothing about the old conspiracy theorists but they couldn't have possibly been making the same argument, even if their conclusion looks similar. > There is nothing to this "FDR knew and wanted" theory, but I can > understand > why you would find that sort of thing persuasive and even comforting. I may only find it plausible on the basis of reliable historical evidence. If it's not borne out by the evidence or if the evidence points to the contrary, I will be more than willing to accept it because, unlike some ardent 'revisionist' historians in Japan, I don't have wounded national pride :) > Bottom > line: even if one would like to imagine that somehow magically > Japan didn't > attack Pearl Harbor of its own volition but was somehow forced or > tricked > into it by FDR, that doesn't explain what happened to Manchuria, > Korea, > China, etc. etc. [snip] One may imagine that but not me. I don't indulge in that sort of polemic you seem to ascribe to me. I never denied or attempted to justify various acts of Japanese imperialism and atrocities that took place before and after Pearl Harbor. > As for the comedy of errors -- too polite to present an ultimatum in a > timely manner -- that whole story, from every angle, stretches > credulity > beyond all bounds. The point of that anecdote, which I admit I didn't make clear as it was a mere digression, was to show you how rigid an accepted version of history often becomes. You may find it utterly ridiculous, but have you read the article before you trashed its content? This too was on the basis of hitherto unnoticed/unpublished sources. Even in light of new evidence, some people don't want to know, let alone believe. But it's not my concern to convince you or anyone of the validity of this discovery, no matter. By the way, I certainly wasn't trying to say that the delay in handing the ultimatum was due to the poor enthusiastic American priest who talked too much at the funeral :) > The error was missing part of the fleet (see below), > not the timing of the delivery of the ultimatum. I didn't say anything about the timing of the ultimatum. As far as I know, the naval fleet was going to attack Pearl Harbor anyway, and the wording of the ultimatum and its timing had been planned in Tokyo days before. So I'm not disputing that or admiral Yamamoto's thinking, which I have also read about. > It was a surprise attack. If an ultimatum had been offered in a timely > manner, there would have been time to mount at least some sort of > defense, > and there would have been no advantage of surprise. But of course, FDR > wanted the place bombed, right? So an ultimatum wouldn't have > mattered -- so > why don't we spare Japan all embarrassment in this, and say that the > ultimatum was delivered on time, and FDR just sat on it? > (That was sarcastic again) Well, it looks as though he did. The Americans had cracked the Japanese diplomatic code earlier that year so the timing of the forthcoming ultimatum was known to some. The warning was radioed, among others, to Lieutenant General Walter Short in Hawaii, but he received it, er, six hours after the first bombs fell on PH (source: document RG80, PHLO, MMRB, Archives II, whose photocopy is reproduced in Stinnett, p. 301). What is more, Stinnett has shown ample evidence that (1) the Japanese naval fleet on the way to Pearl Harbor did not observe radio silence. This includes transmission by Admiral Nagano and Admiral Yamamoto; (2) their communication was intercepted by the Americans; and (3) the Americans had already cracked the military code as well, so they new what the Japanese were communicating to each other. He also shows from the declassified archival records that Admiral Kimmel and Lieutenant General Short in Hawaii did not have unrestricted access to the decoded and translated diplomatic and military intercepts, and that in some crucial cases leading up to the attack, they were bypassed. So undoubtedly it was a surprise attack for those in Hawaii, including commanders there. FDR, as well as some of the thirty-six individuals who had unrestricted access to this information would have known what the Japanese had been up to. This much is certainly not conspiracy theory; clearly demonstrated historical facts which only emerged very recently. > The issue here is not about being pro or anti US or Japan, but about > thinking clearly. I cannot agree more. I don't think either of us have been. I will refrain from posting further on this topic regardless of whether Dan chooses to reply or not. Best wishes, Tomo From tomokono at blueyonder.co.uk Mon Oct 10 06:03:15 2005 From: tomokono at blueyonder.co.uk (Tomoyuki Kono) Date: Mon Oct 10 07:40:34 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo (resending) In-Reply-To: <013601c5ccdb$fa1918a0$f6339c04@Dan> References: <1127942930.6308.49.camel@localhost.localdomain><433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net><617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org><4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net><1359619694.20051004213630@kungzhi.org><43441B56.7080303@nerim.net><1479321719.20051006043947@kungzhi.org><003c01c5ca43$01172200$c8369c04@Dan><4344DA9B.8040908@xs4all.nl><00bb01c5ca59$2aa93700$c8369c04@Dan><1128621156.4783.55.camel@localhost.localdomain><008901c5cabf$30ff5010$bc369c04@Dan> <43461940.1060905@nerim.net><022701c5cb19$ff594ab0$bc369c04@Dan><014501c5cbe8$4a523580$e51b9c04@Dan><004c01c5cc35$b804c320$767c4e51@zen><006b01c5cca5$0ab2d750$f6339c04@Dan> <6BBF91E5-C2DE-4705-BB17-84C0D86A52F0@blueyonder.co.uk> <013601c5ccdb$fa1918a0$f6339c04@Dan> Message-ID: <0594AA49-4137-4744-9CEE-EF2ADAB1C0AA@blueyonder.co.uk> Dan, As you pointed out, the thread has run its course so I don't want to drag it unnecessarily. However, you have misrepresented my more than what I can bear in silence. So I think I deserve another say. If other Buddha-L participants are thoroughly fed up with this topic, they need only reach for the delete button just this time. I never said that the two examples I described as the *only* and *whole* truths. In the case of Sttinnett's book, his argument was based on previously classified documents many of which were released only after the Freedom of Information Act came into force in 2000. These are primary sources, so whatever version of event you find convincing, they need to be dealt with. As for the story behind the delayed ultimatum, this too is based on a journalist's discovery of previously unpublished/unnoticed testimonies by those who were directly involved in the event at the embassy. But the latter was just an anecdote; I never indulged in speculating about its historical implications. >> shown to be erroneous, as Robert Stinnett's well-researched book, Day >> of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor, has shown. >> >> > > That's probably the oldest "conspiracy" theory we have re: WW II > (anti-war > activists were already proposing that in the early '40s). > As I said, the theory I refer to was proposed on the basis of the hitherto top-secret documents which became available as a result of their declassification in recent years. I know nothing about the old conspiracy theorists but they couldn't have possibly been making the same argument, even if their conclusion looks similar. > There is nothing to this "FDR knew and wanted" theory, but I can > understand > why you would find that sort of thing persuasive and even comforting. > I may only find it plausible on the basis of reliable historical evidence. If it's not borne out by the evidence or if the evidence points to the contrary, I will be more than willing to accept it because, unlike some ardent 'revisionist' historians in Japan, I don't have wounded national pride :) > Bottom > line: even if one would like to imagine that somehow magically > Japan didn't > attack Pearl Harbor of its own volition but was somehow forced or > tricked > into it by FDR, that doesn't explain what happened to Manchuria, > Korea, > China, etc. etc. > [snip] One may imagine that but not me. I don't indulge in that sort of polemic you seem to ascribe to me. I never denied or attempted to justify various acts of Japanese imperialism and atrocities that took place before and after Pearl Harbor. > As for the comedy of errors -- too polite to present an ultimatum in a > timely manner -- that whole story, from every angle, stretches > credulity > beyond all bounds. > The point of that anecdote, which I admit I didn't make clear as it was a mere digression, was to show you how rigid an accepted version of history often becomes. You may find it utterly ridiculous, but have you read the article before you trashed its content? This too was on the basis of hitherto unnoticed/unpublished sources. Even in light of new evidence, some people don't want to know, let alone believe. But it's not my concern to convince you or anyone of the validity of this discovery, no matter. By the way, I certainly wasn't trying to say that the delay in handing the ultimatum was due to the poor enthusiastic American priest who talked too much at the funeral :) > The error was missing part of the fleet (see below), > not the timing of the delivery of the ultimatum. > I didn't say anything about the timing of the ultimatum. As far as I know, the naval fleet was going to attack Pearl Harbor anyway, and the wording of the ultimatum and its timing had been planned in Tokyo days before. So I'm not disputing that or admiral Yamamoto's thinking, which I have also read about. > It was a surprise attack. If an ultimatum had been offered in a timely > manner, there would have been time to mount at least some sort of > defense, > and there would have been no advantage of surprise. But of course, FDR > wanted the place bombed, right? So an ultimatum wouldn't have > mattered -- so > why don't we spare Japan all embarrassment in this, and say that the > ultimatum was delivered on time, and FDR just sat on it? > (That was sarcastic again) > Well, it looks as though he did. The Americans had cracked the Japanese diplomatic code earlier that year so the timing of the forthcoming ultimatum was known to some. The warning was radioed, among others, to Lieutenant General Walter Short in Hawaii, but he received it, er, six hours after the first bombs fell on PH (source: document RG80, PHLO, MMRB, Archives II, whose photocopy is reproduced in Stinnett, p. 301). What is more, Stinnett has shown ample evidence that (1) the Japanese naval fleet on the way to Pearl Harbor did not observe radio silence. This includes transmission by Admiral Nagano and Admiral Yamamoto; (2) their communication was intercepted by the Americans; and (3) the Americans had already cracked the military code as well, so they new what the Japanese were communicating to each other. He also shows from the declassified archival records that Admiral Kimmel and Lieutenant General Short in Hawaii did not have unrestricted access to the decoded and translated diplomatic and military intercepts, and that in some crucial cases leading up to the attack, they were bypassed. So undoubtedly it was a surprise attack for those in Hawaii, including commanders there. FDR, as well as some of the thirty-six individuals who had unrestricted access to this information would have known what the Japanese had been up to. This much is certainly not conspiracy theory; clearly demonstrated historical facts which only emerged very recently. > The issue here is not about being pro or anti US or Japan, but about > thinking clearly. > I cannot agree more. I don't think either of us have been. I will refrain from posting further on this topic regardless of whether Dan chooses to reply or not. Best wishes, Tomo From gthomgt at adelphia.net Sun Oct 9 18:55:16 2005 From: gthomgt at adelphia.net (George Thompson) Date: Mon Oct 10 07:40:48 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Gender on Buddha-l In-Reply-To: References: <0092f62694ceaca5cc54cc9d7c68cbbc@toad.net> Message-ID: <4349BBF4.1070801@adelphia.net> Dear Buddha List, Can you all please take a maunavrata [vow of silence] for a day or two, so that I can catch up with you? Thanks a lot in advance. George Thompson, utterly sympathetic but overwhelmed by the list's floods and breached levees. > From joy.vriens at nerim.net Mon Oct 10 08:26:44 2005 From: joy.vriens at nerim.net (Joy Vriens) Date: Mon Oct 10 08:28:09 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: <0cdb01c5cd76$719b8620$a5369c04@Dan> References: <1127942930.6308.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> <433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net><617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org> <4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net><1359619694.20051004213630@kungzhi.org> <43441B56.7080303@nerim.net><1479321719.20051006043947@kungzhi.org><003c01c5ca43$01172200$c8369c04@Dan><4344DA9B.8040908@xs4all.nl> <00bb01c5ca59$2aa93700$c8369c04@Dan> <1128621156.4783.55.camel@localhost.localdomain><008901c5cabf$30ff5010$bc369c04@Dan> <43461940.1060905@nerim.net><022701c5cb19$ff594ab0$bc369c04@Dan> <43465FC4.7080207@nerim.net><019701c5cbf4$23ed7330$e51b9c04@Dan> <4347BFB4.9040105@nerim.net><022301c5cc15$ed402270$e51b9c04@Dan> <434A178C.9050400@nerim.net> <0cdb01c5cd76$719b8620$a5369c04@Dan> Message-ID: <434A7A24.1020104@nerim.net> Dan Lusthaus wrote: > The alternative is that no one would have come out of the camps alive. That > would have been wrong and unnecessary. The remainder of their lives were > certainly impacted, but they had lives, produced families, had children and > grandchildren, etc., who not only could help dispel the poison, but perhaps > help others not repeat this again with still others. We are all haunted by > their memories because they survived as witnesses with memory. Surviving is > difficult. Yes I have been very directly made aware of this through my mother and her family, who have always stayed in contact with the survivors of the families that stayed and met in my grandparent's house during WWII. The already traumatising events she witnessed as a young girl were only the beginning of much worse to come for the direct victims, perhaps culminating in the sadistic moral choices imposed on those who went to the camps, the lowest form of torture, aiming the destruction of their souls. To serve that memory properly, Christianity has a lot more soul searching to do than it has done until now. There still is too much mythology around everywhere. Memory can only fullfil its complete function, i.e. to avoid repetition, if all causes and responsibilities have been recognised, without making it a blame game. E.g. My brother and a philosopher friend of his discovered by chance that the village in which they live, Vauvert in the South of France, used to be called Posqui?res and that there was an important Talmudic school (led by Abraham ben David of Posquieres known as Rabad) in the 12th century with app. 300 students at one point. After the plague (for which the "deicide jews" were blamed) and when the Southern regions (Languedoc) were annexed by France, the Jews were expulsed or forcefully converted to catholicism and their schools closed down. The name of Posqui?res disappeared at that same period and the former Posqui?res took on the name of the neighbouring village Vauvert. The whole memory of the Jewish presence and of an important teacher as Rabad has been totally erased from the memory of this small town which has a large part of extreme right voters and that prides itself of its bull-fighting tradition. My brother and his friend have started a non-religious foundation to bring back this (as it seems almost purposely erased) memory and have a small museum and statue of Rabad erected. This is only a small exemple of something which took place in many places of Christian Europe. And antisemitism is one of the projects of memory preservation of restauration. There are of course many others. Joy From jkirk at spro.net Mon Oct 10 08:34:01 2005 From: jkirk at spro.net (jkirk) Date: Mon Oct 10 08:37:00 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Gender on Buddha-l References: <3luroIQH+8RDFw7l@clara.net><1128781640.4379.12.camel@localhost.localdomain><1128805361.5717.86.camel@localhost.localdomain><004501c5cc65$7beb0450$2930cece@charlie><62cb2589a3b0bbdec0c863a7e0d5e7e0@mindspring.com><1128870711.4380.13.camel@localhost.localdomain><+TzJ1rk+$XSDFwxa@clara.net><001f01c5cd50$39edca10$2930cece@charlie> Message-ID: <001c01c5cda7$a8df82e0$2930cece@charlie> > Of course, one makes distinctions in one's process of thinking. It is a > universal application of a particular distinction that makes it a dogma. > You have established a dogma here - the principle that there is a 'male > viewpoint' and a 'female viewpoint'. But Richard and I are simply having > none of it. > > -- > Metta > Mike Austin ================ Correction: I did not propose "a" male viewpoint and "a" female viewpoint, as if there is only one essential of each, therefore I did not "establish a dogma"-- how ridiculous--I simply asserted a tendency on this list. A tendency is not a universal application. As I already said, and I'm not going to repeat this again so if dunces here insist on ignoring it, it's their problem. It's always "more or less" whenever any generalization is being made by me. I am not obliged to cite statistical data to support the evidence of decades of research. There are instead a variety of such viewpoints influenced by the culture of gender distinctions within any given society. That gender is basically a cultural construction that operates variably within different societies to produce certain values and behaviors is a well-established fact, whether you and Richard are"having" it, or not. Joanna Joanna From joy.vriens at nerim.net Mon Oct 10 08:39:14 2005 From: joy.vriens at nerim.net (Joy Vriens) Date: Mon Oct 10 08:48:11 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Diversions, distractions and off-topic discussions In-Reply-To: References: <3luroIQH+8RDFw7l@clara.net> <1128781640.4379.12.camel@localhost.localdomain> <434A196A.9070509@nerim.net> Message-ID: <434A7D12.9080000@nerim.net> Thank you Lance for pointing this out. I didn't know about the added sentence, but I am very glad that I sometimes manage to recognize later add-ons that look like warts. At other times they appear to be warts that were already there originally. :-) > True but note that it is precisely the last phrase which is missing in > the alternative version found in the adjacent sutta. > > Also, it actually says: > "... your splendour (teja) would outshine even that of the sun & moon, > so mighty, so powerful -- to say nothing of that of wanderers of other > sects". > It is far from obvious what this actually means. I interpreted it as having an ethical speech, the splendour of which outshines even that of the sun & moon, not to mention the "splendour" of other sects of wanderers. The last sentence was totally unnecessary, especially considering the whole paragraph was on right speech. > To me the argument presented here is very clear. If I am doing a lot of > meditation, I can see that discussions of the first kind are mostly > based on defilements. If one engages in them (except sometimes for > teaching purposes), you have a lot of extra work to do when you go back > to meditate. Conversely topics of the second kind become more > interesting and can further meditation. Yes the first kind are polemical topics or topics of which the truth can't be verified, and which therefore are wholly or partially made up of speculations or opinions. > But I have no idea how you convince people of this, if they have not > experienced it or have forgotten their past experience of that. I though the sutta was a good attempt, except for the last line, which was indulging in an opinion, mainly based on personal judgement. Joy From joy.vriens at nerim.net Mon Oct 10 08:48:53 2005 From: joy.vriens at nerim.net (Joy Vriens) Date: Mon Oct 10 08:56:59 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Diversions, distractions and off-topic discussions In-Reply-To: References: <3luroIQH+8RDFw7l@clara.net> <1128781640.4379.12.camel@localhost.localdomain> <434A196A.9070509@nerim.net> Message-ID: <434A7F55.6080602@nerim.net> Mike Austin wrote: >>> f you were to engage repeatedly in these ten topics of conversation, >>> you would outshine even the sun & moon, so mighty, so powerful -- to >>> say nothing of the wanderers of other sects." >> The last sentence is very ironic and therefore very funny. It pulls >> away the rug on which the whole argument is standing IMO. "...to say >> nothing of the wanderers of other sects". > Could you explain? Hi Mike, I tried to explain it in my answer to Lance. See there please. I hope Richard won't count this message in his next statistics. Joy From mike at lamrim.org.uk Mon Oct 10 08:58:42 2005 From: mike at lamrim.org.uk (Mike Austin) Date: Mon Oct 10 09:07:00 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] did the Buddha really say this? In-Reply-To: <20051010065404.22555.qmail@web32109.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20051010065404.22555.qmail@web32109.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1uEbKiviGoSDFwif@clara.net> In message <20051010065404.22555.qmail@web32109.mail.mud.yahoo.com>, Hans van der Gugten writes > Which Intentional Actions (Kamma) influence Beauty? >Is this imo childish idea about being reborn as a beauty, >considered to be authentic buddha words? >Can't be true, I guess. What do you know/think? Ven Bhikkhu Samahita (or Hans?), Who can say what happens after death? One can only check what happens in this life. It is easy to check how ugly people are if they become angry. It is easy to observe the cumulative effects of repeated anger on people - on their faces and sometimes on their bodies also. Those who regularly smile develop a more pleasant appearance. They have attractive wrinkles at the corners of their eyes. This is observable by everyone. This says nothing about the features they have been born with, nor about any features they may be born with in future. If one notices a tendency here - even in this life - it is worth adapting one's behaviour to suit, whether one believes this affects a future rebirth or not. -- Metta Mike Austin From jkirk at spro.net Mon Oct 10 09:11:36 2005 From: jkirk at spro.net (jkirk) Date: Mon Oct 10 09:17:02 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Petition on the Inclusion of Women's Voices(Parliament of the World's Religions) References: <1233778238.20051009045545@kungzhi.org><918000775.20051010044930@kungzhi.org> Message-ID: <007401c5cdac$e8e025c0$2930cece@charlie> I didn't read the petition post because I'm against bothering with petitions. I've found, after years of political action of various sorts, that they are worthless so far as achieving results are concerned. Also, gigantic world organizations (bureaucracies) like the Parliament of the World's Religions IMHO are as effective as the UN--namely, practically nil effective (except for UNESCO, WHO, and maybe the FAO). I'd of course be very interested to read about it if anyone could demonstrate that this Parliament achieves anything beneficial and for whom it achieves it. After all Buddhists are represented in this body. I wonder what they think they achieve from their membership other than travel and a fun convention. Joanna ======================================= From: "Jim Peavler" > I'm sorry. I think it is being ignored because it expresses a women's > point of view. > > (Do I need a smiley here for the more constipated of our readers?) > > The Laundromat of Spiritual Cleansing > > > On Oct 9, 2005, at 8:49 PM, Benito Carral wrote: > >> On Sunday, October 9, 2005, Benito Carral wrote: >> >>> Petition on the Inclusion of Women's Voices >> >> I have not seen any comment on this post yet and >> would really like to know what do you think about it. >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Beni >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> buddha-l mailing list >> buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com >> http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l >> > > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From bcarral at kungzhi.org Mon Oct 10 09:23:44 2005 From: bcarral at kungzhi.org (Benito Carral) Date: Mon Oct 10 09:28:13 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: <434A29F1.7080700@nerim.net> References: <1127942930.6308.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> <433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net><617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org> <4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net><1359619694.20051004213630@kungzhi.org> <43441B56.7080303@nerim.net> <1479321719.20051006043947@kungzhi.org><003c01c5ca43$01172200$c8369c04@Dan> <4344DBFE.8030202@nerim.net> <00c701c5ca62$e5c7f5e0$c8369c04@Dan> <4345220A.5040309@nerim.net> <1667485633.20051007043716@kungzhi.org> <43462606.40507@nerim.net> <1591830279.20051010043322@kungzhi.org> <434A29F1.7080700@nerim.net> Message-ID: <18010600083.20051010172344@kungzhi.org> On Monday, October 10, 2005, Joy Vriens wrote: >> [...] I wouldn't like to see a democratic sangha >> [...] I can't imagine monks and nuns saying to the >> Old Guy what he should teach [...] > Yet it is very likely that is the way it happened. I doubt it very much. > There seemed to have been a sort of egality in the > early communities (they called each other "friend", > the Elder approach being something from later times). According to the early tradition, these are some of the Old Guy's quotes: I have no teacher, one like me does not exist in all the world, for I am the Peerless Teacher, the Arahat. I alone am Supremely Enlightened. Quenching all defilements, Nibb?na's calm have I attained. I go to the city of K?si (Benares) to set in motion the Wheel of Dhamma. In a world where blindness reigns, I shall beat the Deathless Drum. Address not the Tath?gata (Perfect One) by the word '?vuso' (friend). The Tath?gata, monks, is a Consummate One (Arahat), a Supremely Enlightened One. Give ear, monks, the Deathless has been attained. I shall instruct you, I shall teach you the Dhamma; following my teaching you will know and realize for yourselves even in this lifetime that supreme goal of purity for the sake of which clansmen retire from home to follow the homeless life. Then the sangha was divided according to the dharmic (a way to avoid using 'spiritual') attaiment of its members. (We can also remember Ananda and the First Council.) > Also, imagine you start a new religion or religious > system. You would start by sharing your ideas with > others. You wouldn't have the authority of an "Old > Guy" (generalissimo) right from the start. It seems that the Old Guy first won his authority while he was a forest ascetic, then his demeanour and discourse convinced his five old fellows, and that's how the new religion started. The Old Guy didn't share ideas in order to debate them in any democratic sense, he shared truths to be experienced (in fact, his old fellows just needed to listen such truths in order to become arahats - BTW, this is the first case of sudden enlightment I'm aware of in Buddhist tradition). So it's not a surprise that we have something called 'Four Noble Truths'. > Also the contradictory views and practices and > schisms in early Buddhism show that there must have > been quite a lot of debate, which is only possible if > there isn't an "Old Guy" dictating the rules. Yes, because the Old Guy was death and he didn't choose a successor. We also have the Devadatta's case, but it's clear that he didn't succeed. > The Buddha specified (if we can go by the canon) that > some Vinaya minor rules could be abolished, which > shows a certain openness to debate about their > utility. But only after he were death. :-) Old monks and nuns were irresponsible enough to not ask the Old Guy what the minor rules were. > There also is Ananda's influence of allowing more of > a female point of view in the Sangha etc. Well, that seems to me one of the most intriguing passages in early Buddhism. Didn't also the Old Guy make a prophecy about that? >> But I'm a stupid postmodern traditionalist, so what >> do I know? > Well, that. :-) And you now know you are a chatterbox > (30 messages Beni, really...) Hahaha. I prefer to think that I'm in a intersubjective thinking mode, which I have come to appreciate very much in recent times. :-) Best wishes, Beni From bclough at aucegypt.edu Mon Oct 10 09:34:26 2005 From: bclough at aucegypt.edu (bclough) Date: Mon Oct 10 09:37:01 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] An experiment (Gender on Buddha-l) Message-ID: >I will, though, continue where relevant to bring out > gender issues in Buddhist literature and practice. > Joanna Please do, Joanna; I for one would appreciate this! And thanks for sending the wake-up call to the list regarding gender insensitivity. It gave me pause, and I hope it does for others too, although I 'm not too optimistic about those who fall back on the weak "there is no male or female view" argument. Regards, Brad From bclough at aucegypt.edu Mon Oct 10 09:54:36 2005 From: bclough at aucegypt.edu (bclough) Date: Mon Oct 10 09:56:59 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Gender on Buddha-l Message-ID: > This is crap of the worst kind. I don't mean to single out whoever said this, especially because comments like this seem to be increasingly common on Buddha-L of late. Can't we steer clear of the personal attacks and dismissive comments and debate in a respectful manner? Where is the metta? Brad From mike at lamrim.org.uk Mon Oct 10 09:59:43 2005 From: mike at lamrim.org.uk (Mike Austin) Date: Mon Oct 10 10:07:07 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Gender on Buddha-l In-Reply-To: <001c01c5cda7$a8df82e0$2930cece@charlie> References: <3luroIQH+8RDFw7l@clara.net> <1128781640.4379.12.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1128805361.5717.86.camel@localhost.localdomain> <004501c5cc65$7beb0450$2930cece@charlie> <62cb2589a3b0bbdec0c863a7e0d5e7e0@mindspring.com> <1128870711.4380.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> <+TzJ1rk+$XSDFwxa@clara.net> <001f01c5cd50$39edca10$2930cece@charlie> <001c01c5cda7$a8df82e0$2930cece@charlie> Message-ID: In message <001c01c5cda7$a8df82e0$2930cece@charlie>, jkirk writes >Correction: I did not propose "a" male viewpoint and "a" female viewpoint, >as if there is only one essential of each, therefore I did not >"establish a dogma"-- >how ridiculous--I simply asserted a tendency on this list. Such a tendency would have shown in the statistics that Richard posted. The numbers of contributors to those 'testosterone' threads are limited, but they are a bit noisy. If a couple of bulls have locked horns in one corner of the field, it does not represent a tendency among the rest. I would say that holding to the notion of such a tendency is neither valid nor healthy. Anyway - enough. I've had a bison full of this topic. -- Metta Mike Austin From rhayes at unm.edu Mon Oct 10 09:58:14 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Mon Oct 10 10:07:16 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Gender on Buddha-l In-Reply-To: <008001c5cd57$37c58eb0$2930cece@charlie> References: <0092f62694ceaca5cc54cc9d7c68cbbc@toad.net> <1128902680.8589.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> <008001c5cd57$37c58eb0$2930cece@charlie> Message-ID: <1128959895.4380.12.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Sun, 2005-10-09 at 22:58 -0600, jkirk wrote: > It's time to dump the erection of the Sacred Dichotomy in this > discussion. In my case at least, and I have said this before: any > analytical generalization I make is to be taken as a "more or less" > statement, not as a purely dualistic either/or. Joanna, your initial hypothesis that people on buddha-l ignore your posts because you are a female was far-fetched at the very best. First of all, you usually send your messages without your name on them, so only people who know you personally are aware that jkirk is a female name. Secondly, almost nothing that you write has anything to do with gender issues. You send in materials having to do with all manner of things pertaining to art, archaeology, anthropology and Asian political situations. If people do not respond to those messages, then it is either because they are not interested in those topics or because they do not feel informed enough to say anything about them. Your hypothesis that people ignore you because you are a woman speaks more of your carefully cultivated post-modern feminist paranoia than it does of reality. I will dump my concern for false and carelessly formed dichotomies when people stop using them to arrive at asinine conclusions. My reasons for doing that have nothing to do with gender; they have everything to do with the Buddhist observations that ayoniso manasikaara (careless thinking) leads to dukkha. I think you could liberate yourself from the particular dukkha you are experiencing as a result of this discussion forum if you listened carefully to what people are saying about why they do or do not read or respond to your messages. Dwelling on fantastic imaginings will not get you out of dukkha. -- Richard Hayes *** "Above all things, take heed in judging one another, for in that ye may destroy one another... and eat out the good of one another."-- George Fox From bcarral at kungzhi.org Mon Oct 10 10:13:31 2005 From: bcarral at kungzhi.org (Benito Carral) Date: Mon Oct 10 10:18:11 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Petition on the Inclusion of Women's Voices (Parliament of the World's Religions) In-Reply-To: <007401c5cdac$e8e025c0$2930cece@charlie> References: <1233778238.20051009045545@kungzhi.org><918000775.20051010044930@kungzhi.org> <007401c5cdac$e8e025c0$2930cece@charlie> Message-ID: <774464665.20051010181331@kungzhi.org> On Monday, October 10, 2005, Joanna wrote: > I wonder what they think they achieve from their > membership other than travel and a fun convention. I can tell you about my experience. I must say that I was generously invited by the UNESCO to the last Parliament, otherwise I couldn't have attended, so I would like to thank them here. It helped me to know how many different and most interesting people are working locally and globally from their spiritual and religious traditions. It helped me to know some working strategies and provided me useful links. For example, a Cistercian monk involved in interreligious dialog and the young coordinator of the Earth Chapter Initiative with whom I have kept a fruitful dialog along the months. It also allowed me to have first-hand experiences with Jane Goodal, Madu Kishwar, Hans K?ng, Tariq Ramadan, Sulak Sivaraksa... In addition to that, it allowed me to discover many spiritual and religious traditions from people committed to them and I enjoyed many interesting talks with people from different countries and cultures. Then we also enjoyed an incredible sacred music concert at the Sagrada Familia. One of the things most of us agreed with is the necessity of promoting a gobal ethics in our local communities as well as religious bilingualism at least (i.e., to be well-versed not just in one's own tradition). In short, it helped me to discover and rethink many things, it provided me new views and tools, and it was a kind revolution. We all could feel brotherhood in every meeting. It convinced me, among other things, that I can't leave aside other spiritual and religious traditions nor global issues in my Buddhist discourse. Best wishes, Beni From rhayes at unm.edu Mon Oct 10 10:18:17 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Mon Oct 10 10:27:04 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Gender on Buddha-l In-Reply-To: <009201c5cd30$9acae680$53644e51@zen> References: <6.4f15af05.307af45d@aol.com> <009201c5cd30$9acae680$53644e51@zen> Message-ID: <1128961098.4380.31.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Mon, 2005-10-10 at 01:21 +0100, Stephen Hodge wrote: > Actually, yes. Tall people literally look down on many others and I > believe, from unsystematic personal observation, this can lead to various > personality traits (in the case of males) that often translate into certain > particular, though obvious, attitudes. On an e-mail forum, how does none know how tall another person is? > I wonder, therefore, how tall are Dan Lusthaus and Richard Hayes, for example. Richard Hayes is just over 6'1" (around 185 cm) and weighs in at just under 260 pounds. Dan Lusthaus is nowhere near as tall or heavy as I. Is that about what you expected? > Perhaps a new and helpful Buddha-L posting rule could be implemented > which stipulates that male subscribers should compulsorily state their > height (and weight). Why stop there? If we are doing pop psychology, we should also require that women state their height and weight, that all contributers state their age, how many siblings they have, where they rank in birth order, how many times they have been married and divorced, whether they are right-handed or left-handed, what their mothers and fathers did for a living, what their current income level is, how recently they have been tested for cancer and whether or not they eat meat, fish or eggs. In fact, if everyone stated all those things, we would know everything about them and would never again have to read what they say on any topic. > Best wishes, There's no way I can believe that until I know how tall you are, how much you weigh and whether you had acne as a teenager. -- Richard Hayes From joy.vriens at nerim.net Mon Oct 10 10:23:20 2005 From: joy.vriens at nerim.net (Joy Vriens) Date: Mon Oct 10 10:27:16 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: <18010600083.20051010172344@kungzhi.org> References: <1127942930.6308.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> <433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net><617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org> <4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net><1359619694.20051004213630@kungzhi.org> <43441B56.7080303@nerim.net> <1479321719.20051006043947@kungzhi.org><003c01c5ca43$01172200$c8369c04@Dan> <4344DBFE.8030202@nerim.net> <00c701c5ca62$e5c7f5e0$c8369c04@Dan> <4345220A.5040309@nerim.net> <1667485633.20051007043716@kungzhi.org> <43462606.40507@nerim.net> <1591830279.20051010043322@kungzhi.org> <434A29F1.7080700@nerim.net> <18010600083.20051010172344@kungzhi.org> Message-ID: <434A9578.5040205@nerim.net> Benito Carral wrote: >>>[...] I wouldn't like to see a democratic sangha >>>[...] I can't imagine monks and nuns saying to the >>>Old Guy what he should teach [...] >>Yet it is very likely that is the way it happened. > I doubt it very much. Seeing it summarized like this, my case for a democratic sangha looks pretty hopeless... >>There seemed to have been a sort of egality in the >>early communities (they called each other "friend", >>the Elder approach being something from later times). > According to the early tradition, these are some of > the Old Guy's quotes: > I have no teacher, one like me does not exist in > all the world, for I am the Peerless Teacher, the > Arahat. I alone am Supremely Enlightened. Quenching > all defilements, Nibb?na's calm have I attained. I > go to the city of K?si (Benares) to set in motion > the Wheel of Dhamma. In a world where blindness > reigns, I shall beat the Deathless Drum. > Address not the Tath?gata (Perfect One) by the word > '?vuso' (friend). The Tath?gata, monks, is a > Consummate One (Arahat), a Supremely Enlightened > One. Give ear, monks, the Deathless has been > attained. I shall instruct you, I shall teach you > the Dhamma; following my teaching you will know and > realize for yourselves even in this lifetime that > supreme goal of purity for the sake of which > clansmen retire from home to follow the homeless > life. Which according to the AN X69 Kathavatthu Sutta, is not really a topic of proper conversation, in that it is not talk on modesty. Do you really believe that the historical Buddha could have spoken like this? He started off as a forest ascetic among other ascetics. They must have called each other friends. At what point did the Buddha-to be start to have an ascendancy over the others? At what point did they no longer call him friend and started calling him Perfect One rather than teacher or whatever? Don't you rather think that this is the result of a gradual aggrandizement/divinisation of the Buddha as time goes by? >>Also the contradictory views and practices and >>schisms in early Buddhism show that there must have >>been quite a lot of debate, which is only possible if >>there isn't an "Old Guy" dictating the rules. > Yes, because the Old Guy was death and he didn't > choose a successor. We also have the Devadatta's case, > but it's clear that he didn't succeed. I don't know. I find it hard to imagine a Buddha, who comes up out of nothing stating he is the Supremely Enlightened One to those who used to know him as an ascetic like them, and who all of a sudden has such authority that they don't even debate with him. Not so sure about Devadatta. The surviving canon obviously is the one of those most eager ones to write down and systematise teachings attributed to the Buddha. Imagine a group of Buddhists would leave the main group led by the Buddha's official successor Devadatta in total disagreement with the latter. How do you think they would describe him in their writings? Probably very much in the way he has been described in the Buddhist canon as we know it. This is is 100% speculation and creative thinking on my part, but the fact that Devadatta actually was demonized tells me that he played a rather important role before his demonization. >>There also is Ananda's influence of allowing more of >>a female point of view in the Sangha etc. > Well, that seems to me one of the most intriguing > passages in early Buddhism. Didn't also the Old Guy > make a prophecy about that? Prophecies? Do you need better proof for Apocrypha? Joy From jkirk at spro.net Mon Oct 10 10:42:33 2005 From: jkirk at spro.net (jkirk) Date: Mon Oct 10 10:47:04 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] An experiment (Gender on Buddha-l) References: Message-ID: <000301c5cdb9$9d8944f0$2930cece@charlie> ----- Original Message ----- From: "bclough" > >I will, though, continue where relevant to bring out >> gender issues in Buddhist literature and practice. >> Joanna > > Please do, Joanna; I for one would appreciate this! And thanks for > sending the wake-up call to the list regarding gender insensitivity. > It gave me pause, and I hope it does for others too, although I 'm > not too optimistic about those who fall back on the weak "there is no > male or female view" argument. > > Regards, > Brad ============================== Thanks for the backup, Brad. That wake-up call has been long in the offing (as I grow long in the tooth, having been on this list for quite some time). Many have also written to me off list offering their insights and support. There is much in Buddhism that reflects gender oppression and domination, as the verses of many a Theri have brought out in the Therigata, written by women who gratefully put up with the additional rules laid on them in order to enable women to ordain and benefit from the monastic life and the Buddha's teachings. However, I am about as optimistic as you are when it comes to some contributions to the list. Excelsior! Joanna From rhayes at unm.edu Mon Oct 10 10:37:52 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Mon Oct 10 10:47:10 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Teaching Zen Buddhist philosophy In-Reply-To: <0c8b01c5cd6d$facac810$a5369c04@Dan> References: <1128875107.5654.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> <0c8b01c5cd6d$facac810$a5369c04@Dan> Message-ID: <1128962272.4380.47.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Mon, 2005-10-10 at 03:41 -0400, Dan Lusthaus wrote: > I second Franz's suggestion to include Brian Victoria Thanks to both of you. He is an author whom I was in fact considering but forgot to mention. Hearing from you and Franz has convinced me it would be good to include. I'm also toying with including at least a couple of writings from Pruning the Bodhi Tree. I'll also take a look at the Hisamatsu work that Bob Zeuschner suggested. In years past I have tended to get stuck in historical contextualization, which has led me to reading several Mahayana, Taoist and Confucian texts before getting to anything specifically Chan. And since it's impossible for me to talk about any Mahayana text without giving its historical contexts, that leads me into talking quite a lot about Indian Buddhism. While I do think that is all important, it means I often end up trying to teach a twelve-year course in fifteen weeks. So, in hopes of liberating myself from my penchant for historical prapanca, I thought I'd like to deal with material the main historical context of which is contemporary Western society. The attempts of Western Buddhists to make sense of both Buddhism and their own religious and cultural roots (with all their attendant biases) have always been exciting to me, and I think also to students. Thanks to all of you who have offered suggestions so far, and thanks in advance to any suggestions that may come in during the next week or so. I hope that the materials I finally choose really are, as Curt suggested, pabulum (which, according to my dictionary means rich physical nourishment and, by extension, excellent food for thought). -- Richard Hayes From rhayes at unm.edu Mon Oct 10 10:52:09 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Mon Oct 10 10:56:59 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Gender on Buddha-l In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1128963129.4380.53.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Mon, 2005-10-10 at 15:54 +0000, bclough wrote: > Where is the metta? That's for girls. Haven't you heard? We're men on this list. From rhayes at unm.edu Mon Oct 10 10:47:42 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Mon Oct 10 10:57:04 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Gender on Buddha-l In-Reply-To: References: <0092f62694ceaca5cc54cc9d7c68cbbc@toad.net> <1128902680.8589.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1128962862.4380.50.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Mon, 2005-10-10 at 06:45 -0600, Jim Peavler wrote: > Wasn't it that awful Bob Dylan who said, "Ya gotta serve somebody."? Yes, and then he gave us only two choices: the Devil or the Lord. Ever since he said that, I have been trying to figure out which one of those two Spider Woman is. -- Richard Hayes *** "Books are useless to us until our inner book opens; then all other books are good so far as they confirm our book." (Swami Vivekananda) From jkirk at spro.net Mon Oct 10 11:17:16 2005 From: jkirk at spro.net (jkirk) Date: Mon Oct 10 11:27:06 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Gender on Buddha-l References: <0092f62694ceaca5cc54cc9d7c68cbbc@toad.net><1128902680.8589.3.camel@localhost.localdomain><008001c5cd57$37c58eb0$2930cece@charlie> <1128959895.4380.12.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <001b01c5cdbe$76b12b90$2930cece@charlie> My replies to you are between paras. > > Joanna, your initial hypothesis that people on buddha-l ignore your > posts because you are a female was far-fetched at the very best. First > of all, you usually send your messages without your name on them, so > only people who know you personally are aware that jkirk is a female > name. Sorry this assertion is simply wrong. I sign every post I send either with my first name, Joanna, or rarely with my initials, JK. I have pointed this out once before, when told the exact same thing about my not signing my posts! It is a well-known fact that men tend not to listen to women, (the above is a good tiny example), and on this kind of a list that is approaching the incivility of blogs and usenets women are not often read, much less responded to because it is the habit of many men, not all, to enjoy and to seek conversation on serious matters usually with men. This unresposnive behavior has already been noticed and mentioned by some observant list colleagues, as well, so your view of my alleged feminist errors is not widely shared. > Your hypothesis that people ignore you because you are a woman speaks > more of your carefully cultivated post-modern feminist paranoia than it > does of reality. I will dump my concern for false and carelessly formed > dichotomies when people stop using them to arrive at asinine > conclusions. You are not a spectacular example, Richard, of listening carefully or of careful thinking, unless you are actually writing about something, many of which posts I have saved in my Hayes file. You as leader/moderator of this list are more guilty of substituting unwarranted and offensive personal attacks and the use of insulting terms like asinine, etc., than discussing reasonably. You thus contribute a competitive, domineering testosteronic tone to the list that is decidedly unbeneficial. And unwelcome. This behavior most assuredly will not get you out of dukkha, so don't preach to me about how to get out of dukkha. Joanna > Richard Hayes > *** > "Above all things, take heed in judging one another, > for in that ye may destroy one another... > and eat out the good of one another."-- George Fox > > > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From parisjm2004 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 10 11:46:25 2005 From: parisjm2004 at yahoo.com (Michael Paris) Date: Mon Oct 10 11:47:01 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Teaching Zen Buddhist philosophy In-Reply-To: <1128962272.4380.47.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20051010174625.25127.qmail@web32606.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Zen At War certainly shook me to the roots. I wholeheartedly second any recommendation for reading that book especially at university. It is interesting, and rather fun, to attempt to make sense of Buddhism and my own roots, but also the roots of Buddhism. The more I learn about Japanese history and culture, the more Japanese Buddhism makes some sense. Even Zen. Michael --- "Richard P. Hayes" wrote: > On Mon, 2005-10-10 at 03:41 -0400, Dan Lusthaus wrote: > > I second Franz's suggestion to include Brian Victoria [snip] > I thought I'd like to deal with material the main historical > context of which is contemporary Western society. The attempts of > Western Buddhists to make sense of both Buddhism and their own > religious and cultural roots (with all their attendant biases) have always > been exciting to me, and I think also to students. __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From curt at cola.iges.org Mon Oct 10 11:37:29 2005 From: curt at cola.iges.org (curt) Date: Mon Oct 10 11:48:15 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Teaching Zen Buddhist philosophy In-Reply-To: <1128962272.4380.47.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1128875107.5654.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> <0c8b01c5cd6d$facac810$a5369c04@Dan> <1128962272.4380.47.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <434AA6D9.1070508@cola.iges.org> What you say about pablum is also true of vomit (which you mentioned earlier). Many species make use of vomit as a means for transporting food in a convenient way. Its rather like the predecessor to fast food - only more nutritious. I was reminded of this just yesterday when I caught a few minutes of a PBS documentary on wolves. But seriously, in both cases (pablum and vomit) there is a clear element of dependency and immaturity. When I took 100 level Philosophy classes we read Plato, Kant, Berkeley, Hume, Locke, Mill - stuff like that - "solid food", if we continue the diet analogy. (By the way - those classes were at a state university known primarily as a party school and the home base of Bobby Knight). I would certainly consider David Loy, whom you did originally mention, as a serious author - but not those others. The other authors originally mentioned write primarily "self-help" books - they don't even qualify as "serious non-fiction". They might conceivably be appropriate for a High School class on Zen - but nothing more. Unlike Loy, those other authors are not in the business of producing works that are intended to be intellectually challenging, to put it politely. Brian Victoria's books would be good to add - but how much emphasis you place on them should be handled judiciously (after all, how much time should be spent on the Inquisition in a survey course on Christianity?) You should definitely consider Miriam Levering's groundbreaking research on the history of women Zen teachers in China as well. - Curt Richard P. Hayes wrote: >Thanks to all of you who have offered suggestions so far, and thanks in >advance to any suggestions that may come in during the next week or so. >I hope that the materials I finally choose really are, as Curt >suggested, pabulum (which, according to my dictionary means rich >physical nourishment and, by extension, excellent food for thought). > > > From s.hodge at padmacholing.freeserve.co.uk Mon Oct 10 12:17:14 2005 From: s.hodge at padmacholing.freeserve.co.uk (Stephen Hodge) Date: Mon Oct 10 12:17:01 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] An experiment References: <001701c5cd4e$cdefb8b0$2930cece@charlie> <36c013aba8ef2dfa2e2417c944b106ce@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <000801c5cdc6$ef1cd4f0$f0be4c51@zen> Dear Jim, > I took the tests. Turns out I have Arsburgers Syndrome. I am being > institutionalized Wednesday. Should be a good opportunity to do some > serious meditating and list-making. Good luck with things -- hope all goes well for you. Pls keep in touch with the list if you can. Best wishes, Stephen Hodge PS: I presume you meant Asperger's Syndrome From s.hodge at padmacholing.freeserve.co.uk Mon Oct 10 12:33:03 2005 From: s.hodge at padmacholing.freeserve.co.uk (Stephen Hodge) Date: Mon Oct 10 12:37:08 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Teaching Zen Buddhist philosophy References: <1128875107.5654.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> <0c8b01c5cd6d$facac810$a5369c04@Dan><1128962272.4380.47.camel@localhost.localdomain> <434AA6D9.1070508@cola.iges.org> Message-ID: <003701c5cdc9$1f102700$f0be4c51@zen> Dear Curt, > What you say about pablum is also true of vomit (which you mentioned > earlier). Many species make use of vomit as a means for transporting food > in a convenient way. And, though few people know this, rabbits use the product from other end of the intestinal tract as first stage of digestion -- the little pellets they produce later are formed after complete digestion has taken place. It would be interesting to see how you could work this into your analogy. Best wishes, Stephen Hodge From jpeavler at mindspring.com Mon Oct 10 12:43:21 2005 From: jpeavler at mindspring.com (Jim Peavler) Date: Mon Oct 10 12:47:06 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] An experiment In-Reply-To: <000801c5cdc6$ef1cd4f0$f0be4c51@zen> References: <001701c5cd4e$cdefb8b0$2930cece@charlie> <36c013aba8ef2dfa2e2417c944b106ce@mindspring.com> <000801c5cdc6$ef1cd4f0$f0be4c51@zen> Message-ID: On Oct 10, 2005, at 12:17 PM, Stephen Hodge wrote: > > PS: I presume you meant Asperger's Syndrome > Yes. It was my wife who suggested it was more likely Arsburgers in my case. From curt at cola.iges.org Mon Oct 10 12:45:21 2005 From: curt at cola.iges.org (curt) Date: Mon Oct 10 12:47:11 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] An experiment (Gender on Buddha-l) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <434AB6C1.2060801@cola.iges.org> I have the type of personality that refuses to take personality tests. A friend who is a retired psychiatrist told me I have "oppositional defiant disorder" - one of the symptoms of which is that when someone tells you you've got it you take it as a compliment (which I did). She insisted that it isn't really a good thing - which I steadfastly refused to believe. She said that was a symptom, too. All personality tests are direct descendants of Medieval (and older) theories of personality types that were based on natal astrology, "physiognomy" and "humors". They work about as well - if that. - Curt Chan Fu wrote: >Taking these two tests is a very interesting experiment for a buddhist >practitioner: > >http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,937913,00.html > >While being a rabid techologist and maniacally science-oriented, >I actually found it difficult to answer many questions on the S >test from my usual perspective of just not thinking about such >things in the way the questions imply. It's great fun. > >cf (high "B") > >_______________________________________________ >buddha-l mailing list >buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com >http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l > > > > From curt at cola.iges.org Mon Oct 10 12:53:48 2005 From: curt at cola.iges.org (curt) Date: Mon Oct 10 12:57:03 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Teaching Zen Buddhist philosophy In-Reply-To: <003701c5cdc9$1f102700$f0be4c51@zen> References: <1128875107.5654.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> <0c8b01c5cd6d$facac810$a5369c04@Dan><1128962272.4380.47.camel@localhost.localdomain> <434AA6D9.1070508@cola.iges.org> <003701c5cdc9$1f102700$f0be4c51@zen> Message-ID: <434AB8BC.2040500@cola.iges.org> Ugh. And anyone whose ever had both a cat and a dog knows similarly disgusting things that I won't detail further. Obviously this all points to "emptiness", or something like it. - Curt Stephen Hodge wrote: > Dear Curt, > >> What you say about pablum is also true of vomit (which you mentioned >> earlier). Many species make use of vomit as a means for transporting >> food in a convenient way. > > > And, though few people know this, rabbits use the product from other > end of the intestinal tract as first stage of digestion -- the little > pellets they produce later are formed after complete digestion has > taken place. It would be interesting to see how you could work this > into your analogy. From mike at lamrim.org.uk Mon Oct 10 16:07:54 2005 From: mike at lamrim.org.uk (Mike Austin) Date: Mon Oct 10 16:17:05 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Dana Message-ID: Hi folks, I make donations to other charities when there are major disasters, but it would be better to make regular payments. I have been investigating various charity accounts and consider that too much goes on advertising. This is a pet peeve of mine. A sizeable donation to a major charity can result in loads of junk mail - even phone calls. What are your preferred charities - and why? -- Metta Mike Austin From franzmetcalf at earthlink.net Mon Oct 10 16:40:32 2005 From: franzmetcalf at earthlink.net (Franz Metcalf) Date: Mon Oct 10 16:48:21 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] An experiment (Gender on Buddha-l) In-Reply-To: <000301c5cdb9$9d8944f0$2930cece@charlie> References: <000301c5cdb9$9d8944f0$2930cece@charlie> Message-ID: <7e6c217295753a412a4f131eaad3b611@earthlink.net> Gang, Let me come out of the closet and confess I am one of those who wrote Joanna privately with my meager insight and support. She urged me to shared a couple things publicly, and so I shall. I want to state right up front that I do this with trepidation, unsure of whether this is right speech--not least because this post is so damn long: please skip to the last paragraph if you're in a hurry but don't wish to simply delete. At first, Joanna's broad brush in her accusations angered me, as I felt that tar properly destined for others was blackening me as well. But my anger passed as I came to realize no one but me gave a damn, and if I knew I was innocent I didn't have to feel angry. I submit this is a pretty good test: those who can get past their anger at feeling unjustly accused are more likely innocent. Those who cannot are more likely guilty. Ideally, at least according to my brand of Buddhism, we feel our feelings and then we let them rest. We move on. It's a bit like discussing war, or anything else. Speak your piece and move on. If we cannot let go of anger, we trap ourselves in an unhealthy mind state. If we cannot let go of a debate, we trap ourselves in an unhealthy relationship (the debate itself). This happens all the time, of course, but it's something we ought to be particularly aware of on buddha-l. We should not have to be reminded. (Note that I speak collectively, as Joanna did. Not everyone here is guilty of these hideous crimes against humanity. Do please let yourself off the hook if and when your anger subsides.) (Note also that we are *all* guilty to some extent. But to throw up our hands and call it a wash is lazy, dishonest, and self-serving. It's the failing Brian Victoria and others lament in contemporary Buddhism, especially Zen.) There is a tendency for linear, narrow, touchy, and competitive thinking to dominate buddha-l. This kind of thinking is, in our culture (all cultures?) predominantly done by males. So I'm not surprised that Joanna's posts are sometimes ignored. But I don't think this is because she is female; I think it is because she's not playing the buddha-l game. I sympathize because I often tire of the game, myself. It's like the old line, "Sure it's funny--until someone gets hurt." You will no doubt not have noticed--just as I had not noticed in Joanna's case; it's not our job, after all--, but my posts often end up being dead ends as well. I add my posts to ongoing threads and I seem to kill them. But this certainly isn't because I am a man; rather it is a perhaps "feminine" quality to my posts. If they don't piss people off enough, they don't engender (so to speak) responses. Perhaps that's good: they provoke noble silence. That's the best outcome for our games here (the others seem to be silent anger and sulking, boredom, and termination by the moderator). I believe this is due to inherent qualities of internet communication. This medium is just so well suited for feisty and intellectual and even combative discourse we continually fail to foster other kinds. In this regard, Buddha-l is a failure, not simply for the quality of the discourse, but because that discourse flouts right speech. One difference I have, though, with The Old Guy (not Richard, the Buddha): I like humor. Humor does not violate my definition of right speech at all. I'm happy Richard is on my side on this one. What to do about all this? I don't know for sure. I would not have singled out this issue of women being silenced, but then I am not a woman and so don't feel the sting of this issue except indirectly. We *should* do better in promoting the voices of women on this Buddhist list, and for Buddhist reasons, but we should do better in a *lot* of areas, not just this one. Sure, buddha-l needs more active female members, but, just as importantly, those members need to fight the uphill battle (along with empathetic and sympathetic male members) of promoting balanced, wise, and compassionate communication here. Hey, imagine that: promoting the dharma at home with a keyboard--can't beat that for lazy bodhisattva practice. Bowing, Franz From smith at wheelwrightassoc.com Mon Oct 10 13:55:50 2005 From: smith at wheelwrightassoc.com (Timothy Smith) Date: Mon Oct 10 17:13:41 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] An experiment (Gender on Buddha-l) In-Reply-To: <434AB6C1.2060801@cola.iges.org> References: <434AB6C1.2060801@cola.iges.org> Message-ID: Hahahhah...funny. Curt, but I can tell you I have used the 'theory' very effectively over 25 years of practice in organizational settings. Usually your type is pretty easy to get to come around. All I need do is to suggest that you can have it your way and you'll go along, dissenting all the way, and claiming that its all bullshit but learning something about yourself and others in the process. Personality tests may not be 'scientific' in the most rigorous sense of the word, but what area of science didn't begin with efforts similar to what you describe. The psyche has proven a bit less tractable by modern observation and measurement techniques, yet that doesn't seem to have prevented a great deal of 'depth' work from providing valuable insight about how (buddhist content follows) one might live a less dukkha-centered life. Timothy Smith Wheelwright Associates www.wheelwrightassoc.com On Oct 10, 2005, at 11:45 AM, curt wrote: > I have the type of personality that refuses to take personality tests. > A friend who is a retired psychiatrist told me I have "oppositional > defiant disorder" - one of the symptoms of which is that when someone > tells you you've got it you take it as a compliment (which I did). She > insisted that it isn't really a good thing - which I steadfastly > refused to believe. She said that was a symptom, too. > > All personality tests are direct descendants of Medieval (and older) > theories of personality types that were based on natal astrology, > "physiognomy" and "humors". They work about as well - if that. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 1595 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20051010/937fe714/attachment.bin From rhayes at unm.edu Mon Oct 10 19:33:53 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Mon Oct 10 19:37:09 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] An experiment In-Reply-To: References: <001701c5cd4e$cdefb8b0$2930cece@charlie> <36c013aba8ef2dfa2e2417c944b106ce@mindspring.com> <000801c5cdc6$ef1cd4f0$f0be4c51@zen> Message-ID: <1128994433.6547.15.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Mon, 2005-10-10 at 12:43 -0600, Jim Peavler wrote: > > PS: I presume you meant Asperger's Syndrome > > > > Yes. It was my wife who suggested it was more likely Arsburgers in my > case. Hell's bells, I thought you meant to say aspburgers, which is one of my favorite foods, second only to cobraburgers. From rhayes at unm.edu Mon Oct 10 19:29:35 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Mon Oct 10 19:38:20 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Teaching Zen Buddhist philosophy In-Reply-To: <434AA6D9.1070508@cola.iges.org> References: <1128875107.5654.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> <0c8b01c5cd6d$facac810$a5369c04@Dan> <1128962272.4380.47.camel@localhost.localdomain> <434AA6D9.1070508@cola.iges.org> Message-ID: <1128994175.6547.12.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Mon, 2005-10-10 at 13:37 -0400, curt wrote: > What you say about pablum is also true of vomit (which you mentioned > earlier). I said nothing at all about Pablum (which is a trademark and should be written in upper case). I was writing about pabulum, which is an entirely different matter. > I would certainly consider David Loy, whom you did originally mention, > as a serious author - but not those others. When you teach Zen Buddhist philosophy, I suggest you choose other books then. The books I have been considering are all by serious practitioners. I have met most of them personally and have come to respect them highly for their intelligence and integrity. I have come to respect them as serious people who have serious things to say to other serious people. I apologize for not finding people who meet your high literary standards. > The other authors originally mentioned write primarily "self-help" books - > they don't even qualify as "serious non-fiction". If the Buddha had known how to write, I suspect he would have written self-help books. > Unlike Loy, those other authors are not in the business of producing works that > are intended to be intellectually challenging, to put it politely. The older I get, the less it matters to me whether someone is intellectually challenging. In all my years of teaching, my goal has never been to help students develop muscular intellects. I am more interested in presenting material to students that they can use to figure out what it means to be a human being in a badly damaged world. Perhaps I should have been a high school teacher, but somehow things didn't work out that way. > You should definitely consider Miriam Levering's groundbreaking research > on the history of women Zen teachers in China as well. Perhaps in some future year I will include her work. In the course I am planning for next semester, I would prefer to stay with Western practitioners who are grappling with what is involved in incorporating an ancient Asian religion in a modern Western setting. -- Richard Hayes From chanfu at gmail.com Mon Oct 10 19:45:09 2005 From: chanfu at gmail.com (Chan Fu) Date: Mon Oct 10 19:47:09 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] An experiment In-Reply-To: <1128994433.6547.15.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <001701c5cd4e$cdefb8b0$2930cece@charlie> <36c013aba8ef2dfa2e2417c944b106ce@mindspring.com> <000801c5cdc6$ef1cd4f0$f0be4c51@zen> <1128994433.6547.15.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: On 10/10/05, Richard P. Hayes wrote: > On Mon, 2005-10-10 at 12:43 -0600, Jim Peavler wrote: > > > > PS: I presume you meant Asperger's Syndrome > > > > > > > Yes. It was my wife who suggested it was more likely Arsburgers in my > > case. > > Hell's bells, I thought you meant to say aspburgers, which is one of my > favorite foods, second only to cobraburgers. actually, I thought he mispelled "Arseburgers", no deference to cleo and whathisname, tho... From miriamdelight at comcast.net Mon Oct 10 19:59:19 2005 From: miriamdelight at comcast.net (miriamdelight@comcast.net) Date: Mon Oct 10 20:07:09 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] take off list serve Message-ID: <101120050159.24134.434B1C7700007CEF00005E4622007613949B080907040A0B030E079D0703@comcast.net> Please take me off the list serve for this email address. Thanks. Miriam L. Levering From jpeavler at mindspring.com Mon Oct 10 20:01:56 2005 From: jpeavler at mindspring.com (Jim Peavler) Date: Mon Oct 10 20:07:15 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] An experiment In-Reply-To: References: <001701c5cd4e$cdefb8b0$2930cece@charlie> <36c013aba8ef2dfa2e2417c944b106ce@mindspring.com> <000801c5cdc6$ef1cd4f0$f0be4c51@zen> <1128994433.6547.15.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: On Oct 10, 2005, at 7:45 PM, Chan Fu wrote: > On 10/10/05, Richard P. Hayes wrote: >>> > > actually, I thought he mispelled "Arseburgers", > no deference to cleo and whathisname, tho... > You are absolutely correct. From rhayes at unm.edu Mon Oct 10 20:03:35 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Mon Oct 10 20:07:18 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Dana In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1128996216.6547.43.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Mon, 2005-10-10 at 23:07 +0100, Mike Austin wrote: > What are your preferred charities - and why? My preference is charities that work with the environment and with endangered species. For example: Nature Conservancy is an outfit that buys land adjacent to national parks and forests so that natural habitation can be kept from being mined or "developed" into housing and so forth. (www.nature.org) Sierra Club (www.sierraclub.org) works with environmental issues on many levels and does a lot to promote educational projects and lobbying efforts. Ducks Unlimited (www.ducks.org) has various operations that support the restoration of wetlands for waterfowl. Greenpeace is much too radical for my tastes these days and it occasionally sponsors illegal activities, so I no longer support them, although I used to. During the past year, the president of the university where I work has encouraged all faculty,staff and students to respond to the crises occasioned by he tsunami, the hurricanes in the USA, the mudslides in Guatemala and Mexico and the earthquakes in Pakistan by giving money to the Red Cross and by giving blood to United Blood Services. This request seems quite reasonable to me. I'm a big fellow with lots of blood, so I'll probably make giving blood a regular routine for a while. In the past the bulk of my daana was given to Buddhist organizations, but nowadays we prefer the Vedanta Society and the Unitarian- Universalist Association, because both of them seem to us (my wife and I) to be promoting our values better than anyone else is doing these days. And how about you, Mike? What gets you to dig into your pockets? From castanford at gmail.com Mon Oct 10 20:39:22 2005 From: castanford at gmail.com (Chris) Date: Mon Oct 10 20:48:20 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] take off list serve In-Reply-To: <101120050159.24134.434B1C7700007CEF00005E4622007613949B080907040A0B030E079D0703@comcast.net> References: <101120050159.24134.434B1C7700007CEF00005E4622007613949B080907040A0B030E079D0703@comcast.net> Message-ID: <290923980510101939qe39de72y8380b49b60d78cd8@mail.gmail.com> Miriam, just as you subscribed on your own, you can 'unsubscribe' entirely on your own. Point your browser to http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/options/buddha-l. Scroll to the bottom of the page and fill in the "Unsubscribe" form. Voila! You're outa' here. Also, monthly, you should be receiving a username and password reminder. These notices may also be used to unsubscribe. -Chris Stanford On 10/11/05, miriamdelight@comcast.net wrote: > > Please take me off the list serve for this email address. Thanks. > Miriam L. Levering > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20051011/ed0b3d4b/attachment.htm From rhayes at unm.edu Mon Oct 10 21:04:52 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Mon Oct 10 21:07:15 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: An experiment (Gender on Buddha-l) In-Reply-To: <7e6c217295753a412a4f131eaad3b611@earthlink.net> References: <000301c5cdb9$9d8944f0$2930cece@charlie> <7e6c217295753a412a4f131eaad3b611@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <1128999892.6547.88.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Mon, 2005-10-10 at 15:40 -0700, Franz Metcalf wrote: > There is a tendency for linear, narrow, touchy, and competitive > thinking to dominate buddha-l. My observation is that there is very little evidence of thinking of any kind on buddha-l. It seems to me a playground for tired minds and for people who could benefit from the advice (politely stated, of course) to get a life. I don't know about most males on this list, but my main reason for writing to buddha-l is to avoid helping my wife with housework. Whenever she shows signs of cooking, washing some dishes or scrubbing some floors, I tell her I have to go do some work. Of course I hate doing my own work as much as I hate doing housework, so I write messages to buddha-l and hope she will think I'm hard at work writing a book or something. > This kind of thinking is, in our culture (all cultures?) predominantly done by males. Yes, males have always been excellent at avoiding doing any real work. That's because we need to save ourselves for important things like going bowling and fishing. > It's like the old line, "Sure it's funny--until someone gets hurt." Years ago I heard a fascinating interview with a Mohawk warrior, who told the interviewer that an important part of Mohawk culture is to tease people mercilessly. The idea is that people who cannot take being teased cannot be trusted in tough situations. When I heard that interview, I realized that just about my entire childhood and early adulthood had operated on the same principle. My guess is that's because America is also a warrior society and used to be a frontier society that developed teasing as a means of making sure that people did not crack under discomforts and pleasures. Interesting enough, Dreyfus wrote about teasing and hazing as an important part of Tibetan Buddhist practice. Again, the idea seems to be that if someone really wants to be a bodhisattva, they have to learn to have equanimity when the going gets tough and personal and dirty. There is a lot of this in Zen training, too. When a person's conditioning is an atmosphere of teasing, as mine was, then teasing becomes the normal way to do everything. It becomes the normal way of showing respect and even affection. The more respect I have for someone, and the more I think of them as an equal, the more likely I am to show my respect in the form of mock abuse. (Whenever I am nice to someone, you can bet that either I don't respect them very much, or recognize that they are junior to me, or am trying to soften them up so they'll give me some money.) > If they don't piss people off enough, they don't engender (so to speak) responses. I can't speak for others, but I never feel pissed off at anyone on buddha-l. (Look, if Donalad Rumsfeld joins buddha-l, this could change.) I can't even remember the last time I was pissed off at anyone over something they wrote in an e-mail. Similarly, I can't think of any time when an e-mail has hurt my feelings in any way. So the saying "it's funny until someone gets hurt" does not speak to my condition. It's almost impossible for me to imagine anyone actually feeling angry or hurt over something written on buddha-l. > In this regard, Buddha-l is a failure, not simply for the quality of the > discourse, but because that discourse flouts right speech. To my way of thinking buddha-l would be a failure if everybody just exhibited right speech. God almighty, how bland and insipid that would be. I'd sign off immediately if people started pussyfooting around and licking each other's ears like a brood of lost kittens. > What to do about all this? I don't know for sure. There's no need to do anything. If people don't like buddha-l, there are plenty of other discussion forums around. Those of us who like the roughness and rudeness of folks like Nagarjuna, Dharmakirti, Candrakirti Linji and Huangbo will stay here and heap verbal abuse on one another and thank Jesus we're not a bunch of emotionally challenged wimps. > We *should* do better in promoting the voices of women on this Buddhist > list Why? Why not just let things be as they are, and if people like it, they will stay, and if the don't like it, they will delete or leave. > Hey, imagine that: promoting the dharma at home with a keyboard--can't beat > that for lazy bodhisattva practice. A keyboard is way too far from real human beings. You can't promote dharma when you're as far from reality as you are when you're playing with your goddamn computer. No, the place to promote dharma is when you're playing with your kids, walking your dog, working with your colleagues and showing kindness to some poor bastard who has worked up the nerve to ask you for some money on the street. Buddha-l is for playing around, and pretending to be wise, and avoiding work, and stuff like that. > Bowing, Bowling? Great idea! Meet you down at the alley! -- Richard Hayes *** "When a stupid man does something is is ashamed of, he always says it is his duty." -- George Bernard Shaw From dlusthau at mailer.fsu.edu Mon Oct 10 21:40:45 2005 From: dlusthau at mailer.fsu.edu (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Mon Oct 10 21:48:22 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo References: <1127942930.6308.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> <433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net><617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org> <4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net><1359619694.20051004213630@kungzhi.org> <43441B56.7080303@nerim.net><1479321719.20051006043947@kungzhi.org><003c01c5ca43$01172200$c8369c04@Dan><4344DA9B.8040908@xs4all.nl> <00bb01c5ca59$2aa93700$c8369c04@Dan> <1128621156.4783.55.camel@localhost.localdomain><008901c5cabf$30ff5010$bc369c04@Dan> <43461940.1060905@nerim.net><022701c5cb19$ff594ab0$bc369c04@Dan> <43465FC4.7080207@nerim.net><019701c5cbf4$23ed7330$e51b9c04@Dan> <4347BFB4.9040105@nerim.net><022301c5cc15$ed402270$e51b9c04@Dan> <434A178C.9050400@nerim.net><0cdb01c5cd76$719b8620$a5369c04@Dan> <434A7A24.1020104@nerim.net> Message-ID: <012f01c5ce15$939cd090$5c1b9c04@Dan> > that the village in which they live, Vauvert in the South of France, > used to be called Posqui?res and that there was an important Talmudic > school (led by Abraham ben David of Posquieres known as Rabad) Joy, Rabad was indeed one of the intellectual luminaries of that period -- a logician, philosopher, scientist, halachist, sharp critical thinker, and best remembered for applying those disciplines to the methodology of studying Talmud. His influence is still strong today. Along with Rashi, he is one of those foundational figures from Provence, which, as you surely know, was also the area in which some of the most important Bible and Talmud commentaries were written, as well as where what is usually dubbed Kabbalah proper (as opposed to the Jewish mysticism that preceded it) emerged (Rabad played a role in that as well). He is known as an incisive anti-dogmatist. For those who have never heard of Rabad, and don't resent posted links, see http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/Ben_David.html and http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=420&letter=A >This is only a small exemple > of something which took place in many places of Christian Europe. Indeed. Provence was a major Jewish intellectual center that gained in importance as the fortune of the Spanish Jews (another major center) declined -- the ascension of Christianity led to various forms of persecution, the Inquisition, culminating in the forced conversions and expulsions from Spain and then Portugal. For instance, from 1066 to 1290, Jews experienced increasing persecution in England (e.g., Oxford had a large Jewish community, esp. in the western part [Fish St/St Aldates] -- Magdalen College sits over part of the old Jewish cemetery, etc.), and were in 1290 expelled from Britain entirely, with no Jew allowed to set foot on British soil until the 17th century, when Menasseh ben Israel (an acquaintance of Spinoza) convinced the monarch that the Messiah couldn't come [again] until Jews from the four corners of the world were ingathered to Israel -- and since England was a corner, Jews had to be there to be gathered from -- a fancy bit of effective upaya. No Jews were permitted in English universities until the University of London broke that ban late in the 19th century. It has struck me over the years that Buddhism seems particularly ill-equipped to handle sustained persecution. Not only was it persecuted out of existence in its homeland and Central Asia by the advent of Islam there, but even the history of Buddhism in East Asia (China, Korea, and Japan) is probably more definable by political and persecutional vicissitudes than by doctrinal, practice, or institutional considerations in isolation from that -- though in Japan the picture gets more complicated since the persecutions (until the Tokugawa) were often perpetrated by one Buddhist group upon another. Has anyone give this much thought? Dan Lusthaus From marshallarts at bigpond.com Mon Oct 10 22:00:00 2005 From: marshallarts at bigpond.com (Kate) Date: Mon Oct 10 22:07:09 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Dana References: Message-ID: <002b01c5ce18$410041c0$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> Hi Mike, The only charity I support on a regular basis is the Sporting Wheelies and Disabled Association. During my years in Mozambique I saw so many people with missing or withered limbs, it was heartbreaking. Some were victims of malnutrition or birth defects, but most were victims of land mines. There was one disabled group that had the greatest influence on my choosing to support this particular charity. I used to go to the university gym for martial arts practice. We always had to share floor space with other groups - indoor cricketers, table tennis players, rollerskaters whizzing past to the strains of the Blue Danube. On Tuesday nights it was the disabled basketball team's turn. The team, made up of both men and women, couldn't afford their own wheel chairs and used those provided by the university which were kept in a storeroom at the far end of the gym. Somehow the team would meet as a group outside the gym and then have to wriggle or crawl their way down the full length of the gym to get their wheelchairs. It was like a caravan of the macabre - bizarre, shocking and an instant lesson in compassion. Once in their wheel chairs they were completely different. They could handle those things like anything, spin them on a dime. It was broad smiles and flashing eyes all round. They were mobile, having fun and seemed to have an increased sense of selfworth and dignity. I couldn't do much to help the disabled in Africa, not even the few at the gym. So a number of years ago when I was back home and approached to make regular donations for the Sporting Wheelies (I'm not Buddhist so I didn't think in terms of Dana) I was very happy to do so. I don't know if this helps with your choice of charities, Mike. All the best Kate From c_castell at yahoo.com Mon Oct 10 23:59:58 2005 From: c_castell at yahoo.com (Catalina Castell-du Payrat) Date: Tue Oct 11 00:07:12 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Dana In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051011055958.72353.qmail@web60825.mail.yahoo.com> Doctor without borders - Medecins sans frontieres, an I agree, is better to contribute in a regular basis because like this they just go where they are needed without waiting. Let me know if you would like more information about them. Catalina Catalina Castell - du Payrat c_castell@yahoo.com --------------------------------- Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20051010/f1eddb8a/attachment.htm From mike at lamrim.org.uk Tue Oct 11 00:32:36 2005 From: mike at lamrim.org.uk (Mike Austin) Date: Tue Oct 11 00:37:11 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Dana In-Reply-To: <1128996216.6547.43.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1128996216.6547.43.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: In message <1128996216.6547.43.camel@localhost.localdomain>, Richard P. Hayes writes > >And how about you, Mike? What gets you to dig into your pockets? > I make regular donations to Buddhist charities with which I am involved and last year I donated substantially to a monastery. But I have began to question this rather lopsided approach. I donated to major disasters last year, but this was much less than the monastery. What concerns me the most is two things: the provision of clean water and the welfare of children. I also favour donating to help others provide voluntary help. -- Metta Mike Austin From mike at lamrim.org.uk Tue Oct 11 00:44:50 2005 From: mike at lamrim.org.uk (Mike Austin) Date: Tue Oct 11 00:47:11 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Dana In-Reply-To: <002b01c5ce18$410041c0$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> References: <002b01c5ce18$410041c0$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> Message-ID: In message <002b01c5ce18$410041c0$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au>, Kate writes >The only charity I support on a regular basis is the Sporting Wheelies and >Disabled Association. .. >I don't know if this helps with your choice of charities, Mike. It is a worthy charity but not one that I had considered. Land mines are perhaps one of the most disgusting weapons that mankind has created. -- Metta Mike Austin From mike at lamrim.org.uk Tue Oct 11 00:47:44 2005 From: mike at lamrim.org.uk (Mike Austin) Date: Tue Oct 11 00:57:11 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Dana In-Reply-To: <20051011055958.72353.qmail@web60825.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20051011055958.72353.qmail@web60825.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <9bIJHZDQA2SDFwAV@clara.net> In message <20051011055958.72353.qmail@web60825.mail.yahoo.com>, Catalina Castell-du Payrat writes >Doctor without borders - Medecins sans frontieres, an I agree, is >better to contribute in a regular basis?because like this they just go >where they are needed without waiting. Let me know if you would like >more information about them. Yes, medical help also appeals to me. The provision of clean water, one of my preferred causes, would be fundamental to effective medical aid. -- Metta Mike Austin From joy.vriens at nerim.net Tue Oct 11 00:59:16 2005 From: joy.vriens at nerim.net (Joy Vriens) Date: Tue Oct 11 01:07:13 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Dana In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <434B62C4.1050801@nerim.net> Hi Mike, > What are your preferred charities - and why? M?decins sans fronti?res and Aide & Action on a regular base. The Red Cross, irregularly but unfortunately at a more and more regular basis with the current rate of disasters. Aide & Action (There must be an equivalent in the English speaking world, but I don't know the name) provides children all over the world with free non-confessional schooling, which I think is extremely important. You can choose for a personal contact with the children or for general sponsorhip. I started off with the personal contact formula, but it creates too much of an obligation for the child. When the child dropped out of the teaching programme because its parents needed him to work on the fields, I became a general benefactor. Joy From joy.vriens at nerim.net Tue Oct 11 01:10:11 2005 From: joy.vriens at nerim.net (Joy Vriens) Date: Tue Oct 11 01:17:13 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: An experiment (Gender on Buddha-l) In-Reply-To: <1128999892.6547.88.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <000301c5cdb9$9d8944f0$2930cece@charlie> <7e6c217295753a412a4f131eaad3b611@earthlink.net> <1128999892.6547.88.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <434B6553.2030304@nerim.net> Richard P. Hayes wrote: > A keyboard is way too far from real human beings. You can't promote > dharma when you're as far from reality as you are when you're playing > with your goddamn computer. No, the place to promote dharma is when > you're playing with your kids, walking your dog, working with your > colleagues and showing kindness to some poor bastard who has worked up > the nerve to ask you for some money on the street. Buddha-l is for > playing around, and pretending to be wise, and avoiding work, and stuff > like that. One of the best Dharma list FAQs I have ever read. Joy From marshallarts at bigpond.com Tue Oct 11 01:32:01 2005 From: marshallarts at bigpond.com (Kate) Date: Tue Oct 11 01:37:31 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Dana References: <002b01c5ce18$410041c0$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> Message-ID: <000d01c5ce35$df272400$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> > It is a worthy charity but not one that I had considered. Land mines are > perhaps one of the most disgusting weapons that mankind has created.< Hi Mike, I didn't exactly have in mind that you would want to consider this charity. With my experiences and background, this is the charity that attracted me. However everyone has something different that they feel passionate about. Perhaps if you could find what that something is for you, your decision will make itself. Regards Kate From joy.vriens at nerim.net Tue Oct 11 01:49:09 2005 From: joy.vriens at nerim.net (Joy Vriens) Date: Tue Oct 11 01:58:22 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: <012f01c5ce15$939cd090$5c1b9c04@Dan> References: <1127942930.6308.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> <433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net><617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org> <4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net><1359619694.20051004213630@kungzhi.org> <43441B56.7080303@nerim.net><1479321719.20051006043947@kungzhi.org><003c01c5ca43$01172200$c8369c04@Dan><4344DA9B.8040908@xs4all.nl> <00bb01c5ca59$2aa93700$c8369c04@Dan> <1128621156.4783.55.camel@localhost.localdomain><008901c5cabf$30ff5010$bc369c04@Dan> <43461940.1060905@nerim.net><022701c5cb19$ff594ab0$bc369c04@Dan> <43465FC4.7080207@nerim.net><019701c5cbf4$23ed7330$e51b9c04@Dan> <4347BFB4.9040105@nerim.net><022301c5cc15$ed402270$e51b9c04@Dan> <434A178C.9050400@nerim.net><0cdb01c5cd76$719b8620$a5369c04@Dan> <434A7A24.1020104@nerim.net> <012f01c5ce15$939cd090$5c1b9c04@Dan> Message-ID: <434B6E75.7070808@nerim.net> Dear Dan, > For those who have never heard of Rabad, and don't resent posted links, see > http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=420&letter=A Thanks, I didn't know the second link. Can you imagine a man of these qualities, before humanism even came in vogue, is totally unknown in the town where he lived? > It has struck me over the years that Buddhism seems particularly > ill-equipped to handle sustained persecution. Not only was it persecuted out > of existence in its homeland and Central Asia by the advent of Islam there, I am totally ignorant of the reasons why Buddhism left its homeland and I don't doubt it that the advent of Islam didn't help, but I understood that Buddhism has mainly itself to blame for the disappearence from its homeland. Somehow its message became too subtle or complicated to appeal to the masses and it was a religion based on renunciation right from the start anyway. Any advertiser can tell you that is not the way to reach the masses, unless the reality one lives in is so bad it's better to renunciate. > but even the history of Buddhism in East Asia (China, Korea, and Japan) is > probably more definable by political and persecutional vicissitudes than by > doctrinal, practice, or institutional considerations in isolation from > that -- though in Japan the picture gets more complicated since the > persecutions (until the Tokugawa) were often perpetrated by one Buddhist > group upon another. > Has anyone give this much thought? Religions that are persecuted are necessarily religions that don't have much political power or support. Religions that flirt with power or state religions obviously have a bigger chance to survive. Exoteric religions or religions with external display have a bigger chance to succeed than esoteric ones. This tendancy also exists within a religion itself. Mysticism has always been persecuted or condemned. Mysticism goes for the direct religious experience without intermediary. The fact it is without intermediary means it can't be controlled. Ever since the Lhasa debate, the more mystical approaches have been under fire in Tibet, or needed to show themselves to be embedded in more external practices. You can be a mystic privately as long as you join in in the external display of religion. Joy From jehms at xs4all.nl Tue Oct 11 02:05:14 2005 From: jehms at xs4all.nl (Erik Hoogcarspel) Date: Tue Oct 11 02:07:17 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Dana In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <434B723A.9030500@xs4all.nl> Mike Austin schreef: > Hi folks, > > I make donations to other charities when there are major disasters, > but it would be better to make regular payments. I have been > investigating various charity accounts and consider that too much goes > on advertising. This is a pet peeve of mine. A sizeable donation to a > major charity can result in loads of junk mail - even phone calls. > > What are your preferred charities - and why? > Calcutta Rescue Fund, because I did some volunteerwork in Calcutta once. Greenpeace to keep the pressure going. Amnesty because I think we cannot do without them. International Campaign for Tibet, this has become doubtful lately, because in every mail they send they ask for money again. The need to spend money on publicity, but I'm not sure about how really happens with the money and they're very close to the Tibetan clergy, which I don't want to sponsor. Last year they asked every donator to turn the donation into an automatic payment. They even phoned me personally to talk me into it. I refused because I wanted to decide everytime again to whom I wanted to give and how much. We gave money to the Tsunami victims last year before teh campaign started and we will probably donate for the victims of the earthquake. Erik www.xs4all.nl/~jehms From c_castell at yahoo.com Tue Oct 11 02:06:21 2005 From: c_castell at yahoo.com (Catalina Castell-du Payrat) Date: Tue Oct 11 02:07:21 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Dana In-Reply-To: <9bIJHZDQA2SDFwAV@clara.net> Message-ID: <20051011080621.52966.qmail@web60813.mail.yahoo.com> Mike, medecins sans frontieres contribute in different ways, not only medical, like organizationat, recrutment of locals in refugee camps for example to help the population in other ways as education, sewing, distribution, etc They contribute with water "stations" as well in natural disaster situations. Catalina Catalina Castell - du Payrat c_castell@yahoo.com --------------------------------- Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20051011/59d950a0/attachment.htm From mike at lamrim.org.uk Tue Oct 11 07:03:40 2005 From: mike at lamrim.org.uk (Mike Austin) Date: Tue Oct 11 07:08:29 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Right Speech In-Reply-To: <1128999892.6547.88.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <000301c5cdb9$9d8944f0$2930cece@charlie> <7e6c217295753a412a4f131eaad3b611@earthlink.net> <1128999892.6547.88.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <3XnL0yFsg7SDFwQC@clara.net> In message <1128999892.6547.88.camel@localhost.localdomain>, Richard P. Hayes writes >Interesting enough, Dreyfus wrote about >teasing and hazing as an important part of Tibetan Buddhist practice. >Again, the idea seems to be that if someone really wants to be a >bodhisattva, they have to learn to have equanimity when the going gets >tough and personal and dirty. .. >When a person's conditioning is an atmosphere of teasing, as mine was, >then teasing becomes the normal way to do everything. It becomes the >normal way of showing respect and even affection. The more respect I >have for someone, and the more I think of them as an equal, the more >likely I am to show my respect in the form of mock abuse. I thought this would make an interesting thread. Like you, I enjoy being cheeky, teasing and being a little rude at times. It is a sign that I am getting on well with someone. And I welcome the same behaviour back. One of my favourite work situations was with a bunch of guys that always tried winding each other up - in a harmless way. The idea was to get one another to bite: a sort of gotcha. In the right sort of company, this is a stress reliever (quite useful as I work on aircraft wings). Sparring about like this, making jokes and so on, is an effective device against stress. There seem to be some sort of vibes generated that make life that much easier. These days, I feel good humour is one of our best remedies for all sorts of anxieties. The problem is knowing who welcomes such behaviour. There are those who dislike such joviality and levity. Perhaps they think it is uncaring. I look for opportunities to lift these people from their heavy hearts. The problem I find, from my own side, is that I feel an imperative to act in this way and I can lose sensitivity. In your playful way on this forum, it seems that you sometimes get accused of this. I was wondering where all this fits in with Right Speech. In the Lam Rim there are some quite strong admonitions about calling people names. And in the Bodhisattva vows, it says one should not be 'silly'. I have quite a liberal interpretation of the advice - so liberal as to totally ignore it at times. If the motivation is to help, I just hope the consequences will not be so dire as I have read in some texts. -- Metta Mike Austin From curt at cola.iges.org Tue Oct 11 07:59:07 2005 From: curt at cola.iges.org (curt) Date: Tue Oct 11 08:07:22 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Teaching Zen Buddhist philosophy In-Reply-To: <1128994175.6547.12.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1128875107.5654.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> <0c8b01c5cd6d$facac810$a5369c04@Dan> <1128962272.4380.47.camel@localhost.localdomain> <434AA6D9.1070508@cola.iges.org> <1128994175.6547.12.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <434BC52B.5090309@cola.iges.org> Richard P. Hayes wrote: >When you teach Zen Buddhist philosophy, I suggest you choose other books >then. > If I was teaching classes on Zen Buddhist Philosophy then I would view you as a rival, and I certainly wouldn't share my great ideas with one of my competitors! Fortunately for you my Academic teaching career was limited to a couple of semesters of lecturing on Chemistry 101. >The books I have been considering are all by serious >practitioners. I have met most of them personally and have come to >respect them highly for their intelligence and integrity. I have come to >respect them as serious people who have serious things to say to other >serious people. I apologize for not finding people who meet your high >literary standards. > > I'm not sure how high my standards are - but amazon.com probably has more books than there are neurons in my brain - so some kind of selection criteria are necessary. I find that being an opinionated snob is an essential survival skill in a world awash in information - most of which is baloney. >>The other authors originally mentioned write primarily "self-help" books - >>they don't even qualify as "serious non-fiction". >> >> > >If the Buddha had known how to write, I suspect he would have written >self-help books. > > If the Buddha were around today I think he would want to clearly distinguish his teaching from the "self-help industry", which caters to economically comfortable self-involved middle-class types - people who are like Woody Allen but without the talent or the sense of humor. >>Unlike Loy, those other authors are not in the business of producing works that >>are intended to be intellectually challenging, to put it politely. >> >> > >The older I get, the less it matters to me whether someone is >intellectually challenging. In all my years of teaching, my goal has >never been to help students develop muscular intellects. I am more >interested in presenting material to students that they can use to >figure out what it means to be a human being in a badly damaged world. > > I seriously doubt that. Teaching is not a matter of "presenting material" which is then passively absorbed. A teacher - not matter what the subject - can, at best, point in the general direction of knowledge. It is up to the student to go there him or herself. And some knowledge is more difficult to come by than others - and often the best stuff is up a steep incline over difficult terrain. So sometimes you have to help your students gradually build up their stamina and so forth. God, I do have a weakness for over-extending metaphors. >Perhaps I should have been a high school teacher, but somehow things >didn't work out that way. > > Good high school teachers are among the greatest of all Bodhisattvas. - Curt From parisjm2004 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 11 08:09:59 2005 From: parisjm2004 at yahoo.com (Michael Paris) Date: Tue Oct 11 08:17:17 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Dana In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051011141000.47450.qmail@web32601.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Humane Societies and animal rescue, and selected environmental groups. That's where my charitable interests are. I do donate to the Red Cross in times of emergencies (e.g., Katrina). Michael --- Mike Austin wrote: > What are your preferred charities - and why? __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From bcarral at kungzhi.org Tue Oct 11 08:09:43 2005 From: bcarral at kungzhi.org (Benito Carral) Date: Tue Oct 11 08:18:29 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: <434A9578.5040205@nerim.net> References: <1127942930.6308.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> <433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net><617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org> <4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net><1359619694.20051004213630@kungzhi.org> <43441B56.7080303@nerim.net> <1479321719.20051006043947@kungzhi.org><003c01c5ca43$01172200$c8369c04@Dan> <4344DBFE.8030202@nerim.net> <00c701c5ca62$e5c7f5e0$c8369c04@Dan> <4345220A.5040309@nerim.net> <1667485633.20051007043716@kungzhi.org> <43462606.40507@nerim.net> <1591830279.20051010043322@kungzhi.org> <434A29F1.7080700@nerim.net> <18010600083.20051010172344@kungzhi.org> <434A9578.5040205@nerim.net> Message-ID: <91000758.20051011160943@kungzhi.org> On Monday, October 10, 2005, Joy Vriens wrote: > [...] my case for a democratic sangha looks pretty > hopeless I don't think so. I suppose that we will have to speak of Traditional and Reform Buddhism in no much time. > Which according to the AN X69 Kathavatthu Sutta, is > not really a topic of proper conversation, in that it > is not talk on modesty. I think that the Old Guy's concept of modesty was something quite different. For example, consider this advice from the _Maha-parinibbana sutta:_ In this case, Ananda, the noble disciple possesses unwavering faith in the Buddha thus: "The Blessed One is an Arahant, the Fully Enlightened One, perfect in knowledge and conduct, the Happy One, the knower of the world, the paramount trainer of beings, the teacher of gods and men, the Enlightened One, the Blessed One." > Do you really believe that the historical Buddha > could have spoken like this? Yes, I wouldn't expect the Old Guy acted as we think he should have done it from our world. > He started off as a forest ascetic among other > ascetics. They must have called each other friends. > At what point did the Buddha-to be start to have an > ascendancy over the others? When he met his five old ascetic fellows and introduce himself as the "Full Awakened One." It seems that those five fellows attained full awakening after listening him - it seems to me a good starting point. > At what point did they no longer call him friend and > started calling him Perfect One rather than teacher > or whatever? When he asked them to do so. > Don't you rather think that this is the result of a > gradual aggrandizement/divinisation of the Buddha as > time goes by? Not really, but who knows for sure? > I find it hard to imagine a Buddha, who comes up out > of nothing stating he is the Supremely Enlightened > One to those who used to know him as an ascetic like > them, and who all of a sudden has such authority that > they don't even debate with him. The fact the he had some ascetic friends doesn't mean that he was like them. In many groups seems to be specially blessed people. Siddhata was the son of the monarch, something quite unusual I would say. Surely he had an education and a demeanour that very few would also have. And after all, it seems that the Old Guy was a buddha. > This is is 100% speculation and creative thinking on > my part, but the fact that Devadatta actually was > demonized tells me that he played a rather important > role before his demonization. It is quite easy for me to think in Devadatta as a jealous cousin. He got some political support, but I don't think a jealous cousin could play an important role in early Buddhism. > Prophecies? Do you need better proof for Apocrypha? The Old Guy was also able to recall all his past lifes. I think that we want to see in the Old Guy a westernized buddha, but he didn't have in mind to fulfil our current expectations of what a buddha should be. Best wishes, Beni From parisjm2004 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 11 08:24:41 2005 From: parisjm2004 at yahoo.com (Michael Paris) Date: Tue Oct 11 08:27:19 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Teaching Zen Buddhist philosophy In-Reply-To: <1128994175.6547.12.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20051011142441.10959.qmail@web32605.mail.mud.yahoo.com> And a difficult task that would be. I wish you the best of luck in your effort. The more I see of New Mexico, the more of a paradise it seems, at least in relation to the state of Texas. Michael --- "Richard P. Hayes" wrote: > In the course I am planning for next semester, I would prefer to stay > with Western practitioners who are grappling with what is involved in > incorporating an ancient Asian religion in a modern Western setting. > > -- > Richard Hayes __________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page! http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From parisjm2004 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 11 08:20:35 2005 From: parisjm2004 at yahoo.com (Michael Paris) Date: Tue Oct 11 08:27:22 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] An experiment (Gender on Buddha-l) In-Reply-To: <7e6c217295753a412a4f131eaad3b611@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <20051011142035.67081.qmail@web32604.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Replies below. --- Franz Metcalf wrote: > We *should* do better in promoting the voices of women on this > Buddhist list How? > and for Buddhist reasons, but we should do better in a *lot* of > areas, not just this one. Maybe, maybe not. Again, how? And what is "better?" I rather like a freewheeling list, within some limits of course. Granted some of the topics aren't of immediate interest, or I lack the time to pursue them, yet it's nice to see reasonably articulated points of view expressed and vigorously debated. That's very rare. The only other place I've seen similar dialogue is a formal philosophy listserv run out of England. In my experiece (over twenty years being online), intelligent life is rarely found on the Internet, especially e-lists. IMHO, posing questions and pointing out problems matters more than coming to final conclusions. At best, a conclusion should be tentative and always subject to review. (For a recent example, note the Nobel prize award for the discovery of the bacterial -- not stress -- basis of ulcers.) Michael __________________________________ Yahoo! Music Unlimited Access over 1 million songs. Try it free. http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/ From tom at tomhead.net Tue Oct 11 03:31:00 2005 From: tom at tomhead.net (Tom Head) Date: Tue Oct 11 08:33:08 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] An experiment (Gender on Buddha-l) In-Reply-To: <7e6c217295753a412a4f131eaad3b611@earthlink.net> References: <000301c5cdb9$9d8944f0$2930cece@charlie> <7e6c217295753a412a4f131eaad3b611@earthlink.net> Message-ID: Whenever folks talk about women being more empathetic, gentler, better at communication, and so on and so forth, they're conceding a very old model of gender that evens things out by saying that men are better at linear thinking, rationality, and other things that are beneficial to one who seeks political, military, or economic power. This model of gender distinction, most recently hinted at by the president of Harvard University, does no favors to women or men who do not wish to live into socially-mandated gender archetypes. I do not drink beer. I do not like sports. I am terrible at mathematics. I'm very sensitive, and a good communicator. I do housework. And I refuse to lie about myself by pretending that I'm good at things I'm bad at, or bad at things I'm good at, just because I've got squishy things hanging between my legs. This is not to say that there are no differences between the sexes that can be attributed to neurobiology; this is to say that we know so little about neurobiology, and so much (firsthand) about the crippling effects of gender apartheid, that we would all be better off, in my view, if we started reading Gloria Steinem and left all this "Iron John" business to the professionals. This is also not to say that the list could not be more empathetic, gentle, communicative, and so on and so forth, or that I could not personally be more empathetic, gentle, or communicative. But it's probably a mistake to frame all of this as a gender question, and at any rate I think the proper way to deal with the problem is to affirmatively put forth empathetic, gentle, and communicative ideas rather than encouraging people to become more stilted and self-conscious, in the unlikely event that this is what anyone actually proposed doing. And this is also not to say that Buddhist studies is not in many ways a male-dominated field. It is by and large concerned with what long-dead redneck misogynists had to say about the nature of the universe, much as philosophy and religious studies in general are, and some of that is going to trickle down. But it seems to me that the solution here, as above, is to encourage people to do more things we like rather than discouraging people from doing things we don't like. To silence others is, after all, the standard modus operandi of patriarchal oppression. Joanna, you know I always love your posts. And as a self-respecting egalitarian, there is part of me that always gets a charge out of defending a woman who is arguing against ten men, or a person of color who is arguing against ten whites, or a gay or lesbian person who is arguing against ten heterosexuals. But I've never let my self-respect stop me from expressing uninformed opinions before, and I see no reason to start now. Cheers, TH From parisjm2004 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 11 08:32:16 2005 From: parisjm2004 at yahoo.com (Michael Paris) Date: Tue Oct 11 08:37:20 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Dana In-Reply-To: <1128996216.6547.43.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20051011143216.46783.qmail@web32615.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Likewise. PETA also has alienated me with their tactics. That's as good as, or better, than money. Blood is scarce. I wish I could donate, but hypertension precludes that. My wife was donating regularly, but a false positive on some obscure test forever barred her. Why the Vedanta Society, if I may ask? My wife and I used to belong to the local UU church (in fact, we re-met there, but that's a different topic) but did not find it met our rather liberal needs. It's hard to find a good liberal bastion in Texas (but we did, later, at a Christian Church-Disciples of Christ church -- another story). Michael (Have I caught up with the other posters yet? ) --- "Richard P. Hayes" wrote: [snip] > Greenpeace is much too radical for my tastes these days and it > occasionally sponsors illegal activities, so I no longer support > them, although I used to. > > [snip]...and by giving blood to United Blood Services. This > request seems quite reasonable to me. I'm a big fellow with lots of > blood, so I'll probably make giving blood a regular routine for a > while. > > In the past the bulk of my daana was given to Buddhist organizations, > but nowadays we prefer the Vedanta Society and the Unitarian- > Universalist Association, because both of them seem to us (my wife > and I) to be promoting our values better than anyone else is doing > these days. [snip] __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From curt at cola.iges.org Tue Oct 11 08:42:34 2005 From: curt at cola.iges.org (curt) Date: Tue Oct 11 08:47:20 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Dana In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <434BCF5A.3030600@cola.iges.org> I choose good causes that meet one or both of these criteria: (1) I have some direct personal connection to them - so that I know first hand that this is a good cause, (2) I feel that this particular cause might not be obvious to others - so I know that I am making a difference by my participation. My favorite charity is the extended Sangha that I belong to, including my teacher. But otherwise the groups that I support are (in no particular order): (1) The Prometheus Trust (2) The Institute for Anarchist Studies (3) The Institute for Sex Research (4) The Peyote Way Church of God (5) The Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (6) The Leonard Peltier Defense Committee (7) The National Abortion Rights Action League Leonard Peltier, by the way, has now spent over 30 years in prison - three years longer than Nelson Mandela did. And a belated "Happy Indigenous Peoples Day" to all. - Curt Mike Austin wrote: > Hi folks, > > I make donations to other charities when there are major disasters, > but it would be better to make regular payments. I have been > investigating various charity accounts and consider that too much goes > on advertising. This is a pet peeve of mine. A sizeable donation to a > major charity can result in loads of junk mail - even phone calls. > > What are your preferred charities - and why? > From richard.nance at gmail.com Tue Oct 11 08:44:43 2005 From: richard.nance at gmail.com (Richard Nance) Date: Tue Oct 11 08:47:27 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Teaching Zen Buddhist philosophy In-Reply-To: <434BC52B.5090309@cola.iges.org> References: <1128875107.5654.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> <0c8b01c5cd6d$facac810$a5369c04@Dan> <1128962272.4380.47.camel@localhost.localdomain> <434AA6D9.1070508@cola.iges.org> <1128994175.6547.12.camel@localhost.localdomain> <434BC52B.5090309@cola.iges.org> Message-ID: On 10/11/05, curt wrote: > If I was teaching classes on Zen Buddhist Philosophy then I would view > you as a rival, and I certainly wouldn't share my great ideas with one > of my competitors! Thankfully, this view isn't terribly common among those of us who do occasionally teach courses in Buddhist philosophy. Nor should it be. >Fortunately for you my Academic teaching career was > limited to a couple of semesters of lecturing on Chemistry 101. [snip] > Teaching is not a matter of "presenting > material" which is then passively absorbed. A teacher - not matter what > the subject - can, at best, point in the general direction of knowledge. > It is up to the student to go there him or herself. And some knowledge > is more difficult to come by than others - and often the best stuff is > up a steep incline over difficult terrain. So sometimes you have to help > your students gradually build up their stamina and so forth. God, I do > have a weakness for over-extending metaphors. Add to that a weakness making sweeping pronouncements on the basis of very little experience. Curt, Richard Hayes has taught for decades. I don't think he needs you to tell him what good teaching involves. Best wishes, R. Nance From skiltonat at Cardiff.ac.uk Tue Oct 11 08:52:08 2005 From: skiltonat at Cardiff.ac.uk (Andrew Skilton) Date: Tue Oct 11 09:12:00 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: dana Message-ID: Amongst many others in the UK, I was upset by the ultimate response of several major charities to the generosity of British public that spontaneously raise 400 million sterling for tsunami relief (this aside from UK gov promises) - charities that some time later had not passed on the money and eventually either returned it (!) or diverted it to their more 'traditional' causes! I give money to charities on the indirectly stated claim that they are better informed and situated than am I for directing this money to exactly where it is needed. The conduct of the charities mentioned seems like a substantial betrayal of this basic trust between donor and charitable institution. Having also travelled a little in Asia and, for example in Phnom Penh, witnessed the bizarre neo-colonial phenomenon of NGO culture there (lots of white men and women being driven around by a native driver in white SUVs with tinted windows , in pursuit of their personal career development * see how angry I still am?) I have no wish to give my money for the benefit of some middle class dope's career. Even last week I was outraged to hear a representative of a national charity on BBC radio saying that 'we' did the wrong thing by giving all that money earlier this year and that in such situations we should not just give * I think his name was Ars(e)burger. Can anyone identify for me charities that performed well in dealing with the alleged 'surplus' of donations for those affected by the tsunami? My wife has provided a welcome alternative to institutional giving in that she has travelled to Sri Lanka several times this year and has been able to give money directly to needy individuals and organisations within a particular community. This is of little help to those who do not have relevant connections of course. But it is worth remembering that the normal channels of generosity within societies affected by such enormous disasters are themselves disrupted at such times. This leaves a lot of worthy charitable work that is normally covered by local efforts effectively abandoned because of the more urgent effects of disaster. For example, routine surgical procedures that might have been paid for by the local rotary club don't get done while the local community attempts to rebuild. Interestingly the local vihara, itself partially demolished by the tsunami, continued to act as a 'clearing house' for this activity, establishing genuine need and documenting both gifts and the medical bills arising so that the donor had proof that their money has hit the spot. (If anyone wants to try this approach, I can put them in touch with my wife.) Overall, this forced me to re-evaluate my rather cynical view of those guys in orange fancy dress. Anyone have any interesting observations on the contrast (if such) between personal/direct giving and institutional giving? Erik seemed to be touching on this with his wish to remake his decision each time. Andrew Skilton *********************************** Andrew Skilton D. Phil. email: skiltonat@cardiff.ac.uk *********************************** From skiltonat at Cardiff.ac.uk Tue Oct 11 08:48:08 2005 From: skiltonat at Cardiff.ac.uk (Andrew Skilton) Date: Tue Oct 11 09:12:03 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: An experiment (Gender on Buddha-l) Message-ID: Thanks to Joanna for a relevant critique of an aspect of Buddha-Hell discourse. Thanks also to Franz for a considered and also relevant development of that critique. I think, Joanna, your original point may well be true, though you happened not to follow your case through (I can understand if you cannot raise the enthusiasm for such a task) * in response to Richard's irrelevant statistic, you should have responded with a detailed analysis of the number of threads/points of yours that have not been followed up. I have witnessed far too many (academic/Buddhist) situations in which middle-aged white men claim to be colour/gender blind, even as, by mutual unexpressed agreement, they automatically exclude all non-white or female contributions/candidates, for me to give credit to claims from middle-aged white men that these things 'are simply not an issue'. Interestingly, I have only contributed to this list once or twice in recent years and those contributions were prompted by you, Joanna (and in their turn were not taken up further on the list * tho' Richard did address one). Thinking about why my contributions are so few some of Franz's observations seem germane. The narrow, tiresome retreading of certain well-worn paths by people who seem painfully over-burdened with opinions and are seemingly committed to shooting only from the hip, makes for a rather hostile environment in which I am reluctant to participate. (I almost shot myself the last time the 'epistemological rant' was re-rehearsed.) Often I find myself grandstanding a strange interaction between a pretty restricted group of people for whom the closest analogy is perhaps an overeducated dysfunctional family. Sometimes Buddha-L seems to be the Buddhist studies internet equivalent of Big Brother * a television programme that I would never admit to watching! But Richard is also right in saying that if we don't like it we can go elsewhere. Personally, I delete! After all Buddha-L still provides a forum which for me occasionally turns up useful and or interesting contacts and ideas, and often enough also provides simple entertainment. For example, Richard, now a self-confessed tease, has entertained me pretty much as often as he has irritated me, and that seems a pretty good statistic to me. And I have been laughing about Ars(e)burgers Syndrome ever since I read about it. (My dogs love 'em.) Do we have a duty to promote women's voices in this forum , as Franz suggests? I'm not sure * its certainly not a goal stated in the Buddha-L constitution, that weighty document. I do occasionally feel a duty to support or promote the voices of individual women, usually because in some way I have heard them and think the particular statements being ignored warrant being heard and I am well aware that women's voices tend to be ignored, but statements reminiscent of Joanna's are sometimes motivated by negative emotions no different from those that motivated those others who would suppress them in the first place. (A gold star for anyone who bothers to unravel that last sentence.) This is not a comment on Joanna, so let's not start that hare here, please, but this last point may also be some (but not sufficient) justification for the knee-jerk hostile or dismissive response that her comments have provoked. So I don't think I have a duty to write like this because Joanna is a woman, but because she seemed to me to be expressing something that warranted acknowledgement and exploration and that was not remotely adequately addressed by some of the responses she initially received. Andrew Skilton *********************************** Andrew Skilton D. Phil. email: skiltonat@cardiff.ac.uk *********************************** From curt at cola.iges.org Tue Oct 11 09:13:59 2005 From: curt at cola.iges.org (curt) Date: Tue Oct 11 09:17:18 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Dana In-Reply-To: <1128996216.6547.43.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1128996216.6547.43.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <434BD6B7.2000403@cola.iges.org> Just this Sunday I went to the local Kali Temple to celebrate Durga Puja. My knowledge of Hinduism/Vedanta/whatever is almost completely theoretical - and I wanted to see what it looked like "in action". I knew that "Durga Puja" was a major event - but I wasn't quite ready for what I encountered - hundreds of people crammed into a big room all sitting on the floor with a Priest chanting into a microphone and people blowing conch shells and beating on drums and banging on gongs - and at regular intervals the Priest would start ringing a bell and chanting even louder. At one point a person started walking through the crowd with a hand scrawled sign - when he got close enough for me to make it out it said "Red Nissan - Georgia Plates" - the crowd was so large that many people had double parked - blocking other people in! All during the two-hour puja people were coming in and going out - and there were at least 100 people milling around outside the Temple room proper - waiting for the food (bhog) that would follow the Puja proper. Oh - and the whole time there were half a dozen or so people up on the main altar moving around, lighting candles and incense and lamps and placing and arranging and rearranging flowers and fruit and other offerings. I found it very moving that in midst of all this, here and there there were ordinary people bowing reverently to Durga and Kali and Shiva - not most people - not even a fifth of them - but enough so that you could see a kind of heartfelt, spontaneous "religiosity" that was totally immediate and voluntary. People were completely free to choose "how religious" they wanted to be - and most people seemed to opt for a kind of minimum (many people were talking through the whole ceremony - some on cells phones), but that only emphasized the genuineness of those who chose to go a little (or a lot) further in their overt expression. I will probably be adding the "Kali DC" Temple to my list of good causes to support in the near future (of course I made a little donation for the Puja while I was there - and I also got my car blocked in!) - Curt Richard P. Hayes wrote: >In the past the bulk of my daana was given to Buddhist organizations, >but nowadays we prefer the Vedanta Society and the Unitarian- >Universalist Association, because both of them seem to us (my wife and >I) to be promoting our values better than anyone else is doing these >days. > > From jkirk at spro.net Tue Oct 11 09:09:03 2005 From: jkirk at spro.net (jkirk) Date: Tue Oct 11 09:17:29 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] An experiment (Gender on Buddha-l) References: <000301c5cdb9$9d8944f0$2930cece@charlie><7e6c217295753a412a4f131eaad3b611@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <000501c5ce75$b7bbf090$2930cece@charlie> > > Joanna, you know I always love your posts. And as a self-respecting > egalitarian, there is part of me that always gets a charge out of > defending a woman who is arguing against ten men, or a person of color who > is arguing against ten whites, or a gay or lesbian person who is arguing > against ten heterosexuals. But I've never let my self-respect stop me > from expressing uninformed opinions before, and I see no reason to start > now. > > > Cheers, > > TH =================== Hi Tom, First off, I want to underline that my views have been misrepresented by a few of the more more chauvinist members here, in that I do NOT promote wholesale either/or dichotomies of male vs female, and I am not a rampaging feminist. In fact, I personally am somewhat androgynous in my behavioral preferences and views. I am instead an observer of cultural values in action, society in action, and human behavior in general. I've already stated my position on the socio/cultural construction of behavior and views and the huge literature available on this subject, and won't repeat it here. But I do know what gender oppression and manipulation is, based on my own experience and that of other women whom I've known over the years. I have contrary to what some here think been framing my critique of behavior on this list as CULTURAL gender behavior, not just gender behavior, because that gets back to genetic determinism. Whatever behavior is genetically determined is still, IMO, controversial, although some aspects are getting to be more persuasive, e.g., along the lines of how children of each gender tend to communicate differently. Such differences tend to persist into adulthood, like the way some men (several on this list for example) love to yuck it up horsing around, pretending that teasing and hazing are great ways to "develop trustworthy character." LOL The style of this list is indeed a US male gendered cultural style, as you and Franz have also pointed out. What I am calling for in general is not stilted behavior but civility, that's all, just good old civility. Believe it or not, men are perfectly capable of being civil too. Civility is one way to begin being compassionate because it allows everyone into the charmed circle instead of the usual route here of incivility, which creates nastiness and dukkha. All action has consequences, as we Buddhists are accustomed to pointing out....the consequences of civility are far more beneficial to all and, IMO, to the general purpose of the list than those of incivility. Q.E.D. folks. Joanna From curt at cola.iges.org Tue Oct 11 09:24:50 2005 From: curt at cola.iges.org (curt) Date: Tue Oct 11 09:27:22 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Teaching Zen Buddhist philosophy In-Reply-To: References: <1128875107.5654.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> <0c8b01c5cd6d$facac810$a5369c04@Dan> <1128962272.4380.47.camel@localhost.localdomain> <434AA6D9.1070508@cola.iges.org> <1128994175.6547.12.camel@localhost.localdomain> <434BC52B.5090309@cola.iges.org> Message-ID: <434BD942.6000804@cola.iges.org> Richard Nance wrote: >Add to that a weakness making sweeping pronouncements on the basis of >very little experience. Curt, Richard Hayes has taught for decades. I >don't think he needs you to tell him what good teaching involves. > > Now now, no need for that. You don't know diddley about my "experience". Unless you are talking very narrowly about my experience teaching classes on "Zen Buddhist Philosophy" - of which I have nil, and have already stated as much. But as everyone know, the correlation between teaching quality and years in the saddle is far from direct. And Richard obviously needs my help - or somebody's. He only pretends like he's not going to take my free advice - but secretly he has already completely revised his course syllabus. My Tarot cards told me all about it this morning. - Curt From bclough at aucegypt.edu Tue Oct 11 10:33:53 2005 From: bclough at aucegypt.edu (bclough) Date: Tue Oct 11 10:37:20 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Teaching Zen Buddhist philosophy Message-ID: Richard Hayes wrote: >I thought I'd like to deal with material the main historical context of which is contemporary Western society. The attempts of Western Buddhists to make sense of both Buddhism and their own religious and cultural roots (with all their attendant biases) have always been exciting to me, and I think also to students. This surely sounds like an interesting plan for a course, Richard. I wonder if you might also consider using a few works by Asian Zen masters endeavoring to present Zen to a Western audience. Shunryu Suzuki's Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind is almost surely the most influential of such attempts, but two other excellent ones that my students have been very stimulated by are: 1) Hoofprint of the Ox: Principles of the Chan Buddhist Path As Taught by a Modern Chinese Master, by Sheng Yen (Daniel Stevenson, translator). 2) A Flower Does Not Talk; Zen Essays, by Zenkei Shibayama I'm sure others would have other good suggestions in this vein. Best Wishes, Brad From joy.vriens at nerim.net Tue Oct 11 10:33:53 2005 From: joy.vriens at nerim.net (Joy Vriens) Date: Tue Oct 11 10:39:45 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: <91000758.20051011160943@kungzhi.org> References: <1127942930.6308.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> <433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net><617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org> <4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net><1359619694.20051004213630@kungzhi.org> <43441B56.7080303@nerim.net> <1479321719.20051006043947@kungzhi.org><003c01c5ca43$01172200$c8369c04@Dan> <4344DBFE.8030202@nerim.net> <00c701c5ca62$e5c7f5e0$c8369c04@Dan> <4345220A.5040309@nerim.net> <1667485633.20051007043716@kungzhi.org> <43462606.40507@nerim.net> <1591830279.20051010043322@kungzhi.org> <434A29F1.7080700@nerim.net> <18010600083.20051010172344@kungzhi.org> <434A9578.5040205@nerim.net> <91000758.20051011160943@kungzhi.org> Message-ID: <434BE971.6020008@nerim.net> Hi Benito, >>Which according to the AN X69 Kathavatthu Sutta, is >>not really a topic of proper conversation, in that it >>is not talk on modesty. > I think that the Old Guy's concept of modesty was > something quite different. For example, consider this > advice from the _Maha-parinibbana sutta:_ > In this case, Ananda, the noble disciple > possesses unwavering faith in the Buddha thus: > "The Blessed One is an Arahant, the Fully > Enlightened One, perfect in knowledge and > conduct, the Happy One, the knower of the world, > the paramount trainer of beings, the teacher of > gods and men, the Enlightened One, the Blessed > One." But couldn't this be simply an appeal to authority by attributing faith provoking epiteths of existing myths? Like saying that Jesus is the Messiah, the prophet Eli, a descendant from King David etc.? >>This is is 100% speculation and creative thinking on >>my part, but the fact that Devadatta actually was >>demonized tells me that he played a rather important >>role before his demonization. > It is quite easy for me to think in Devadatta as a > jealous cousin. He got some political support, but I > don't think a jealous cousin could play an important > role in early Buddhism. That's the legend. Apparently there were still traces of followers of Devadatta (more ascetism orientated) in the 7th century (source Hiuan-Tsang, Lamotte p. 572). Another interesting fact is that the role of bringing back schismatic monks is attributed to the dynamic duo Sariputta and Moggallana (more intellect orientated) (lamotte p. 20). Where was the Buddha during that time? Why didn't he use his awesome authority? >>Prophecies? Do you need better proof for Apocrypha? > The Old Guy was also able to recall all his past > lifes. That explains it then. :-) Joy From jpeavler at mindspring.com Tue Oct 11 11:13:52 2005 From: jpeavler at mindspring.com (Jim Peavler) Date: Tue Oct 11 11:17:20 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Teaching Zen Buddhist philosophy In-Reply-To: <20051011142441.10959.qmail@web32605.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20051011142441.10959.qmail@web32605.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Oct 11, 2005, at 8:24 AM, Michael Paris wrote: > The more I see of New Mexico, the more of a paradise it seems, > at least in relation to the state of Texas. > Well, jeez, I reckon! Or are you using litotes? It is really great to get all that good advice on how to select books and how to teach from curt! Makes me want to just get out there and TEACH someone. Unfortunately, I am unable to develop the level of anxiety and hostility that curt can generate. Perhaps I am not a critical enough thinker or something. From bcarral at kungzhi.org Tue Oct 11 11:25:14 2005 From: bcarral at kungzhi.org (Benito Carral) Date: Tue Oct 11 11:28:35 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: <434BE971.6020008@nerim.net> References: <1127942930.6308.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> <433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net><617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org> <4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net><1359619694.20051004213630@kungzhi.org> <43441B56.7080303@nerim.net> <1479321719.20051006043947@kungzhi.org><003c01c5ca43$01172200$c8369c04@Dan> <4344DBFE.8030202@nerim.net> <00c701c5ca62$e5c7f5e0$c8369c04@Dan> <4345220A.5040309@nerim.net> <1667485633.20051007043716@kungzhi.org> <43462606.40507@nerim.net> <1591830279.20051010043322@kungzhi.org> <434A29F1.7080700@nerim.net> <18010600083.20051010172344@kungzhi.org> <434A9578.5040205@nerim.net> <91000758.20051011160943@kungzhi.org> <434BE971.6020008@nerim.net> Message-ID: <215877815.20051011192514@kungzhi.org> On Tuesday, October 11, 2005, Joy Vriens wrote: >> Maha-parinibbana sutta: In this case, Ananda, the >> noble disciple possesses unwavering faith in the >> Buddha thus: "The Blessed One is an Arahant, the >> Fully Enlightened One, perfect in knowledge and >> conduct, the Happy One, the knower of the world, the >> paramount trainer of beings, the teacher of gods and >> men, the Enlightened One, the Blessed One." > But couldn't this be simply an appeal to authority by > attributing faith provoking epiteths of existing > myths? Like saying that Jesus is the Messiah, the > prophet Eli, a descendant from King David etc.? Yes, it could be, but it seems to me a quite accurate representation of the Old Guy's ways and it's in armony with most of the early texts. It seems to me that that is precisely how old founders of religion acted. It's quite interesting how westeners are trying to reinterpret Buddhism. The Old Guys could not use the authority recourse, could not take the rebirth issue seriously, could not advocate radical non-violence (even if they are killing us)... It seems quite clear to me that the problem is that westerners can not and want not to admit that the Old Guy had a different agenda. >> It is quite easy for me to think in Devadatta as a >> jealous cousin. He got some political support, but I >> don't think a jealous cousin could play an important >> role in early Buddhism. > That's the legend. What's the difference between legend and history? I would say that history is just the accepted legend, and it seems that that has been the accepted legend for many centuries in the Buddhist world. > Apparently there were still traces of followers of > Devadatta (more ascetism orientated) in the 7th > century (source Hiuan-Tsang, Lamotte p. 572). They could be there, why not?, as Karaites in the Jewish tradition or Bushes in the Christian one. > Where was the Buddha during that time? Why didn't he > use his awesome authority? Because as the _Maha-parinibbana sutta_ says, he was "perfect in knowledge." :-) Maybe he was not the final authority for some little groups of monks. It has always happened. But Buddhist history, as any other history, is not written by minorities. Best wishes, Beni From bcarral at kungzhi.org Tue Oct 11 11:42:31 2005 From: bcarral at kungzhi.org (Benito Carral) Date: Tue Oct 11 11:47:25 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Self-inmolation in the Buddhist tradition Message-ID: <1482385235.20051011194231@kungzhi.org> Dear Buddha-L friends, Does anyone know any study about self-inmolation in the Buddhist tradition? It's a topic I'm quite interested in and hardly understand. It seems to me that there is a long self-inmolation tradition in East-Asian Buddhism. Any remark would be very welcomed. While I was at Sheng-yin Temple, I noticed his work in the gardens and inner cultivation which was exemplary and rarely found. That year, during the trnamission of the rules of discipline elsewhere on the mountain, he came and asked me to verify his achievements and after the had been fully ordained, he asked for leave to return to the Sheng-yin Temple. On the twenty-ninth of the third month, after midday meditation he went to the courtyard behind the main hall where he put on his robe, heaped up some bundles of straw and sat upon it cross-legged, his face turned towards the West, reciting the Buddha's name and then, with one hand ringing the bell and the other beating the wooden fish, he set fire to the straw. The numerous people in the temple at first knew nothing about what was happening, but when those outside saw the blaze they entered the temple but could not find the Bhiksu. When they went to the courtyard, the saw him sitting motionless with crossed legs on the ashes. His clothing was intact but the wooden fish and handle of the bell were reduced to ashes. I was told of his death but since I was preparing for the ceremony for the transmission of the Bodhisattva precepts on the eight of the following month, I could not descend the mountain. I then wrote to Wang Zhu-cun, head of the Financial Department and Zhan Jue-xin, Chief of the Conservancy Bureau, asking them to see his funeral on my behalf. Whe they saw the remarkable occurrence, they reported it to Governor Tang, who came with all his family to observe it. When the bell was removed from the Bhiksu's hand, his body, which had until then remained erect, collapsed into a heap of ashes. Those present praised the occurence and developed their faith in the Buddhadharma. (From Xu-yun's autobiography, which I have already finished translating into Spanish) What does it mean? It's clear that the monk's self-inmolation was a key factor in people developing faith in the Buddhadharma. But why did the monk burn himself? What does it mean in a Buddhist context? Thank you very much. Best wishes, Beni From jkirk at spro.net Tue Oct 11 12:05:22 2005 From: jkirk at spro.net (jkirk) Date: Tue Oct 11 12:08:34 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: An experiment (Gender on Buddha-l) References: Message-ID: <002101c5ce8e$599b3930$2930cece@charlie> Replies interlinear and bracketed by { } JK ================== From: "Andrew Skilton" < skiltonat@Cardiff.ac.uk > > Thanks to Joanna for a relevant critique of an aspect of Buddha-Hell > discourse. Thanks also to Franz for a considered and also relevant > development of that critique. I think, Joanna, your original point may > well be true, though you happened not to follow your case through (I can > understand if you cannot raise the enthusiasm for such a task) * in > response to Richard's irrelevant statistic, you should have responded with > a detailed analysis of the number of threads/points of yours that have not > been followed up. { begin my reply: Thanks Andrew for your guarded remarks, guarded being better than nada. Here is ONE example of a post by me that was currently relevant because of hurricane Katrina, to which there was no response on the list at all. (I simply do not have the time to go back and repeat every one of the 17 posts that were just ignored.) Suddenly today, everybody is on about charitable giving. The header was "So much for tsunami dana." I posted this on 9/29/05. Since so many of the charitable folk on this list automatically delete what I post, I am reposting it minus the article: ------------ {begin reposting} The same thing is going on right now with reconstruction in New Orleans. Even the Red cross, which is supposed to be a reliable conduit for aid, ran into FEMA blocks in New Orleans and was not even present in many of the Mississippi flooded-out areas. We have undoubtedly entered an era of increasing natural calamities of great proportions, and the only way that victims of such emergencies can properly be helped is if the local and regional forces get themselves organized, planned, and structured for such eventualities. The more local the organizing, the better chance they might have to escape corruption because the more local, the more visible. In the case of Sri Lanka and other Asian areas, I doubt if such organization will happen or that any of it will be corruption-free. Civil society in these countries is weak. (In India similar issues have been exposed about tsnunami relief in the Tamil Nadu area.) Seeing how the feds are now handing out competition-free contracts to favorite companies like Bechtel and Halliburton, seeing how many local corporations in the New Orleans area already have their hands out for special relief courtesy of the taxpayers, at the undoubted expense of ordinary flood victims who now have nothing to return to, I see no difference between Sri Lanka, India, or the USA. It almost makes one wonder if there is not some international agreement among elites to just let millions die of disease, starvation and homelessness in order to reduce their claims on national wealth. Joanna http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php?id=1,1751,0,0,1,0 } ------------ > I have witnessed far too many (academic/Buddhist) situations in which > middle-aged white men claim to be colour/gender blind, even as, by mutual > unexpressed agreement, they automatically exclude all non-white or female > contributions/candidates, for me to give credit to claims from middle-aged > white men that these things 'are simply not an issue'. Interestingly, I > have only contributed to this list once or twice in recent years and those > contributions were prompted by you, Joanna (and in their turn were not > taken up further on the list * tho' Richard did address one). ------- {I see you have had similar academic work experiences to mine, and I am grateful that some things I wrote were read by you and prompted a response. } -------- [snip] > > Do we have a duty to promote women's voices in this forum , as Franz > suggests? I'm not sure * its certainly not a goal stated in the Buddha-L > constitution, that weighty document. ----------- {I really don't know how Franz intended this to mean-- "promote women's voices?"-- I don't see how this can be done any more than it can be done in various UU congregations who keep trying desperately to attract African-Americans, gays etc to their all white congregations (like the one I know here) by constantly talking about it but doing nothing much. As the old housing industry saying goes, "If you build 'em, they will come." Well--the only way to "build 'em" on a list like this is to make it more open and attractive to women as well as men, and the way to accomplish this is STYLE. Yes, I said style. The rhetorical style found too often on this list is one that would send most intelligent women off to more hospitable lists and has already caused one more of them to leave. } ----------- >I do occasionally feel a duty to support or promote the voices of >individual women, usually because in some way I have heard them and think >the particular statements being ignored warrant being heard and I am well >aware that women's voices tend to be ignored, but statements reminiscent of >Joanna's are sometimes motivated by negative emotions no different from >those that motivated those others who would suppress them in the first >place. (A gold star for anyone who bothers to unravel that last sentence.) ---------- {I suggest that there are honest negative emotions, and then there are just plain role-playing fake emotions or masks of real hostility that pass for banter. Negativity is a fact of life, especially if someone is making objections. } ----------- >This is not a comment on Joanna, so let's not start that hare here, please, >but this last point may also be some (but not sufficient) justification for >the knee-jerk hostile or dismissive response that her comments have >provoked. So I don't think I have a duty to write like this because Joanna >is a woman, but because she seemed to me to be expressing something that >warranted acknowledgement and exploration and that was not remotely >adequately addressed by some of the responses she initially received. > > Andrew Skilton {Thanks Andrew for pointing this out----naturally, I --and a few others as I've already mentioned several times, but who seem to get left out of the equation -- agree. It is not just "me against everybody else" on this list! Joanna} > Andrew Skilton D. Phil. > > email: skiltonat@cardiff.ac.uk From rhayes at unm.edu Tue Oct 11 12:15:42 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Tue Oct 11 12:18:33 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: <434B6E75.7070808@nerim.net> References: <1127942930.6308.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> <433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net> <617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org> <4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net> <1359619694.20051004213630@kungzhi.org> <43441B56.7080303@nerim.net> <1479321719.20051006043947@kungzhi.org><003c01c5ca43$01172200$c8369c04@Dan> <4344DA9B.8040908@xs4all.nl> <00bb01c5ca59$2aa93700$c8369c04@Dan> <1128621156.4783.55.camel@localhost.localdomain> <008901c5cabf$30ff5010$bc369c04@Dan> <43461940.1060905@nerim.net> <022701c5cb19$ff594ab0$bc369c04@Dan> <43465FC4.7080207@nerim.net> <019701c5cbf4$23ed7330$e51b9c04@Dan> <4347BFB4.9040105@nerim.net> <022301c5cc15$ed402270$e51b9c04@Dan> <434A178C.9050400@nerim.net> <0cdb01c5cd76$719b8620$a5369c04@Dan> <434A7A24.1020104@nerim.net> <012f01c5ce15$939cd090$5c1b9c04@Dan> <434B6E75.7070808@nerim.net> Message-ID: <1129054543.30986.8.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Tue, 2005-10-11 at 09:49 +0200, Joy Vriens wrote: > I am totally ignorant of the reasons why Buddhism left its homeland and > I don't doubt it that the advent of Islam didn't help, but I understood > that Buddhism has mainly itself to blame for the disappearence from its > homeland. One view is that the most important aspects of Buddhism in fact did not disappear from its homeland at all but rather become incorporated in Hinduism. So you could say that Buddhism disappeared because it was so successful but had no need to insist on being identified as unique. There is quite a bit of evidence that Buddhism was sponsored largely by merchants and that merchants found it to their economic advantage to be Muslims after the Arabs set up shop in western India. So rather than conversion by the sword, there was quite a lot of conversion by the cash register and the tax man. When you realize that for a merchant the values of Buddhism are hardly different at all from the values of Islam, there is really no reason why one should stubbornly insist on being a Buddhist. So I suspect a lot of Buddhists stopped being Buddhists without a shred of persecution. > Somehow its message became too subtle or complicated to appeal > to the masses and it was a religion based on renunciation right from the > start anyway. Renunciation is never much of a crowd pleaser. -- Richard Hayes Department of Philosophy University of New Mexico From rhayes at unm.edu Tue Oct 11 12:22:35 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Tue Oct 11 12:27:20 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Self-inmolation in the Buddhist tradition In-Reply-To: <1482385235.20051011194231@kungzhi.org> References: <1482385235.20051011194231@kungzhi.org> Message-ID: <1129054955.30986.12.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Tue, 2005-10-11 at 19:42 +0200, Benito Carral wrote: > Does anyone know any study about self-inmolation in > the Buddhist tradition? A good place to start is Thich Nhat Hanh's book, Lotus in a Sea of Fire. It is his attempt to explain to a shocked world why one of Vietnam's most highly respected monks, know for his insight and compassion, set himself on fire in the streets of Saigon in front of cameras that broadcast the scene into every living room in the world. It's a powerful and informative read. -- Richard Hayes Department of Philosophy University of New Mexico From parisjm2004 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 11 12:35:05 2005 From: parisjm2004 at yahoo.com (Michael Paris) Date: Tue Oct 11 12:37:22 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] An experiment (Gender on Buddha-l) In-Reply-To: <000501c5ce75$b7bbf090$2930cece@charlie> Message-ID: <20051011183505.36471.qmail@web32604.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Joanna, That's fair. Civility is even more rare than intelligent conversation, at least on e-lists (and Texas freeways). ... I for one would like to say I appreciate your pointing out the gender issue here. Not sure whether I agree or not, or whether agreement even matters, but it is food for thought and observation. Michael --- jkirk wrote: [snip] > > What I am calling for in general is not stilted behavior but civility, that's all, just good old civility. Believe it or not, men are perfectly capable of being civil too. Civility is one way to begin being compassionate because it allows everyone into the charmed circle instead of the usual route here of incivility, which creates nastiness and dukkha. All action has consequences, as we Buddhists are accustomed to pointing out....the consequences of civility are far more beneficial to all and, IMO, to the general purpose of the list than those of incivility. Q.E.D. folks. > > Joanna __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From parisjm2004 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 11 12:43:02 2005 From: parisjm2004 at yahoo.com (Michael Paris) Date: Tue Oct 11 12:47:22 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Teaching Zen Buddhist philosophy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051011184302.91523.qmail@web32609.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I've heard there are worse places than Texas. >From what I've heard about California, I'm not so sure about it being such a paradise. What matters are small islands of liberalism in a sea of muck (e.g., San Francisco, Austin). BTW, thank you for expanding my vocabulary Michael --- Jim Peavler wrote: > On Oct 11, 2005, at 8:24 AM, Michael Paris wrote: > > > The more I see of New Mexico, the more of a paradise it seems, at least in relation to the state of Texas. > > > > Well, jeez, I reckon! Or are you using litotes? > [snip] __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From bclough at aucegypt.edu Tue Oct 11 14:00:04 2005 From: bclough at aucegypt.edu (bclough) Date: Tue Oct 11 14:07:23 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo Message-ID: > > It is quite easy for me to think in Devadatta as a > > jealous cousin. He got some political support, but I > > don't think a jealous cousin could play an important > > role in early Buddhism. > That's the legend. Apparently there were still traces of followers >of Devadatta (more ascetism orientated) in the 7th century (source > Hiuan-Tsang, Lamotte p. 572). On this issue, I would recommend Reginald Ray's superb analysis of Devadatta as condemned forest ascetic in his *Buddhist Saints in India*, pp. 162-178. Brad From curt at cola.iges.org Tue Oct 11 14:01:58 2005 From: curt at cola.iges.org (curt) Date: Tue Oct 11 14:07:32 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Self-inmolation in the Buddhist tradition In-Reply-To: <1129054955.30986.12.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1482385235.20051011194231@kungzhi.org> <1129054955.30986.12.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <434C1A36.6040206@cola.iges.org> One thing to take into account, for those who are sufficiently cynical, is that Vietnam's Buddhist establishment (or at least some part of it) was at the time desperately trying to be a "player" in determining the future of Vietnam (or at least some part of it). They were in danger of being sidelined by the military conflict between the supporters of the NLF, on the one hand, and those supported by the United States, on the other hand - and in the end they were in fact completely sidelined. I recently picked up Nguen Cao Ky's autobiography, modestly entitled "Buddha's Child", in the bargain bin at a bookstore. He claims to have been part of "Buddhist/Nationalist" political movement devoted to "saving Vietnam" (the subtitle of the book is "My Fight to Save Vietnam"). But I haven't had the time (or the stomach) to do more than just skim through it. I think that when dealing with self-immolation, as well as other less extreme practices, like hacking off or burning off fingers or arms or one's penis, that a certain amount of skepticism at the very least should be brought to bear. It is a well known fact that mentally unstable people are attracted to religion, and so any discussion of these kinds of practices should, in my opinion, steer clear of any assumption that setting oneself on fire is a good thing. Perhaps under some extraordinary circumstances it might serve some purpose - but I would prefer to put forward the "position" that one should assume that anyone who would do such a thing is just plain crazy. People who are genuinely driven by pure spiritual motives will not be in any way affected by such criticism. - Curt Richard P. Hayes wrote: >On Tue, 2005-10-11 at 19:42 +0200, Benito Carral wrote: > > > >> Does anyone know any study about self-inmolation in >>the Buddhist tradition? >> >> > >A good place to start is Thich Nhat Hanh's book, Lotus in a Sea of Fire. >It is his attempt to explain to a shocked world why one of Vietnam's >most highly respected monks, know for his insight and compassion, set >himself on fire in the streets of Saigon in front of cameras that >broadcast the scene into every living room in the world. It's a powerful >and informative read. > > > From rhayes at unm.edu Tue Oct 11 14:47:38 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Tue Oct 11 14:58:35 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Dana In-Reply-To: <20051011143216.46783.qmail@web32615.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20051011143216.46783.qmail@web32615.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1129063659.31334.24.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Tue, 2005-10-11 at 07:32 -0700, Michael Paris wrote: > Blood is scarce. I wish I could donate, but hypertension precludes > that. My wife was donating regularly, but a false positive on some > obscure test forever barred > her. These days it takes about as long to answer all the screening questions as it takes to actually give the blood. This is, of course, necessary to ensure that no diseases are transmitted through contaminated blood. Having lived a remarkably uneventful life, I seem to have some blood that can be put to good use. > Why the Vedanta Society, if I may ask? The spirit of Swami Vivekananda still prevails there, which means they are strongly pluralistic and therefore make room for all kinds of religious views and orientations. They are, in other words, theological liberal and committed to open-mindedness. They also place a emphasis on karma yoga, on doing good works in the world wihtout attachment to the results. Their non-dogmatic writings are inspiring and reflective. This mix suits me well, in about the same way that the Friends Service Committee suits my tastes. > My wife and I used to belong to the local UU church (in fact, we re-met > there, but that's a different topic) but did not find it met our rather > liberal needs. In my experience, UU churches vary tremendously from one place to another. Some of them suit me a lot more than others. The one in Albuquerque is pretty nice, but it's a little too big. Both my wife and I are allergic to joining anything, so we attend regularly but will probably never become members or belongers. And we keep talking about sneaking off to the Quaker Meeting, which we used to attend regularly. We went to the local Vipassana group a while back but got such a frosty reception that we have never felt like going back. (It turns out that we accidentally went to "people of color" night and the people there did not seem prepared to acknowledge that pink is a color.) > It's hard to find a good liberal bastion in Texas You have no idea how much restraint it takes for a New Mexican not to leap on an opportunity to make a smart-ass remark at the expense of Texas, but just this once I'll refrain from blurting out an unpleasant over-generalization. Suffice it to say that many of us in this state are happy that the Lone Star flag no longer flies over the capitol building in Santa Fe. -- Richard P. Hayes University of New Mexico From rhayes at unm.edu Tue Oct 11 15:05:52 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Tue Oct 11 15:07:25 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Teaching Zen Buddhist philosophy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1129064752.31334.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Tue, 2005-10-11 at 16:33 +0000, bclough wrote: > I > wonder if you might also consider using a few works by Asian Zen > masters endeavoring to present Zen to a Western audience. Yes, that is certainly under consideration. Shunryu Suzuki's ZMBM is one of my favorite books to recommend to people, and I never tire of rereading it. I hadn't thought of Shibayama's book, although I quite like it and have used it before. Ven Sheng Yen is another of my favorite writers and speakers, but I have not yet had a chance to read Hoofprint of the Ox. Thanks for your suggestions. > I'm sure others would have other good suggestions in this vein. Rest assured that none of these suggestions have been made in vain. -- Richard Hayes From rhayes at unm.edu Tue Oct 11 15:26:13 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Tue Oct 11 15:27:24 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Teaching Zen Buddhist philosophy In-Reply-To: <20051011184302.91523.qmail@web32609.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20051011184302.91523.qmail@web32609.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1129065973.31334.36.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Tue, 2005-10-11 at 11:43 -0700, Michael Paris wrote: > I've heard there are worse places than Texas. Now that's a hell of a thing to say about Wyoming. Here we all were, trying to be civilized in front of all the gals, and you go and say something provocative. From at43naug at tds.net Tue Oct 11 12:40:32 2005 From: at43naug at tds.net (at43naug@tds.net) Date: Tue Oct 11 15:27:41 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Conze Memoirs Update Message-ID: <20051011184032.RWAD15475.outaamta01.mail.tds.net@smtp.tds.net> Some time ago I obtained (& read with great pleasure) the first two volumes of Edward Conze's _Memoirs of a Modern Gnostic_ in which he mentions a proposed third volume to be published after everyone he names in it is dead & therefore unable to resort to legal action against his heirs. Any ideas as to when this third volume is scheduled to appear or if it in fact really exists at all other than as Conze's own projection? Just wondering. All the best, Alex Naughton (height, weight, & other particulars available on request) From joy.vriens at nerim.net Tue Oct 11 15:43:02 2005 From: joy.vriens at nerim.net (Joy Vriens) Date: Tue Oct 11 15:48:36 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: <215877815.20051011192514@kungzhi.org> References: <1127942930.6308.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> <433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net><617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org> <4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net><1359619694.20051004213630@kungzhi.org> <43441B56.7080303@nerim.net> <1479321719.20051006043947@kungzhi.org><003c01c5ca43$01172200$c8369c04@Dan> <4344DBFE.8030202@nerim.net> <00c701c5ca62$e5c7f5e0$c8369c04@Dan> <4345220A.5040309@nerim.net> <1667485633.20051007043716@kungzhi.org> <43462606.40507@nerim.net> <1591830279.20051010043322@kungzhi.org> <434A29F1.7080700@nerim.net> <18010600083.20051010172344@kungzhi.org> <434A9578.5040205@nerim.net> <91000758.20051011160943@kungzhi.org> <434BE971.6020008@nerim.net> <215877815.20051011192514@kungzhi.org> Message-ID: <434C31E6.3030108@nerim.net> > It's quite interesting how westeners are trying to > reinterpret Buddhism. If I were Buddhism I would be happy that Westerners grant me that honour. > The Old Guys could not use the > authority recourse, could not take the rebirth issue > seriously, could not advocate radical non-violence > (even if they are killing us)... There is always more room in a Buddha's mouth for words he could have said. I have hardly any doubt about the Buddha's belief in rebirth or non-violence. I wouldn't question that. But it doesn't make sense to me that he had the authority that you want to give him right from the start. At least Christianity is pretty honest and graphic about the fragile authority of a founder of a new religion. > It seems quite clear to me that the problem is that > westerners can not and want not to admit that the Old > Guy had a different agenda. You are probably right, but I don't know the agenda of those Westerners nor do I know the one of the Buddha. >>>It is quite easy for me to think in Devadatta as a >>>jealous cousin. He got some political support, but I >>>don't think a jealous cousin could play an important >>>role in early Buddhism. >>That's the legend. > What's the difference between legend and history? I > would say that history is just the accepted legend, and > it seems that that has been the accepted legend for > many centuries in the Buddhist world. The difference is that legends don't change, whereas historic views can. One can also try and analyse the legends instead of taking them at face value. That won't result in any historic truths, but one can reflect on what story they tell and their possible reasons to wanting to tell us whatever they tell us. Why is it important a story is told and to whom is it told? Stories about conflicts perhaps contain not much truth about what really happened, but you can be sure the conflict was real. And that could give us some interesting perspectives. >>Apparently there were still traces of followers of >>Devadatta (more ascetism orientated) in the 7th >>century (source Hiuan-Tsang, Lamotte p. 572). > They could be there, why not?, as Karaites in the > Jewish tradition or Bushes in the Christian one. Well, if they were there in the 7th century, then the Devadatta issue was more than simply about "a jealous cousin" and then it perhaps did play an important role in early Buddhism. Especially if the legend mentions how Sariputta and Mogallana recuperated the/some? schismatic monks and the Buddha hardly played any role at all. Perhaps he didn't play much of a role, because he wasn't there anymore. And what about all those suttas where the Buddha rests his back against a tree and Sariputta teaches, after which the Buddha says "Well said Sariputta". Especially when one thinks of the proverb "Everything well said is said by the Buddha". Sariputta is also sometimes called the second founder of Buddhism (Conze). I have plenty more ideas about a Buddhist Da Vinci Code, but this will do for today.;-) > Because as the _Maha-parinibbana sutta_ says, he was > "perfect in knowledge." :-) Maybe he was not the final > authority for some little groups of monks. It has > always happened. But Buddhist history, as any other > history, is not written by minorities. The eldest history was written by those minorities who were first inclined to write, i.e. rather the Sariputtas than the Devadattas. Joy From joy.vriens at nerim.net Tue Oct 11 15:49:46 2005 From: joy.vriens at nerim.net (Joy Vriens) Date: Tue Oct 11 15:57:28 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: <1129054543.30986.8.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net> <617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org> <4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net> <1359619694.20051004213630@kungzhi.org> <43441B56.7080303@nerim.net> <1479321719.20051006043947@kungzhi.org><003c01c5ca43$01172200$c8369c04@Dan> <4344DA9B.8040908@xs4all.nl> <00bb01c5ca59$2aa93700$c8369c04@Dan> <1128621156.4783.55.camel@localhost.localdomain> <008901c5cabf$30ff5010$bc369c04@Dan> <43461940.1060905@nerim.net> <022701c5cb19$ff594ab0$bc369c04@Dan> <43465FC4.7080207@nerim.net> <019701c5cbf4$23ed7330$e51b9c04@Dan> <4347BFB4.9040105@nerim.net> <022301c5cc15$ed402270$e51b9c04@Dan> <434A178C.9050400@nerim.net> <0cdb01c5cd76$719b8620$a5369c04@Dan> <434A7A24.1020104@nerim.net> <012f01c5ce15$939cd090$5c1b9c04@Dan> <434B6E75.7070808@nerim.net> <1129054543.30986.8.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <434C337A.8050508@nerim.net> Richard P. Hayes wrote: > One view is that the most important aspects of Buddhism in fact did not > disappear from its homeland at all but rather become incorporated in > Hinduism. So you could say that Buddhism disappeared because it was so > successful but had no need to insist on being identified as unique. I like that a lot. It's the best thing that can happen to an idea. I sometimes think that somehow Christianity lost some of its appeal, because its best ideas have been assimilated by western culture and laws. That some of those social laws come under attack again will perhaps lead to a renewed popularity of those Christian ideas. It somehow seems to have to be either social laws or charity. Joy From junger at samsara.law.cwru.edu Tue Oct 11 14:55:09 2005 From: junger at samsara.law.cwru.edu (Peter D. Junger) Date: Tue Oct 11 15:58:37 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: An experiment (Gender on Buddha-l) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 11 Oct 2005 12:05:22 MDT." <002101c5ce8e$599b3930$2930cece@charlie> Message-ID: <200510112055.j9BKtA6C020218@samsara.law.cwru.edu> "jkirk" writes: : Thanks Andrew for your guarded remarks, guarded being better than nada. : Here is ONE example of a post by me that was currently relevant because of : hurricane Katrina, to which there was no response on the list at all. (I : simply do not have the time to go back and repeat every one of the 17 posts : that were just ignored.) : Suddenly today, everybody is on about charitable giving. The header was "So : much for tsunami dana." I posted this on 9/29/05. Since so many of the : charitable folk on this list automatically delete what I post, I am : reposting it minus the article: : ------------ : {begin reposting} : The same thing is going on right now with reconstruction in New Orleans. : Even the Red cross, which is supposed to be a reliable conduit for aid, ran : into FEMA blocks in New Orleans and was not even present in many of the : Mississippi flooded-out areas. We have undoubtedly entered an era of : increasing natural calamities of great proportions, and the only way that : victims of such emergencies can properly be helped is if the local and : regional forces get themselves organized, planned, and structured for such : eventualities. : The more local the organizing, the better chance they might have to escape : corruption because the more local, the more visible. : : In the case of Sri Lanka and other Asian areas, I doubt if such organization : will happen or that any of it will be corruption-free. Civil society in : these countries is weak. (In India similar issues have been exposed about : tsnunami relief in the Tamil Nadu area.) Seeing how the feds are now handing : out competition-free contracts to favorite companies like Bechtel and : Halliburton, seeing how many local corporations in the New Orleans area : already have their hands out for special relief courtesy of the taxpayers, : at the undoubted expense of ordinary flood victims who now have nothing to : return to, I see no difference between Sri Lanka, India, or the USA. It : almost makes one wonder if there is not some international agreement among : elites to just let millions die of disease, starvation and homelessness in : order to reduce their claims on national wealth. : Joanna : http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php?id=1,1751,0,0,1,0 } I tend to agree with what is said here although I can't claim to be familiar with the Asian situations. But I can't think of any reason why I would have responded to the original message, having nothing to add to it or to question about it, especially as it does not fit into the concerns that are the reason I subscribe to this list. -- Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH EMAIL: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu URL: http://samsara.law.cwru.edu From chanfu at gmail.com Tue Oct 11 15:49:29 2005 From: chanfu at gmail.com (Chan Fu) Date: Tue Oct 11 15:58:44 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Self-inmolation in the Buddhist tradition In-Reply-To: <434C1A36.6040206@cola.iges.org> References: <1482385235.20051011194231@kungzhi.org> <1129054955.30986.12.camel@localhost.localdomain> <434C1A36.6040206@cola.iges.org> Message-ID: On 10/11/05, curt wrote: > One thing to take into account, for those who are sufficiently cynical, > is that Vietnam's Buddhist establishment (or at least some part of it) > was at the time desperately trying to be a "player" in determining the > future of Vietnam (or at least some part of it). They were in danger of > being sidelined by the military conflict between the supporters of the > NLF, on the one hand, and those supported by the United States, on the > other hand - and in the end they were in fact completely sidelined. I > recently picked up Nguen Cao Ky's autobiography, modestly entitled > "Buddha's Child", in the bargain bin at a bookstore. He claims to have > been part of "Buddhist/Nationalist" political movement devoted to > "saving Vietnam" (the subtitle of the book is "My Fight to Save > Vietnam"). But I haven't had the time (or the stomach) to do more than > just skim through it. > > I think that when dealing with self-immolation, as well as other less > extreme practices, like hacking off or burning off fingers or arms or > one's penis, that a certain amount of skepticism at the very least > should be brought to bear. It is a well known fact that mentally > unstable people are attracted to religion, and so any discussion of > these kinds of practices should, in my opinion, steer clear of any > assumption that setting oneself on fire is a good thing. Perhaps under > some extraordinary circumstances it might serve some purpose - but I > would prefer to put forward the "position" that one should assume that > anyone who would do such a thing is just plain crazy. People who are > genuinely driven by pure spiritual motives will not be in any way > affected by such criticism. > > - Curt Good observations, Curt. Together with insanity, we should note that the effect of urban legend hasn't been assessed, particularily in the "historical" stories. Thich Quang Duc was widely said to be under heavy sedation, as un-buddhist as that fact may be. Further, Asian buddhists were/are about as far from political practice (intending to mean interest in politics, not incidental influence on them) as one could get. Neither did they have or develop political ideas, rhetorical skills, etc., etc. For the most part they began buddhist careers as children, dumped into temples by their poor families, utterly ignorant of politics and social issues for their entire lives. But that's the bottom of the pyramid. At the top, we find the Dalai Lama's, the Executive branch of Thai buddhism in Bangkok (similar in most countries) - the politically aware and educated buddhist elite. While some of these have the charisma, evangelical skills, and goal ideas needed in the political world, many do not. It's surprising that the Vietnamese buddhists endured direct persecution at the hands of the French Catholic colonists for many decades and suddenly chose to oppose the threat of "communism". It can be assumed, however, that it was a combination of contact and intelligence at the top of the buddhist pyramid with the evangelical American aides that brought about the participation of the Vietnam buddhists and the barbecue of poor Thich Quang Duc. Immolation has changed. Today, led by islamic fundamentalists, it includes taking a few unbelievers with you. This actually isn't much different than the American armed forces do, but without having good stats one might wonder which method is more effective. IMO, Sri Lanka stands out as a buddhist state in no better terms than the USA will soon stand out as a christian one. Exactly how much immolation was necessary for that is unclear. All that being said, self immolation, to a buddhist practitioner, is impossible. Why? Because it involves a commitment to an idea or ideal. It's possible that when all those supposedly committed body- parts choppers actually woke up, they went back to the trashcan to collect their errors. But then it would also be unlikely, since they would have proven to be good practitioners of detachment. A worst-case scenario might fast forward to some ex-monk working in one of the McDonald's in Ho Chi Minh city, wishing he could pick his nose while shoveling fries with the remaining hand. cf From jpeavler at mindspring.com Tue Oct 11 16:04:36 2005 From: jpeavler at mindspring.com (Jim Peavler) Date: Tue Oct 11 16:07:25 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Teaching Zen Buddhist philosophy In-Reply-To: <1129065973.31334.36.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <20051011184302.91523.qmail@web32609.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1129065973.31334.36.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <39cc92f25610708a4ea29fe0e74818dc@mindspring.com> On Oct 11, 2005, at 3:26 PM, Richard P. Hayes wrote: > On Tue, 2005-10-11 at 11:43 -0700, Michael Paris wrote: > >> I've heard there are worse places than Texas. > > Now that's a hell of a thing to say about Wyoming. Here we all were, > trying to be civilized in front of all the gals, and you go and say > something provocative. > Hey, wait a minute! I happen to like Wyoming. The wind is cooler. From chanfu at gmail.com Tue Oct 11 16:05:10 2005 From: chanfu at gmail.com (Chan Fu) Date: Tue Oct 11 16:07:29 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Teaching Zen Buddhist philosophy In-Reply-To: <1129064752.31334.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1129064752.31334.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: On 10/11/05, Richard P. Hayes wrote: > On Tue, 2005-10-11 at 16:33 +0000, bclough wrote: > > > I > > wonder if you might also consider using a few works by Asian Zen > > masters endeavoring to present Zen to a Western audience. > > Yes, that is certainly under consideration. Shunryu Suzuki's ZMBM is one > of my favorite books to recommend to people, and I never tire of > rereading it. I hadn't thought of Shibayama's book, although I quite > like it and have used it before. Ven Sheng Yen is another of my favorite > writers and speakers, but I have not yet had a chance to read Hoofprint > of the Ox. Just to throw some more bait in the water, you might have a look at "Being Dharma". Though it's just a collection of AC's talks it's really well edited. From dlusthau at mailer.fsu.edu Tue Oct 11 16:13:40 2005 From: dlusthau at mailer.fsu.edu (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Tue Oct 11 16:17:36 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo References: <1127942930.6308.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> <433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net><617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org> <4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net><1359619694.20051004213630@kungzhi.org> <43441B56.7080303@nerim.net><1479321719.20051006043947@kungzhi.org><003c01c5ca43$01172200$c8369c04@Dan><4344DA9B.8040908@xs4all.nl> <00bb01c5ca59$2aa93700$c8369c04@Dan><1128621156.4783.55.camel@localhost.localdomain><008901c5cabf$30ff5010$bc369c04@Dan> <43461940.1060905@nerim.net><022701c5cb19$ff594ab0$bc369c04@Dan> <43465FC4.7080207@nerim.net><019701c5cbf4$23ed7330$e51b9c04@Dan> <4347BFB4.9040105@nerim.net><022301c5cc15$ed402270$e51b9c04@Dan> <434A178C.9050400@nerim.net><0cdb01c5cd76$719b8620$a5369c04@Dan> <434A7A24.1020104@nerim.net><012f01c5ce15$939cd090$5c1b9c04@Dan> <434B6E75.7070808@nerim.net> <1129054543.30986.8.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <00a801c5ceb1$0c557eb0$2c1b9c04@Dan> Oh goodness, Richard, here goes another public display of disagreement -- one we have argued for years on buddha-l. > There is quite a bit of evidence that Buddhism was sponsored largely by > merchants and that merchants found it to their economic advantage to be > Muslims after the Arabs set up shop in western India. The first half is absolutely true. To that one could add upper and privileged classes and ruling classes as well. The sociology of the day was such that a ruler's populace largely followed the lead of the ruler. If he adopted a religion, so did many of his citizens, at least nominally. If he or his successor subsequently changed religion, so did the populace (one of the reasons that kings were often the referee of choice at inter-religious debates -- but I digress). The second part of what Richard says, while most likely true in some circumstances, manages to ignore something less benign for which we have unimpeachable evidence (including Islamic and Buddhist witness testimony). Richard used to cite Marshal Hodgson's _The Venture of Islam_ (3 vols., only one of which deals with what we are discussing here) when discussions of the demise of Buddhism in Central Asia and India came up. Perhaps he has finally read that work carefully. Hodgson makes the curious argument that Muslims did not per se kill Buddhists during their progress toward and into India; instead, since, as mentioned above, Buddhists could be identified with the "rich oppressors," all Muslims did was foment the resentment of the underprivileged toward their "oppressors," promising that in Islam -- unlike Buddhism -- everyone is equal. Then those soon-to-Muslims-but-not-Muslims-yet-how-convenient did all the revolting and killing. The eerie similarity between this and the European myth of "Jewish capitalists" shouldn't escape the observant. The results were also similar. That, on the other hand, we have first-hand eyewitness accounts of Muslims (Turks, to be sure) decimating Nalanda and other sites, and miserably torturing the last surviving old monk (recorded by a Tibetan on pilgrimage), who was too old to flee, indicates even Hodgson's dodge is only part of the story. But my raising the question of Buddhism and the efficacy of its survival strategies was not so much a desire to revisit that particular debate, but to bring the question to a deeper existential, doctrinal and historical level -- which is why I expanded the horizon to East Asia. We could add Tibet to this. Buddhism's establishing a firm foundation in Tibet is predicated -- according to Tibetan tradition -- on a monk assassinating a Tibetan king who was persecuting and banning Buddhism and would otherwise have prevented its establishment in Tibet. That monk remains a hero in the tradition, and the ethical justifications the tradition recites in support of him gives some modern folks palpitations (the details of the story and its justifications are layed out in Paul Williams' excellent _Mahayana Buddhism_). I would submit that this was less an isolated incident than many modern advocates of Buddhism would like to believe. As modern Buddhists see themselves as less and less amenable to becoming clerics (who can leave dealing with the power structure to the higher ups and people with that special calling - and monastic Buddhism is nothing without patronage, which is already a very ethically compromising situation), and lay citizens cannot remain responsible citizens without community and political involvement, then the ability to cultivate the skills necessary to do so effectively should become a priority. I mentioned in a previous message: "The left has fallen into mindless, ineffective demonization prattle, while the right has fallen into clever, effective demonization prattle." Recently the effective way the conservatives have undermined Bush's own Supreme Court nominee -- mobilizing a variety of venues and effective arguments, has put her confirmation in doubt. The anti-Bushites could only dream of being so effective. A perhaps even more potent example can be found in today's New York Times: Liberals are flumoxed that all the opportunities opened by Katarina for turning the national debate in their favor have already been hijacked very effectively by the conservatives: "We've had a stunning reversal in just a few weeks," said Robert Greenstein, director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal advocacy group in Washington. "We've gone from a situation in which we might have a long-overdue debate on deep poverty to the possibility, perhaps even the likelihood, that low-income people will be asked to bear the costs. I would find it unimaginable if it wasn't actually happening." http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/11/politics/11poverty.html In short, they are idiots. And all the self-righteous "Bush is dumb" jokes can't hide that he and his cronies have outsmarted them at every turn, and continue to do so. The reason FEMA hasn't been efficient is that the White House has spent more energy on trying to guarantee that the New Orleans area doesn't reconstitute itself as a Democratic constituency -- leaving the whole South (all the way to the California desert, and they are working hard in Sacramento to get over that hump as well) will be solidly red for countless elections to come on the national and the local level. As long as the Republicans' opposition thinks it is more spiritual to avoid debates and confrontation, or to even think publically about political issues, or that left and right are atavisms, guess who is going to be calling the shots? Dan Lusthaus From franzmetcalf at earthlink.net Tue Oct 11 16:51:52 2005 From: franzmetcalf at earthlink.net (Franz Metcalf) Date: Tue Oct 11 16:57:26 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Self-inmolation in the Buddhist tradition In-Reply-To: <1129054955.30986.12.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1482385235.20051011194231@kungzhi.org> <1129054955.30986.12.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: Benito, The practice has its locus classicus in (Richard's favorite) The Lotus Sutra, chapter 23. So there's a venerable/pitiful (choose your adjective) tradition of it in Buddhist history. Usually monks would offer just a finger, but of course the best offering is the whole body. (Of course all monks symbolically do this when taking the tonsure, but some folks just have to get literal.) In addition to Thich Nhat Hanh you might also want to look at Yum-hua Jan, "Buddhist self-immolation in Medieval China", in History of Religion. No.2, 1965. Jacques Gernet has also written (in French) of the practice, which apparently got so popular that the authorities had to proscribe it. The Gernet reference is in Bernard Faure's _The Rhetoric of Immediacy_, which I bet you have. Franz From mike at lamrim.org.uk Tue Oct 11 17:14:45 2005 From: mike at lamrim.org.uk (Mike Austin) Date: Tue Oct 11 17:17:24 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: An experiment (Gender on Buddha-l) In-Reply-To: <002101c5ce8e$599b3930$2930cece@charlie> References: <002101c5ce8e$599b3930$2930cece@charlie> Message-ID: In message <002101c5ce8e$599b3930$2930cece@charlie>, jkirk writes >Suddenly today, everybody is on about charitable giving. The header was >"So much for tsunami dana." I posted this on 9/29/05. Since so many >of the charitable folk on this list automatically delete what I post, I >am reposting it minus the article: Joanna, Surely, one would expect more replies to a question, as there was in the thread on dana that I started? Your post may well have been interesting, but it was more of a report or a statement. Many of your posts have this format. I suggested before that this was why you get fewer responses. Is this not a more feasible explanation than gender differences? -- Metta Mike Austin From parisjm2004 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 11 17:08:51 2005 From: parisjm2004 at yahoo.com (Michael Paris) Date: Tue Oct 11 17:17:33 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Teaching Zen Buddhist philosophy In-Reply-To: <1129065973.31334.36.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20051011230852.12898.qmail@web32603.mail.mud.yahoo.com> My deepest apologies, sir. I did not mean to cast doubts upon your civility nor attractiveness to the gals. So terribly gauche -- presumably because I was raised in Texas, surrounded from birth by Republicans and conservative Catholics. Speaking of the true North of the United States... The late gun writer Elmer Keith* lived in Idaho. He'd go out during the middle of winter, set up targets on a drift, and have a blazing good time with his sixguns. Come spring thaw he'd go back and pick up the bullets. The snowbanks made an excellent backstop. Michael * Keith was the driving force behind the development of the .357, .41, and .44 S&W Magnum cartridges. Details upon request. --- "Richard P. Hayes" wrote: > On Tue, 2005-10-11 at 11:43 -0700, Michael Paris wrote: > > > I've heard there are worse places than Texas. > > Now that's a hell of a thing to say about Wyoming. Here we all were, > trying to be civilized in front of all the gals, and you go and say > something provocative. __________________________________ Yahoo! Music Unlimited Access over 1 million songs. Try it free. http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/ From bcarral at kungzhi.org Tue Oct 11 17:08:28 2005 From: bcarral at kungzhi.org (Benito Carral) Date: Tue Oct 11 17:17:38 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Devadatta the Renegade: The Thruth History of Buddhism In-Reply-To: <434C31E6.3030108@nerim.net> References: <1127942930.6308.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> <433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net><617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org> <4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net><1359619694.20051004213630@kungzhi.org> <43441B56.7080303@nerim.net> <1479321719.20051006043947@kungzhi.org><003c01c5ca43$01172200$c8369c04@Dan> <4344DBFE.8030202@nerim.net> <00c701c5ca62$e5c7f5e0$c8369c04@Dan> <4345220A.5040309@nerim.net> <1667485633.20051007043716@kungzhi.org> <43462606.40507@nerim.net> <1591830279.20051010043322@kungzhi.org> <434A29F1.7080700@nerim.net> <18010600083.20051010172344@kungzhi.org> <434A9578.5040205@nerim.net> <91000758.20051011160943@kungzhi.org> <434BE971.6020008@nerim.net> <215877815.20051011192514@kungzhi.org> <434C31E6.3030108@nerim.net> Message-ID: <195697600.20051012010828@kungzhi.org> On Tuesday, October 11, 2005, Joy Vriens wrote: >> It's quite interesting how westeners are trying to >> reinterpret Buddhism. > If I were Buddhism I would be happy that Westerners > grant me that honour. I think that you are a Westerner involved in such a project and, since I'm a Westerner too, I hope to contribute to your happiness having said that. :-) However I was not specifically thinking in you, but bringing to our post a contemporary trend. >> The Old Guys could not use the authority recourse, >> could not take the rebirth issue seriously, could >> not advocate radical non-violence (even if they are >> killing us)... > I have hardly any doubt about the Buddha's belief in > rebirth or non-violence. It would be interesting to make an inquiry about such point among Western Buddhist practitioners. In fact, I will make a test among my students and friends, not a representative group, but an interesting experiment anyway. > But it doesn't make sense to me that he had the > authority that you want to give him right from the > start. What are you points to doubt the traditional Buddhist history? >> It seems quite clear to me that the problem is that >> westerners can not and want not to admit that the >> Old Guy had a different agenda. > You are probably right, but I don't know the agenda > of those Westerners nor do I know the one of the > Buddha. It's my experience with students that they try to fit Buddhism into their lives instead of fit their lives into Buddhism. >> What's the difference between legend and history? I >> would say that history is just the accepted legend, >> and it seems that that has been the accepted legend >> for many centuries in the Buddhist world. > One can also try and analyse the legends instead of > taking them at face value. That won't result in any > historic truths, but one can reflect on what story > they tell and their possible reasons to wanting to > tell us whatever they tell us. Why is it important a > story is told and to whom is it told? I don't believe in "historical truths," but I agrre that such an analysis is an interesting one. In fact, after their first year of study, I teach my students some elements of analysis before starting with the Buddhist tradition. >>> Apparently there were still traces of followers of >>> Devadatta [...] >> They could be there, why not?, as Karaites in the >> Jewish tradition or Bushes in the Christian one. > Well, if they were there in the 7th century, then the > Devadatta issue was more than simply about "a jealous > cousin" and then it perhaps did play an important > role in early Buddhism. Do you have any evidence to support your claim that Devadatta played an important role in early Buddhism? The traditional Buddhist history also tell us that Devadatta repented and asked the Buddha for forgiveness. > And what about all those suttas where the Buddha > rests his back against a tree and Sariputta teaches, > after which the Buddha says "Well said Sariputta". I prefer to think that the sangha was too big and that the Old Guy was wise enough to delegate some work to such two wonderful attendants as they. Some times I ask one of my old students to explain some points to our little sangha. In fact, this year I will ask one of them to take care of new students in their first year. > I have plenty more ideas about a Buddhist Da Vinci > Code, but this will do for today. ;-) Hahaha. In fact, I have also started a new book titled, "Devadatta the Renegade: The Truth History of Buddhism." :-) >> But Buddhist history, as any other history, is not >> written by minorities. > The eldest history was written by those minorities > who were first inclined to write, i.e. rather the > Sariputtas than the Devadattas. And what did happen with Devedatta's followers? Did they all attained parinibbana at once and the order disappeared with them without leaving any trace? Best wishes, Beni From bcarral at kungzhi.org Tue Oct 11 17:20:04 2005 From: bcarral at kungzhi.org (Benito Carral) Date: Tue Oct 11 17:27:28 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Self-inmolation in the Buddhist tradition In-Reply-To: <1129054955.30986.12.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1482385235.20051011194231@kungzhi.org> <1129054955.30986.12.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1811126738.20051012012004@kungzhi.org> On Tuesday, October 11, 2005, Richard P. Hayes wrote: >> Does anyone know any study about self-inmolation in >> the Buddhist tradition? > A good place to start is Thich Nhat Hanh's book, > Lotus in a Sea of Fire. Thank you for the reference, Richard. Best wishes, Beni From bcarral at kungzhi.org Tue Oct 11 17:25:14 2005 From: bcarral at kungzhi.org (Benito Carral) Date: Tue Oct 11 17:27:33 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Self-inmolation in the Buddhist tradition In-Reply-To: References: <1482385235.20051011194231@kungzhi.org> <1129054955.30986.12.camel@localhost.localdomain> <434C1A36.6040206@cola.iges.org> Message-ID: <375829113.20051012012514@kungzhi.org> On Tuesday, October 11, 2005, Chan Fu wrote: > All that being said, self immolation, to a buddhist > practitioner, is impossible. Why? The problem with this statement is that it's contrary to the facts. So maybe we are misunderstanding something here. Best wishes, Beni From bcarral at kungzhi.org Tue Oct 11 17:23:09 2005 From: bcarral at kungzhi.org (Benito Carral) Date: Tue Oct 11 17:27:36 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Teaching Zen Buddhist philosophy In-Reply-To: <1129064752.31334.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1129064752.31334.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1666754494.20051012012309@kungzhi.org> On Tuesday, October 11, 2005, Richard P. Hayes wrote: >> I'm sure others would have other good suggestions in >> this vein. > Rest assured that none of these suggestions have been > made in vain. I would like to add a further commentary on your course. This year I also experimented with my students and let them read Ven. Xu-yun's autobiography, so they could see Chan (Zen) philosophy in action. It worked very well and raised many interesting questions. So I would suggest to include one autobiography in your reading list. Best wishes, Beni From bcarral at kungzhi.org Tue Oct 11 17:18:36 2005 From: bcarral at kungzhi.org (Benito Carral) Date: Tue Oct 11 17:27:39 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Self-inmolation in the Buddhist tradition In-Reply-To: <434C1A36.6040206@cola.iges.org> References: <1482385235.20051011194231@kungzhi.org> <1129054955.30986.12.camel@localhost.localdomain> <434C1A36.6040206@cola.iges.org> Message-ID: <15810128427.20051012011836@kungzhi.org> On Tuesday, October 11, 2005, Curt wrote: First of all, thank you for your commentary. > I would prefer to put forward the "position" that one > should assume that anyone who would do such a thing > is just plain crazy. I think that the 'crazy' label is not very useful here. If we take into account the Ven. Xu-yun's story that I shared with the list, we can learn a couple of things. 1) The self-immolated monk was one of great virtue and dharmic accomplishment. 2) Neither Ven. Xu-yun nor the people around the monk thought it was something 'crazy.' 3) Transmiting the Bodhisattva precepts was more important for Ven. Xu-yun than taking care of the monk's funeral. 4) People got confidence in the Buddhadharma because of the ocurrence. Best wishes, Beni From franzmetcalf at earthlink.net Tue Oct 11 17:24:24 2005 From: franzmetcalf at earthlink.net (Franz Metcalf) Date: Tue Oct 11 17:28:41 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: An experiment (Gender on Buddha-l) In-Reply-To: <002101c5ce8e$599b3930$2930cece@charlie> References: <002101c5ce8e$599b3930$2930cece@charlie> Message-ID: <3b153ebf64047f275e79c438310729dc@earthlink.net> Gang, I want to draw our attention to what I think is the *use* of this thread: clarifying what kind of discourse we want to promote on buddha-l. Michael Paris, very reasonably, questioned my recommendations: >> We *should* do better in promoting the voices of women on this >> Buddhist list > > How? > >> and for Buddhist reasons, but we should do better in a *lot* of >> areas, not just this one. > > Maybe, maybe not. Again, how? And what is "better?" I think an exchange between Andrew Skilton and Joanna begins to answer Michael. Like Michael, Andrew wondered if we have a duty to promote women's voices. Joanna answered the how question, but not the why. The "how" is, as she said, to promote an environment that feels inclusive and appreciative of differing voices. Since we're online we can only do this through our style of interaction. But what about that pesky question of "why"? I must admit my answer seems a trifle loose and fuzzy, even to me. Still, I'll throw it out there and say it seems to me that a Buddhist environment ought to be inclusive and appreciative. It should embody (in our case, digitally) the compassion of hearing the other and wisdom of learning from the other. There are things most of us just can't learn from folks nearly like ourselves. The cultural, psychological, and physical experience of others--of the Other--are invaluable to our growth process, even to our bhavana. Just ask Shantideva. Joanna, is, frankly, not all that different from me, but hey we go into dialogue with the buddha-l we have, not the buddha-l we might want. If she is at least somewhat "different" and yet remains active on our list and others perceive her activity is appreciated, then they will more likely become active, themselves. Same goes for someone like Stan Ziobro, who holds political views different from the seeming majority of the list. Preserving these voices, hearing these voices, respecting these voices, learning from these voices is "better" (to try to answer Michael's question) because it compensates for or complements the majority voice of the list. This strikes me as self-evidently good. Perhaps that is not the case for others. Would it help if I said it reminded me of Theravada meditation, where the meditator's specific practice is chosen by the teacher to counteract habitual thought patterns or character traits? I guess I see buddha-l as somehow inherently Buddhist or therapeutic. I realize, thank you Andy, that this is NOT in the constitution of the list. This is supposed to be an academic list. Yet I think others could back me up (if necessary) in asserting that an academic community functions best when the same principles of inclusiveness and appreciation are upheld. Indeed, I think one could make this case more easily for academia than for Buddhism. Since I've gone on quite long enough, I hope I don't have to add that this does not mean we have to include and appreciate just *anything.* Cheers, Franz From bcarral at kungzhi.org Tue Oct 11 17:29:46 2005 From: bcarral at kungzhi.org (Benito Carral) Date: Tue Oct 11 17:37:29 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Self-inmolation in the Buddhist tradition In-Reply-To: References: <1482385235.20051011194231@kungzhi.org> <1129054955.30986.12.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <91729351.20051012012946@kungzhi.org> On Wednesday, October 12, 2005, Franz Metcalf wrote: > The practice has its locus classicus in (Richard's > favorite) The Lotus Sutra, chapter 23. Thank you very much for all your references, I will read that chapter tonight. > Yum-hua Jan, "Buddhist self-immolation in Medieval > China", in History of Religion. No.2, 1965. Maybe some good fellow can get a copy of that article for me, I will ask. > The Gernet reference is in Bernard Faure's _The > Rhetoric of Immediacy_, which I bet you have. Hahaha. You are right, so you would have won your bet. In fact, I enjoyed it very much. :-) Best wishes, Beni From mike at lamrim.org.uk Tue Oct 11 17:40:09 2005 From: mike at lamrim.org.uk (Mike Austin) Date: Tue Oct 11 17:47:29 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: dana In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In message , Andrew Skilton writes >Amongst many others in the UK, I was upset by the ultimate response of >several major charities to the generosity of British public that >spontaneously raise 400 million sterling for tsunami relief (this aside >from UK gov promises) - charities that some time later had not passed >on the money and eventually either returned it (!) or diverted it to >their more 'traditional' causes! .. >Anyone have any interesting observations on the contrast (if such) >between personal/direct giving and institutional giving? Erik seemed to >be touching on this with his wish to remake his decision each time. I share your concern here. This is why I am hesitant about which charity to support. But it would be easy to become negative and do nothing. A colleague at work sometimes takes several months off to go to Mexico. He does voluntary work putting in water supplies and other services for villages. Unfortunately, his circumstances have changed. He is unlikely to be going for some time. I would have happily given him cash to take. -- Metta Mike Austin From junger at samsara.law.cwru.edu Tue Oct 11 16:43:17 2005 From: junger at samsara.law.cwru.edu (Peter D. Junger) Date: Tue Oct 11 17:47:37 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Teaching Zen Buddhist philosophy In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 11 Oct 2005 15:26:13 MDT." <1129065973.31334.36.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <200510112243.j9BMhIR3024387@samsara.law.cwru.edu> "Richard P. Hayes" writes: : On Tue, 2005-10-11 at 11:43 -0700, Michael Paris wrote: : : > I've heard there are worse places than Texas. : : Now that's a hell of a thing to say about Wyoming. Here we all were, : trying to be civilized in front of all the gals, and you go and say : something provocative. Now wait just a minute. Texas gave the world George W. Bush, while Wyomong only gave us his vice president. As someone who is under the delusion that he comes from Wyoming and who has lived in Texas I can assure you that Wyoming isn't as bad as Texas. As they say, all we need in Wyoming is a little more water and a better class of people---but then that's all that Hell needs. Texas needs a lot more than that. -- Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH EMAIL: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu URL: http://samsara.law.cwru.edu From junger at samsara.law.cwru.edu Tue Oct 11 16:54:09 2005 From: junger at samsara.law.cwru.edu (Peter D. Junger) Date: Tue Oct 11 17:57:26 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Self-inmolation in the Buddhist tradition In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 12 Oct 2005 01:25:14 +0200." <375829113.20051012012514@kungzhi.org> Message-ID: <200510112254.j9BMsAYQ024972@samsara.law.cwru.edu> Benito Carral writes: : On Tuesday, October 11, 2005, Chan Fu wrote: : : > All that being said, self immolation, to a buddhist : > practitioner, is impossible. Why? : : The problem with this statement is that it's : contrary to the facts. So maybe we are misunderstanding : something here. : But is it not a fact that there is no self to immolate? -- Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH EMAIL: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu URL: http://samsara.law.cwru.edu From bcarral at kungzhi.org Tue Oct 11 18:09:18 2005 From: bcarral at kungzhi.org (Benito Carral) Date: Tue Oct 11 18:17:26 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Self-inmolation in the Buddhist tradition In-Reply-To: <200510112254.j9BMsAYQ024972@samsara.law.cwru.edu> References: Your message of "Wed, 12 Oct 2005 01:25:14 +0200." <375829113.20051012012514@kungzhi.org> <200510112254.j9BMsAYQ024972@samsara.law.cwru.edu> Message-ID: <1164244173.20051012020918@kungzhi.org> On Wednesday, October 12, 2005, Peter D. Junger wrote: > But is it not a fact that there is no self to > immolate? Hahaha, a good Buddhist joke. :-) You are absolutely right and in fact I would say that it has something to do with the current question. BTW, I have asked about it to some of my contacts in the Chinese sangha, so I hope to be able to offer you something new in the following days. Best wishes, Beni From franzmetcalf at earthlink.net Tue Oct 11 18:19:40 2005 From: franzmetcalf at earthlink.net (Franz Metcalf) Date: Tue Oct 11 18:27:29 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: An experiment (Gender on Buddha-l) In-Reply-To: <1128999892.6547.88.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <000301c5cdb9$9d8944f0$2930cece@charlie> <7e6c217295753a412a4f131eaad3b611@earthlink.net> <1128999892.6547.88.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <57aa5c1d46f3a5386952e57255b346aa@earthlink.net> Richard et al., Loved Richard's very funny and welcome response to me. I was particularly skewered by his observation that > I hate doing my own work as much as I hate doing housework, so I write > messages to > buddha-l and hope she will think I'm hard at work writing a book or > something. I do hope my wife never becomes a buddha-l subscriber. The jig will be up for me--unless... that's it, a book! I've been researching a book here. That's the ticket. You'll back me up on this in case she ever asks, right? After all, what are *you* supposed to be doing instead of reading this post? But Richard and I, while loving similar things about buddha-l, seem to differ how to promote them on our list. God forbid we lose the qualities of humor, repartee, and fearless intelligence that set buddha-l apart from other online lists! (Qualities we owe, in large part, to Richard and the other moderators.) If these qualities are not part of right speech, then forget about right speech. But god forbid, also, that our attempts to create these things lead precisely to their opposites: anger, isolation, and fear. Such results are, unfortunately, easy when we're dealing with beings as deluded as, well, us. Tease the right person and receive a response that makes the list laugh. Tease the wrong one and receive a response that make the list colder. So what if this happens in part because the teased person needs to lighten up, or even to grow up? What matters *to the list* is that we grow less open and less likely to hear each other in a genuinely undefended spirit. Sure, we could continue on and end up with only members who can handle this sort of thing, but, I'm afraid that would be too narcissistic even for me. I think working toward more successful humor, repartee, and intelligence is worth the effort on buddha-l and everywhere. That requires empathy with our partners--who may be veery different than us. I think that kind of dialogue *is* promoting the dharma and I *don't* think it's easy here, even without Don Rumsfeld. Franz (who promises to now put down these "threads" and pick up some real "sutras") From bsimon at toad.net Tue Oct 11 18:36:31 2005 From: bsimon at toad.net (Bernie Simon) Date: Tue Oct 11 18:37:28 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: An experiment (Gender on Buddha-l) In-Reply-To: <200510120020.j9C0K7fc029042@ns1.swcp.com> References: <200510120020.j9C0K7fc029042@ns1.swcp.com> Message-ID: <2e7057fb87a047bbc4b1fac26260c443@toad.net> On Oct 11, 2005, at 8:20 PM, Franz Metcalf Franz Metcalf wrote: > I want to draw our attention to what I think is the *use* of this > thread: clarifying what kind of discourse we want to promote on > buddha-l. The character of any list is set by its main participants. Unless someone bans them, or leans on them via heavy handed moderation, the character of the list is not going to change. It's not that I don't consider civility an admirable goal, but facts are facts and folks are folks. Alex does an admirable job moderating the Kagyu mailing list, which is a pretty civilized place. Though the focus does differ from this list. Short of banning people or breaking their knuckles, I can only suggest setting a good example on the theory that it will foster a similar response. Though if such things worked, I think the history of this sorry world would be considerably different than it is. ---- Peace, love, and harmony Very nice, very nice Well, maybe in the next world (The Smiths) From chanfu at gmail.com Tue Oct 11 18:47:34 2005 From: chanfu at gmail.com (Chan Fu) Date: Tue Oct 11 18:57:32 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Self-inmolation in the Buddhist tradition In-Reply-To: <375829113.20051012012514@kungzhi.org> References: <1482385235.20051011194231@kungzhi.org> <1129054955.30986.12.camel@localhost.localdomain> <434C1A36.6040206@cola.iges.org> <375829113.20051012012514@kungzhi.org> Message-ID: On 10/11/05, Benito Carral wrote: > On Tuesday, October 11, 2005, Chan Fu wrote: > > > All that being said, self immolation, to a buddhist > > practitioner, is impossible. Why? > > The problem with this statement is that it's > contrary to the facts. So maybe we are misunderstanding > something here. > > Best wishes, > > Beni Which facts? There remains the possibility that none of the seven monks who were sacrificed uselessly in Vietnam were actually practicing (realized) buddhists. Indeed, maybe we are misunderstanding something here. cf From s.hodge at padmacholing.freeserve.co.uk Tue Oct 11 18:30:16 2005 From: s.hodge at padmacholing.freeserve.co.uk (Stephen Hodge) Date: Tue Oct 11 19:17:26 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Self-inmolation in the Buddhist tradition References: <1482385235.20051011194231@kungzhi.org><1129054955.30986.12.camel@localhost.localdomain><434C1A36.6040206@cola.iges.org> Message-ID: <005901c5ceca$58e9f350$3a6f4e51@zen> Chan Fu wrote: > At the top, we find the Dalai Lama's Can't follow you. The Dalai Lama's what ? Best wishes, Stephen Hodge From s.hodge at padmacholing.freeserve.co.uk Tue Oct 11 18:26:42 2005 From: s.hodge at padmacholing.freeserve.co.uk (Stephen Hodge) Date: Tue Oct 11 19:17:35 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Conze Memoirs Update References: <20051011184032.RWAD15475.outaamta01.mail.tds.net@smtp.tds.net> Message-ID: <005801c5ceca$580c6490$3a6f4e51@zen> Alex Naughton wrote: Any ideas as to when this third volume is scheduled to appear or if it in fact really exists at all other than as Conze's own projection? ------ Yes, it does exist -- well, it did when I saw at in the mid-1980s at the home of Conze's widow. I had a quick read through it but can't remember too many details, although my impression was that it would have upset quite a few people with Conze's observations on a number of leading Buddhist teachers in the West at that time. I have no idea where it is now -- if it has not been destroyed, which would be a pity Best wishes, Stephen Hodge From srhodes at boulder.net Tue Oct 11 20:28:17 2005 From: srhodes at boulder.net (Steven Rhodes) Date: Tue Oct 11 20:37:28 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Conze Memoirs Update In-Reply-To: <005801c5ceca$580c6490$3a6f4e51@zen> References: <20051011184032.RWAD15475.outaamta01.mail.tds.net@smtp.tds.net> <005801c5ceca$580c6490$3a6f4e51@zen> Message-ID: <434C74C1.4000508@boulder.net> Somewhere, I know not where (I thought that it was in the Memoirs themselves, but the last time I searched I couldn't find it!), I read that the manuscript of vol. 3 is in the safe of his lawyer, to be released when all guilty (i.e., named) parties have passed on. Steven Rhodes Stephen Hodge wrote: > Alex Naughton wrote: > > Any ideas as to when this third volume is scheduled to appear or if it in > fact really exists at all other than as Conze's own projection? > ------ > Yes, it does exist -- well, it did when I saw at in the mid-1980s at the > home of Conze's widow. I had a quick read through it but can't > remember too > many details, although my impression was that it would have upset quite a > few people with Conze's observations on a number of leading Buddhist > teachers in the West at that time. I have no idea where it is now -- > if it has not been destroyed, which would be a pity > > Best wishes, > Stephen Hodge > > > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l > From rhayes at unm.edu Tue Oct 11 21:19:19 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Tue Oct 11 21:27:27 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: An experiment (Gender on Buddha-l) In-Reply-To: <3b153ebf64047f275e79c438310729dc@earthlink.net> References: <002101c5ce8e$599b3930$2930cece@charlie> <3b153ebf64047f275e79c438310729dc@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <1129087159.4378.58.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Tue, 2005-10-11 at 16:24 -0700, Franz Metcalf wrote: > Gang, Hey, cut the sexist language, eh? > I must admit my answer seems a trifle loose and fuzzy, even to me. > Still, I'll throw it out there and say it seems to me that a Buddhist > environment ought to be inclusive and appreciative. I think you're off to a bad start. There is no reason why a Buddhist environment ought to be inclusive. The Buddha never set out to make an inclusive path. He set out to make a path for people who were convinced that renunciation is the best way to attain dukkha-nirodha. That excludes about 99% of the human race. Several years ago, I presented a paper at a conference on Rita Gross's book on Buddhism After Patriarchy. One of the points I argued in that paper is that there is not now, and never has been, any rational reason for Buddhism to make provisions for women. It's not as though the Buddha taught that being a Buddhist monk is necessary to achieve dukkha- nirodha. So excluding women is not depriving them of anything they need. Moreover, the Buddha was a man and knew what a man needs to do to achieve dukkha-nirodha. There is no way he could have known what a woman needs to do to achieve it. Teaching women how to achieve dukkha-nirodha is a woman's job. If women go to a man for advice on something like that, they are bound to get inferior advice. It could even be argued that leaving men alone to develop in their own way, without the distraction of women, benefits women, since it leaves men alone to become much better men. And what could be better for women than to have a world in which men have learned not to be the way they usually are without the benefit of discipline? Undisciplined men tend to be violent, to settle scores by conducting wars, and to be drunken fools. So I submit that Buddhism would not be in the least compromised if it were not gender inclusive; it would function quite well, and would benefit the entire human race, if it were, like the Freemasons, an exclusively male club dedicated to helping males be better men. > It should embody (in our case, digitally) the compassion of hearing > the other and wisdom of learning from the other. There are things most > of us just can't > learn from folks nearly like ourselves. By that logic, naturally gentle people like me should hang out with hockey players and NASCAR drivers. No thanks. I'm quite content to seek out my own kind and to benefit from their company by letting their best qualities reinforce my best qualities, and by counting on them to help me back up when I fall from nobility of conduct. > I guess I see buddha-l as somehow inherently Buddhist or therapeutic. I > realize, thank you Andy, that this is NOT in the constitution of the > list. This is supposed to be an academic list. This is no longer the case. If you read the description of the list that has been in effect ever since we got turfed out of Kentucky, buddha-l has dropped all pretenses of being academic. It is just a Buddhist discussion forum that is open to "all persons inside and outside the academic context who wish to engage in substantial discussion of topics relating to Buddhism and Buddhist studies." The only academic forum for Buddhism is H-Buddhism (of which you are one of the capable moderators). The forum differs from Buddha-l in two important ways. First, H-BUDDHISM is open only to professors and advanced graduate students in the field of Buddhist studies; one must apply for enrolment. Second, h-buddhism does not allow much discussion; it is primarily for information exchange, job announcements and book reviews. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) So any analogies comparing buddha-l to the academic world are sure to break down. That notwithstanding, I will indulge your false analogy, just for the sake of discussion. > Yet I think others could back me up (if necessary) in asserting that > an academic community functions best when the same principles of > inclusiveness and > appreciation are upheld. I think that is true. Despite quite a lot of effort by quite a lot of men and women, much of the academic world is still dominated by men, and I think it suffers for that, especially given that something like 54% of the students are women, many of whom say they would like to have female role models. The academic world is pathological in many ways, and gender imbalance is certainly one of them. Even worse, to my way of thinking, than the scarcity of women in the academic world is fact that women in the academic world still get paid, on average, considerably less than men at the same rank. (I am a happy exception to this rule, since I agreed to come to my present position at the lowest salary a non-tenured faculty member can be paid and so am paid less than the average female.) What makes this whole situation especially enigmatic is that everyone wants to change the situation for the better, but no one seems to be able to achieve it. (It turns out there is not always a way where there is a will.) Nothing is more annoying than a pile of victims of circumstances over which no one has any real control. It just makes everyone frustrated. > Indeed, I think one could make this case more easily for academia than > for Buddhism. You are right. I don't think one can make the case for Buddhism being gender inclusive, but it is easy to make the case for academia. I don't know where that leaves a non-academic Buddhist discussion forum. Suffice it to say, it is not a problem that engages my interest very much. I believe in evolution by random selection, not in intelligent design. > Cheers, We were conducting a conversation on such a mature level, and then you go and mention cheerleaders. The ones from Dallas wouldn't be half bad if somebody would just buy them some more modest clothing. -- Richard Hayes *** "The spiritual path is never one of achievement; it is always one of letting go. The more we let go, the more there is empty and open space for us to see reality." --Sister Ayya Khema From rhayes at unm.edu Tue Oct 11 21:39:29 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Tue Oct 11 21:47:29 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: An experiment (Gender on Buddha-l) In-Reply-To: <2e7057fb87a047bbc4b1fac26260c443@toad.net> References: <200510120020.j9C0K7fc029042@ns1.swcp.com> <2e7057fb87a047bbc4b1fac26260c443@toad.net> Message-ID: <1129088369.5410.12.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Tue, 2005-10-11 at 20:36 -0400, Bernie Simon wrote: > The character of any list is set by its main participants. Unless > someone bans them, or leans on them via heavy handed moderation, the > character of the list is not going to change. In the case of buddha-l, it would be a pity if things changed. When I look at the list of people who contribute the most messages, all of them strike me as showing admirable civility. The only exception to that is myself, and I contribute only about 15% of the messages. (And if people how much more polite what I say is that what I'd LIKE to say, they would realize what a saintly model of restraint I set.) So all things considered, this list is, on average, quite cordial and civilized. And that is achieved with a bare minimum of moderation. Everybody who contributes frequently has their "moderation flag" set to no moderation. No more than five or six messages a week are seen by a moderator before they go out. So I'd have to say that the folks here are, with only one exception, excellent e-mail citizens. So stop bitching already. > Short of banning people or breaking their knuckles, I can > only suggest setting a good example on the theory that it will foster a > similar response. Though if such things worked, I think the history of > this sorry world would be considerably different than it is. Fortunately, buddha-l is better behaved than the world as a whole. 85% of the messages set an excellent example of civility, and 85% of the messages follow that excellent example. -- Richard Hayes From bcarral at kungzhi.org Tue Oct 11 22:36:34 2005 From: bcarral at kungzhi.org (Benito Carral) Date: Tue Oct 11 22:37:29 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: An experiment (Gender on Buddha-l) In-Reply-To: <1129087159.4378.58.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <002101c5ce8e$599b3930$2930cece@charlie> <3b153ebf64047f275e79c438310729dc@earthlink.net> <1129087159.4378.58.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <469066405.20051012063634@kungzhi.org> On Wednesday, October 12, 2005, Richard P. Hayes wrote: > One of the points I argued in that paper is that > there is not now, and never has been, any rational > reason for Buddhism to make provisions for women. Tonigh I have been reading chapter 23 of your favourite sutra (_The Lotus Sutra,_ just in case someone doesn't know it), and I can't repress the urge of quoting a passage from it: That real had no women, hell-dwellers, hungry ghost, beasts, or asuras, or any troubles whatsover. Now I can understand why is your favourite one. Best wishes, Beni PS: Please, read it noticing the involved of irony (just in case someone has missed it). From jinavamsa at yahoo.com Tue Oct 11 22:45:34 2005 From: jinavamsa at yahoo.com (Mitchell Ginsberg) Date: Tue Oct 11 22:47:31 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: buddha-l Digest, Vol 8, Issue 67 In-Reply-To: <200510120350.j9C3ob2k000531@ns1.swcp.com> Message-ID: <20051012044534.29472.qmail@web60012.mail.yahoo.com> hello Steven and all, Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 20:28:17 -0600 From: Steven Rhodes Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] Conze Memoirs Update To: Buddhist discussion forum Somewhere, I know not where (I thought that it was in the Memoirs themselves, but the last time I searched I couldn't find it!), I read that the manuscript of vol. 3 is in the safe of his lawyer, to be released when all guilty (i.e., named) parties have passed on. Steven Rhodes ====== If he named some monks who keep reincarnating, we could be in for a long wait. Still, in some univ. databases I find on searching title: Memoirs & author: Edward Conze, one item: The memoirs of a modern Gnostic / by Edward Conze Sherborne [Eng.: Samizdat Pub. Co., [c1979- pt. 1. Life and letters.--pt. 2. Politics, people and places.--pt. 3. Forbidden thoughts and banished topics. I take this third part is what is being discussed here. Perhaps Samizdat Pub. Co. (Sherborne, Dorset), if that company still exists), would know if anything is being prepared.... Mitchell ==================== http://www.geocities.com/jinavamsa/mentalhealth.html with links to my home page, info on The Inner Palace (3rd ed.) and The Far Shore (3rd ed.), further links to psychotherapy, to my current teaching, to the Insight Practice (Vipassana), Chishtiyya (Sufi), Creative Solutions for Peace, and Nasrudin discussion groups, and to the Collective Dharma Insight project. __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From StormyTet at aol.com Wed Oct 12 02:36:01 2005 From: StormyTet at aol.com (StormyTet@aol.com) Date: Wed Oct 12 02:37:41 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: [Buddha-l ribbing ( Gender on Buddha-l) Message-ID: <1aa.408123b4.307e24f1@aol.com> In a message dated 10/11/2005 10:27:44 A.M. Central Daylight Time, jkirk@spro.net writes: my critique of behavior on this list as CULTURAL gender behavior, not just gender behavior, because that gets back to genetic determinism. Whatever behavior is genetically determined is still, IMO, controversial, although some aspects are getting to be more persuasive, e.g., along the lines of how children of each gender tend to communicate differently. Such differences tend to persist into adulthood, like the way some men (several on this list for example) love to yuck it up horsing around, pretending that teasing and hazing are great ways to "develop trustworthy character." LOL The style of this list is indeed a US male gendered cultural style, as you and Franz have also pointed out. What I am calling for in general is not stilted behavior but civility, that's all, just good old civility. Believe it or not, men are perfectly capable of being civil too. Civility is one way to begin being compassionate because it allows everyone into the charmed circle instead of the usual route here of incivility, which creates nastiness and dukkha. All action has consequences, as we Buddhists are accustomed to pointing out....the consequences of civility are far more beneficial to all and, IMO, to the general purpose of the list than those of incivility. Q.E.D. folks. Joanna ST: Most of the men in my life have been raised in homes where 'ribbing' was the norm. I was raised in a home where I was basically told that all people are equal. At five years old, I did not question this in the least. All of my adult life,. however, I have been hyper-aware of 'ribbing'. I appreciated Mike and Richards accounts of the normalcy of this way of relating because I have had men in my life who viewed this as "normal.' They have had quite a problem with my view that such 'humor' is not 'funny.' Respect to me means building an entirely different kind of humor. I have developed this type of humor with key men in my life. I would be glad to outline this if any men desire guidance. My point is that I KNOW BETTER than to accept ribbing as the only way men can relate. It is harmful to women who are not into 'ribbing.' The very idea of ribbing presupposes a form of violence that is cultural and can be changed. The import of this issue to Buddhism is our mental frames. Stormy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20051012/7e7382a3/attachment.htm From joy.vriens at nerim.net Wed Oct 12 04:06:23 2005 From: joy.vriens at nerim.net (Joy Vriens) Date: Wed Oct 12 04:07:32 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <434CE01F.3020000@nerim.net> bclough wrote: > On this issue, I would recommend Reginald Ray's superb analysis of > Devadatta as condemned forest ascetic in his *Buddhist Saints in > India*, pp. 162-178. Thank you Brad. I had a sneek peek via http://print.google.com and it looks very interesting indeed. Some sources (saddharmapu.n.dariika) mentionned by Reginald Ray go even further than what I dared to imagine. Great tool print.google. For those who read French and want to have access to original (and often rare) French manuscripts or transcripts thereof, http://gallica.bnf.fr/ (under "Recherche") is an absolute treasure. I tend to spend more time reading the extremely rich 17th century litterature than anything else these days. Joy From stephen.hopkins at ukonline.co.uk Wed Oct 12 05:28:48 2005 From: stephen.hopkins at ukonline.co.uk (Stephen Hopkins) Date: Wed Oct 12 04:37:34 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Conze Memoirs Update In-Reply-To: <20051011184032.RWAD15475.outaamta01.mail.tds.net@smtp.tds.net> Message-ID: Alex - Although it's not the fabled third volume you seek, maybe Eric Zsebenyi's forthcoming biography of Conze (which he wrote about at some length in the Fall 2004 issue of Tricycle) will be of some interest to you. Though I've no idea how long we'll have to wait for it. Best, Steve Hopkins From mike at lamrim.org.uk Wed Oct 12 04:32:09 2005 From: mike at lamrim.org.uk (Mike Austin) Date: Wed Oct 12 04:37:37 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: [Buddha-l ribbing ( Gender on Buddha-l) In-Reply-To: <1aa.408123b4.307e24f1@aol.com> References: <1aa.408123b4.307e24f1@aol.com> Message-ID: In message <1aa.408123b4.307e24f1@aol.com>, StormyTet@aol.com writes >I appreciated Mike and Richards accounts of >the normalcy of this way of relating because I have had men in my life >who viewed this as "normal.' In my family, this is 'normal' - male and female alike. In fact, I spar about with my sisters most of all. >They have had quite a problem with my view >that such 'humor' is not 'funny.'? Respect to me means?building an >entirely different kind of humor. I have developed this type of humor >with key men in my life. When I spoke of people not appreciating such sparring, I was thinking of a few men in particular, but I can also recollect women as well. >My point is that I KNOW BETTER than to accept ribbing as the only way >men can relate. It is harmful to women who are not into 'ribbing.' I don't think anyone was suggesting that this is the only way. It is one way, and there can be advantages to this as I have previously mentioned. It could be 'harmful' to anyone who is not disposed to it, whether male or female. I don't like to discriminate between them. I think one should decide according to the individual. Conditioning oneself otherwise would tend to have an adverse affect on cultivating compassion, I feel. Another point here is that one should be careful of making distinctions oneself and then suggesting that it is others that are doing it. I don't say this always happens, but one should be aware of the possibility. >The >very idea of ribbing presupposes?a form of violence ?that ?is cultural >and can be changed. That is your supposition. When one plays sport, there can be a roughness that could be viewed as a form of violence. In earnest debate, there may be something similar. But characters are tempered by such activities. If they are pursued in an environment where one knows there is no malice, I think there can be benefits. We help one another train in this way. >The import of this issue to Buddhism?is? our mental frames. I also think the issue is one of Right Speech. Some of the language used may not, on a strict analysis, fall into this category. However, with a good motivation, maybe Right Speech could be interpreted differently. >Stormy (PS What is your real name - not Gail by any chance?) -- Metta Mike Austin From joy.vriens at nerim.net Wed Oct 12 04:41:58 2005 From: joy.vriens at nerim.net (Joy Vriens) Date: Wed Oct 12 04:47:38 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Devadatta the Renegade: The Thruth History of Buddhism In-Reply-To: <195697600.20051012010828@kungzhi.org> References: <1127942930.6308.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> <433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net><617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org> <4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net><1359619694.20051004213630@kungzhi.org> <43441B56.7080303@nerim.net> <1479321719.20051006043947@kungzhi.org><003c01c5ca43$01172200$c8369c04@Dan> <4344DBFE.8030202@nerim.net> <00c701c5ca62$e5c7f5e0$c8369c04@Dan> <4345220A.5040309@nerim.net> <1667485633.20051007043716@kungzhi.org> <43462606.40507@nerim.net> <1591830279.20051010043322@kungzhi.org> <434A29F1.7080700@nerim.net> <18010600083.20051010172344@kungzhi.org> <434A9578.5040205@nerim.net> <91000758.20051011160943@kungzhi.org> <434BE971.6020008@nerim.net> <215877815.20051011192514@kungzhi.org> <434C31E6.3030108@nerim.net> <195697600.20051012010828@kungzhi.org> Message-ID: <434CE876.2020505@nerim.net> Benito Carral wrote: > I think that you are a Westerner involved in such a > project and, since I'm a Westerner too, I hope to > contribute to your happiness having said that. :-) > However I was not specifically thinking in you, but > bringing to our post a contemporary trend. I have no project other than my curiosity. When I don't understand anything, or when something looks absurd or contradictory, I can't help but sticking my long and pointed nose in it. I don't do anything specific with that information. >>But it doesn't make sense to me that he had the >>authority that you want to give him right from the >>start. > What are you points to doubt the traditional > Buddhist history? Call it a blessed intuition ;-) Coming back to democracy, in Reginald Ray's book mentioned by Brad, Ray goes into detail about the fomenting of a schism by Devadatta. He tries to convince the other bhikkus to join him and they do so by using Salaaka voting sticks or tickets... Devadatta says:"If these five [ascetic rules] are pleasing to the venerable ones, let each one take a voting ticket." Well, either Devadatta invented democracy there and then on the spot, or the habit of voting with Salaaka already existed among groups of renunciants. And if it did, then why shouldn't the Buddha have used it too? >>>It seems quite clear to me that the problem is that >>>westerners can not and want not to admit that the >>>Old Guy had a different agenda. > It's my experience with students that they try to > fit Buddhism into their lives instead of fit their > lives into Buddhism. But isn't that what everybody (with basic sanity) does? Religions and philosophy are tools for a better life, not the other way round. >>Well, if they were there in the 7th century, then the >>Devadatta issue was more than simply about "a jealous >>cousin" and then it perhaps did play an important >>role in early Buddhism. > Do you have any evidence to support your claim that > Devadatta played an important role in early Buddhism? Yes thanks to Brad. ;-) See "Reginald Ray's superb analysis of Devadatta as condemned forest ascetic in his *Buddhist Saints in India*, pp. 162-178." > The traditional Buddhist history also tell us that > Devadatta repented and asked the Buddha for > forgiveness. The traditional Buddhist history (saddharmapu.n.dariika) also tells us that in a previous life Devadatta was the Buddha's teacher. >>And what about all those suttas where the Buddha >>rests his back against a tree and Sariputta teaches, >>after which the Buddha says "Well said Sariputta". > I prefer to think that the sangha was too big and > that the Old Guy was wise enough to delegate some work > to such two wonderful attendants as they. Which would show that he wasn't that authoritarian after all. What pleads in favour of my naughty fantasy on Devadatta and Sariputta's existence after the Buddha's death is that Devadatta, still according to Reginal Rey, isn't mentioned in the earliest core of the skandhaka discussion of the Sa.mghabheda. He suggests that the Devadatta schism arose after the death of the Buddha, but also after the split between Mahasamghikas and Sthaviras. Isn't that interesting, if one considers everything that Sariputta did with Devadatta and said to and about him? > Some times I ask one of my old students to explain > some points to our little sangha. In fact, this year I > will ask one of them to take care of new students in > their first year. Well, Sariputta's position is somewhat different in that he gives further explanations and perhaps even introduces new elements (I imagine) to the Buddha's teaching, after which the Buddha gives his approval. >>I have plenty more ideas about a Buddhist Da Vinci >>Code, but this will do for today. ;-) > > > Hahaha. In fact, I have also started a new book > titled, "Devadatta the Renegade: The Truth History of > Buddhism." :-) Too late. The Buddhist tradition has already written it. >>>But Buddhist history, as any other history, is not >>>written by minorities. > > >>The eldest history was written by those minorities >>who were first inclined to write, i.e. rather the >>Sariputtas than the Devadattas. > > > And what did happen with Devedatta's followers? Did > they all attained parinibbana at once and the order > disappeared with them without leaving any trace? Devadatta's attainments were initially praised by Sariputta and Ananda. His followers who practised Forest Buddhism apparently ended up settling in monasteries too. After that, they shared the same fate as Buddhism in that they disappeared. If only they had invested more in export like Buddhism... Joy From skiltonat at Cardiff.ac.uk Wed Oct 12 05:27:50 2005 From: skiltonat at Cardiff.ac.uk (Andrew Skilton) Date: Wed Oct 12 05:37:34 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: An experiment (Gender on Buddha-l) Message-ID: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 JKirk wrote: > (I simply do not have the time to go back and repeat every one of the 17 posts that were just ignored.) Your point is made! Thankyou for clarifying the factual basis of this discussion. >I don't really know how Franz intended this to mean-- "promote women's voices?"-- True enough - I made assumptions about what he meant. > The rhetorical style found too often on this list is one that would send most intelligent women off to more hospitable lists and has already caused one more of them to leave. Not just women, Joanna. I was indirectly hinting that perhaps there would be broader participation in general on this list if, as you suggest, the style was 'adjusted'. But it is just another assumption that there is anyone who wants broader participation... >I suggest that there are honest negative emotions, and then there are just plain role-playing fake emotions or masks of real hostility that pass for banter. Negativity is a fact of life, especially if someone is making objections. I was not presuming to interpret your emotions with my comment, but just to observe that from my past experience I have been in situations where claims are made by an alleged minority for greater 'air time' or influence, but my judgement has been that the motive being expressed was to wrest power from 'the majority' in order for it to be wielded by that minority. This is not what I thought you were doing. However some feminist critiques come across like this and often enough provoke defensive responses that take us nowhere. There are plenty of women out there who would be/are as oppressive or 'deaf' as many men can be, surely? Andrew Skilton Cardiff From skiltonat at Cardiff.ac.uk Wed Oct 12 05:37:15 2005 From: skiltonat at Cardiff.ac.uk (Andrew Skilton) Date: Wed Oct 12 05:47:35 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Conze Memoirs Update Message-ID: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 Alex Naughton wrote: >Some time ago I obtained (& read with great pleasure) the first two volumes of Edward Conze's _Memoirs of a Modern Gnostic_ in which he mentions a proposed third volume to be published after everyone he names in it is dead & therefore unable to resort to legal action against his heirs. Any ideas as to when this third volume is scheduled to appear or if it in fact really exists at all other than as Conze's own projection? Just wondering. Alex, I read a copy in the WBO library the 1980s (now in Birmingham, UK) and my conclusion is that Conze circulated copies of the typescript to friends and colleagues - in this case it was a copy sent to Sangharakshita. There are therefore probably various copies around. I understood that he had published the first two volumes himself. Andrew Skilton Cardiff From skiltonat at Cardiff.ac.uk Wed Oct 12 06:01:27 2005 From: skiltonat at Cardiff.ac.uk (Andrew Skilton) Date: Wed Oct 12 06:07:37 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: "So much for tsunami dana" Message-ID: On 11/10/05 JKirk rewrote: : The more local the organizing, the better chance they might have to escape : corruption because the more local, the more visible. : In the case of Sri Lanka and other Asian areas, I doubt if such organization : will happen or that any of it will be corruption-free. Civil society in : these countries is weak. I recall a recent UN report that estimated that, of the 10 billion dollars sunk into Cambodia by international agencies over the last decade, only 1 billion had reached the target - i.e. desperately poor Cambodian people. Spectacular! Is not what we call corruption pretty much the norm in traditional societies? (The use of status/power to generate revenue.) My interest in this question is really how best I might offer aid. Via a local agency of some kind is all very well while that agency survives the disaster event. The vihara I mentioned was only partially demolished by the tsunami and therefore half survived and could still function, but events in Kashmir surely have eliminated some of the very agencies that we might have supported? In broader terms, I feel driven to the conclusion that the best recourse for me is to engage in direct personal dana - which curiously, I feel embarrassed by - doubtless my cultural conditioning operating here. When I resort to impersonal giving, via a charity or regular bank debits, I tend to feel that I am contracting out my generosity. Like I am trying to shut it away in a cupboard to allow my conscience to feel at ease. But maybe giving has an uncomfortable edge for the donor? Andrew *********************************** Andrew Skilton D. Phil. email: skiltonat@cardiff.ac.uk *********************************** From joy.vriens at nerim.net Wed Oct 12 05:59:14 2005 From: joy.vriens at nerim.net (Joy Vriens) Date: Wed Oct 12 06:08:51 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: <00a801c5ceb1$0c557eb0$2c1b9c04@Dan> References: <433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net><617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org> <4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net><1359619694.20051004213630@kungzhi.org> <43441B56.7080303@nerim.net><1479321719.20051006043947@kungzhi.org><003c01c5ca43$01172200$c8369c04@Dan><4344DA9B.8040908@xs4all.nl> <00bb01c5ca59$2aa93700$c8369c04@Dan><1128621156.4783.55.camel@localhost.localdomain><008901c5cabf$30ff5010$bc369c04@Dan> <43461940.1060905@nerim.net><022701c5cb19$ff594ab0$bc369c04@Dan> <43465FC4.7080207@nerim.net><019701c5cbf4$23ed7330$e51b9c04@Dan> <4347BFB4.9040105@nerim.net><022301c5cc15$ed402270$e51b9c04@Dan> <434A178C.9050400@nerim.net><0cdb01c5cd76$719b8620$a5369c04@Dan> <434A7A24.1020104@nerim.net><012f01c5ce15$939cd090$5c1b9c04@Dan> <434B6E75.7070808@nerim.net> <1129054543.30986.8.camel@localhost.localdomain> <00a801c5ceb1$0c557eb0$2c1b9c04@Dan> Message-ID: <434CFA92.8020401@nerim.net> Dan Lusthaus wrote: > all Muslims did > was foment the resentment of the underprivileged toward their "oppressors," > promising that in Islam -- unlike Buddhism -- everyone is equal. Then those > soon-to-Muslims-but-not-Muslims-yet-how-convenient did all the revolting and > killing. The eerie similarity between this and the European myth of "Jewish > capitalists" shouldn't escape the observant. The results were also similar. Thanks for the historic summary. Very eerie indeed. The instrumentalisation of populations, groups of population, classes etc. doing the dirty work has a long history of which we haven't seen the end (Reform, French & Russian Revolution, Vichy spring to mind, but there are of course many other exemples). > As modern Buddhists see themselves as less and less amenable to becoming > clerics (who can leave dealing with the power structure to the higher ups > and people with that special calling - and monastic Buddhism is nothing > without patronage, which is already a very ethically compromising > situation), and lay citizens cannot remain responsible citizens without > community and political involvement, then the ability to cultivate the > skills necessary to do so effectively should become a priority. Exit renunciation, a pretty substantial part of Buddhism. How Buddhist will Buddhism be without it? > I mentioned > in a previous message: "The left has fallen into mindless, ineffective > demonization prattle, while the right has > fallen into clever, effective demonization prattle." Recently the effective > way the conservatives have undermined Bush's own Supreme Court nominee -- > mobilizing a variety of venues and effective arguments, has put her > confirmation in doubt. The anti-Bushites could only dream of being so > effective. A perhaps even more potent example can be found in today's New > York Times: Liberals are flumoxed that all the opportunities opened by > Katarina for turning the national debate in their favor have already been > hijacked very effectively by the conservatives: I am absolutely astonished by the absence of opposition (or efficient opposition as you seem to suggest) in the US (judging by the media, which is all I can judge it by), especially since Bush didn't have that big a victory and his aproval rates are dropping. Oh dear I mentioned the B-word. Joy From skiltonat at Cardiff.ac.uk Wed Oct 12 06:34:45 2005 From: skiltonat at Cardiff.ac.uk (Andrew Skilton) Date: Wed Oct 12 06:37:47 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: An experiment (Gender on Buddha-l) Message-ID: On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 Franz Metcalf wrote: > it seems to me that a Buddhist environment ought to be inclusive and appreciative. But is Buddha-l a Buddhist environment? With recent revision of the 'constitution' and from observed practice, Buddha-l is pretty much anything that the moderators (and some contributors) want it to be. I agree that a Buddhist environment probably should be inclusive and appreciative - it has in most of its history been a proselytizing religion after all. > It should embody (in our case, digitally) the compassion of hearing the other and wisdom of learning from the other. There are things most of us just can't learn from folks nearly like ourselves. I am sympathetic to what you write, but in practice I can only respond to people who are 'present' to me. I'm not sure I have a duty to seek out every 'other' in order to learn from it/them. I am selective about my 'others'. Put another way, your comment also begs the objectively unanswerable question of whether I should be learning from you or you should be learning from me - if you see what I mean? In practice this is relevant to who 'owns' a discourse or space... Let's face it Franz, we are only exchanging these words because we agree! My conclusion: Buddha-l is habitually populated by folks who like a particular type of question or exchange. Personally, I might contribute more often to a list with a slightly different 'style'. Andrew *********************************** Andrew Skilton D. Phil. email: skiltonat@cardiff.ac.uk *********************************** From dlusthau at mailer.fsu.edu Wed Oct 12 06:57:30 2005 From: dlusthau at mailer.fsu.edu (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Wed Oct 12 07:08:47 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddhist pacifism References: <00a801c5ceb1$0c557eb0$2c1b9c04@Dan> Message-ID: <020801c5cf2c$84bc70e0$2c1b9c04@Dan> History lays at least some of the blame for the loss of Central Asia and India to the Muslims from Buddhists and Hindus on the Buddhists themselves -- precisely because of their mercantile (capitalist) and pacifistic leanings. consider (re: the beginning of the success of the Ummayid Caliphate to conquer the Sindh, after two failed attempts (initially thwarted by Muslim Turks already controlling access to the area). --- The first two attempts to take Sindh were unsuccessful. However, in 711, at about the same time as they took Samarqand, the Arabs finally achieved their aim. At that time, Hajjaj bin-Yusuf Sakafi was the governor of the easternmost provinces of the Umayyad Empire, which included modern-day eastern Iran, Baluchistan (Mukran), and southern Afghanistan. He decided to dispatch his nephew and son-in-law, General Muhammed bin-Qasim, with twenty thousand troops, to launch a double-pronged invasion of Sindh by land and by sea. The initial target was the coastal city of Debal, near present-day Karachi. Sindh, at this time, had a mixed population of Hindus, Buddhists, and Jains. Xuanzang reported more than four hundred Buddhist monasteries there with twenty-six thousand monks. The Buddhists constitiuted the majority of the urban mercantile and artisan class, while the Hindus were mostly rural farmers. The area was ruled by Chach, a Hindu brahmin with a rural basis, who had usurped control of the government. He supported agriculture and was not interested in protecting trade. The Hindus had a warrior caste who, along with their political and religious leaders, fought the huge Umayyid force. The Buddhists, on the other hand, lacking any martial tradition or caste, and discontent with Chach?s policies, were willing to avoid destruction and submit peacefully. General bin-Qasim?s troops won the victory, and reportedly massacred large numbers of the local population, inflicting heavy damage on the city as punishment for their stiff resistance. It is hard to know how exaggerated that report was. After all, the Arabs wished to preserve a financially viable Sindh in order to increase and profit from the trade that passed through it. Nevertheless, the Umayyids razed the main Hindu temple and erected a mosque on its site. The Umayyid forces then set out against Nirun near present-day Pakistani Hyderabad. The Buddhist governor of the city surrendered voluntarily. However, to set a further example, the triumphant Muslims constructed here as well a mosque on the site of the main Buddhist monastery. They spared the rest of the town. http://www.berzinarchives.com/e-books/historic_interaction_buddhist_islamic/history_cultures_04.html --- In the long run, this policy proved disasterous for Buddhism -- as any newspaper today will illustrate. Any thoughts? Dan Lusthaus From jpeavler at mindspring.com Wed Oct 12 07:53:44 2005 From: jpeavler at mindspring.com (Jim Peavler) Date: Wed Oct 12 07:57:37 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Self-inmolation in the Buddhist tradition In-Reply-To: References: <1482385235.20051011194231@kungzhi.org> <1129054955.30986.12.camel@localhost.localdomain> <434C1A36.6040206@cola.iges.org> Message-ID: On Oct 11, 2005, at 3:49 PM, Chan Fu wrote: > It's surprising that the Vietnamese > buddhists endured direct persecution at the hands of the French > Catholic colonists for many decades and suddenly chose to oppose > the threat of "communism". They were NOT opposing communism. They were opposing the war. Buddhists were killed in about equal numbers by both sides, largely because they insisted on giving aid and comfort to both sides. > All that being said, self immolation, to a buddhist practitioner, > is impossible. Why? Because it involves a commitment to an idea > or ideal. It's possible that when all those supposedly committed body- > parts choppers actually woke up, they went back to the > trashcan to collect their errors. But then it would also be unlikely, > since they would have proven to be good practitioners of detachment. You need to learn a little more about "committed" Buddhism. It is probably a relatively recent development, at least in its current form, which owes a lot to developments during the Vietnam war. But it is rather arrogant to claim that it is not good Buddhism, and that the people so committed are either fools or crazy, while you sit in your nice warm room in a country that chooses to do its killing on the other side of the globe. From laura.castell at jcu.edu.au Tue Oct 11 16:57:48 2005 From: laura.castell at jcu.edu.au (Laura Castell) Date: Wed Oct 12 08:32:04 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: on charities In-Reply-To: <200510111527.j9BFRIXT016449@ns1.swcp.com> Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.0.20051012085154.0120e978@mail.jcu.edu.au> Hi, The October issue of the New Internationalist is dedicated to the discussion of the the integrity of charities, and it includes many of the well known as well as others. They have a web page but you can't access this edition yet. Many libraries have this magazine. It is a bit sad to read it though! Best, Laura From shian at kmspks.org Tue Oct 11 22:27:30 2005 From: shian at kmspks.org ([DPD Web] Shen Shi'an) Date: Wed Oct 12 08:32:09 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] DHARMA AND POLITICS Message-ID: <179F65D5F8DDA444910D688753F41579815658@kmsexsvr01.temple.kmspks.org> Not sure if you have seen this... DHARMA AND POLITICS by Jack Kornfield Many Buddhist practitioners have questioned what to do in these turbulent times. More than anything, I believe the world is in need of a spiritual perspective. The Dharma, the teachings of generosity, virtue, loving-kindness and wisdom are non-partisan. The benefits of dharma teachings can be used by Republicans and Democrats, by Green party and Libertarians, by Iraqis and Israelis. The Dharma welcomes everyone and encourages all to awaken together. But how, as dharma practitioners, do we find our own place in a complex political world, and find a way towards peace? Our first task is to make our own heart a zone of peace. Instead of becoming entangled in an embattled bitterness, or cynicism that exists externally, we need to begin to heal those qualities within ourselves. We have to face our own suffering, our own fear, and transform them into compassion. Only then can we become ready to offer genuine help to the outside world. Albert Camus writes, "We all carry within us our places of exile, our crimes, our ravages. Our task is not to unleash them on the world; it is to transform them in ourselves." A dharma practitioner who wants to act in the sphere of politics must quiet their mind and open their heart. Meditate, turn off the news, turn on Mozart, walk through the trees or the mountains and begin to make yourself peaceful. Make yourself a zone of peace, and allow the sensitivity and compassion that grows from our interconnection to extend to all beings. If we're not peaceful how can we create harmony in the world? If our own minds are not peaceful, how can we expect peace to come through the actions that we take? We can either react to terrorism and insecurity with fear, and create a frightened, barricaded society -- a fortress America - or we can use the teachings of Dharma to respond calmly, with both prudent action and a fearless steady heart. Thich Nhat Hanh tells us, "When the crowded refugee boats met with storms or pirates, if every one panicked, all would be lost. But if even one person stayed calm, it was enough. It showed the way for everyone to survive." Through practice, we can learn to make our own hearts a place of peace and integrity. With a quiet mind and an open heart we can sense the reality of interdependence. Inner and outer are not separate. We are all in the same boat. Buddhist teachings have always taught that life cannot be divided into compartments. Our relationships with others, right speech, right action, right livelihood are part of the eight-fold path. They are factors of enlightenment. Our relations, and society as a whole, are an expression of the enlightened heart. Thus we can understand Gandhi's challenge, "Those who say spirituality has nothing to do with politics, they do not know what spirituality really means." When we understand this, our next task is to see for ourselves what is needed to bring to benefit to the world. How does peace come about? What are the conditions for peace? The Buddha taught that peace is possible both individually and collectively but that it depends on skillful causes and conditions. Inner peace grows from mindfulness, compassion, and respect. Outwardly, it requires the same conditions. When asked about the creation of a wise society, the Buddha counseled visiting ministers that when a society comes together to make decisions in harmony, when it honors its elders and the wise ways they have established, when it cares for its most vulnerable members -- women and children, when it respects the environment and listens to its citizens and its neighbors, it can be expected to prosper and not decline. For the Buddha, a wise society it not based on greed, on hatred or delusion, but on generosity, respect, mindfulness and compassion. In this political climate we are bombarded with propaganda from every political point of view that dulls the senses and overpowers our inner value system. Whatever our political perspective, we will encounter troubling images and feel anger, frustration, even outrage and impatience. If we stop and breath and meditate we will feel underneath these reactions our fear, and under this our connectedness and caring. If our actions come from this deep sense of caring they will bring greater benefit and greater peace. From a quiet heart, we have the ability to look and see how our society treats its most vulnerable members. How does it treat the poor, the elderly, and children? Is it acting in ways that foster greed, hate, fear and ignorance? What can we do nationally and internationally to support generosity and respect, to minimize violence and to end racism and exploitation? What rings true for each of us as followers the Dharma? We need to take an honest look and see what we are doing as a society. America has sometimes confused power with greatness. But genuine greatness is not a matter of mere power; it is a matter of integrity. When we envision a society of compassion and justice, and as a nation we are called upon to do this, our actions can stem from respect for all beings, and peace is the result. Once we have looked clearly, we can set a long-term intention, and dedicate ourselves to a vision of a wise and compassionate society. This is a Bodhisattva's act. Like setting the compass of the heart, this intention expresses our deepest values. If we set a long-term intention, it remains empowering no matter who wins a particular election, or what governments rise and fall. It becomes our way of practice. Thomas Merton taught, "Do not worry about immediate results. More and more you must concentrate on the value, the rightness, the truth of the work itself." With a dedicated intention we are willing to face the sufferings of the world and not shy away, to follow what we know is true, however long it takes. This is a powerful act of the heart, to stay true to our values, and live by them. A beautiful example of a long-term intention was presented by A.T. Ariyaratane, a Buddhist elder, who is considered to be the Gandhi of Sri Lanka. Over the last 17 years, there has been a terrible civil war in Sri Lanka. The Norwegians brokered peace last year, and once the peace treaty was in effect, Ariyaratane called the followers of his Sarvodaya movement together. Sarvodaya, combines Buddhist principles of right livelihood, right action, right understanding, and compassion and has organized citizens in one- third of the nation's villages to dig wells, build schools, to meditate, and collaborate as a form of spiritual practice. Over 650,000 people came to the gathering to hear how he envisioned the future of Sri Lanka. At this gathering he proposed a 500-year peace plan, saying, "The Buddha teaches we must understand causes and conditions. It's taken us 500 years to create the suffering that we are in now." Ari described the effects of 400 years of colonialism, of 500 years of struggle between Hindus, Muslims and Buddhists, and of several centuries of economic disparity. He went on, "it will take us 500 years to change these conditions." Ariyatane then offered solutions, proposing a plan to heal the country. The plan begins with initial years of cease-fire and first years of rebuilding roads and schools. Then it goes on for ten, twenty-five, fifty years with specific programs to learn each other's languages and cultures, to right economic injustice, and to bring the islanders back together as a whole. And every hundred years there will be a council of elders to take stock on how the plan is going. This is a sacred intention, the long-term vision of an elder. In the same way, if we envision the fulfillment of wisdom and compassion in the United States, it becomes clear that the richest nation on the earth must provide healthcare for its children; that the most productive nation on earth must find ways to combine trade with justice; that a creative society must find ways to grow and to protect the environment and sustainable development for generations ahead. A nation founded on democracy must fulfill it at home and then offer the same spirit of international cooperation and respect globally. We are all in this together. Seeing clearly, we need to act. To empower our vision, we need to start now, and be willing to plant seeds, for however long it takes, to benefit our society and ourselves. At Spirit Rock Meditation Center, Sylvia Boorstein has taught a class called Informed Citizenship as Spiritual Practice, which encourages people to ask themselves: What can I do as a wisdom holder, as a Bodhisattva, a member of this society to best contribute to the world in these times? It might be registering people to vote, or working politically, or making our vision heard in organizations of power or in the government, speaking up or writing. It might include working with children, or helping to create a business climate of responsibility and integrity, or working internationally, or tending to poverty, racism and injustice locally. Each person has to find specific steps to offer their vision and energy to society, and to empower those around them. If we don't do this, change won't happen. The vision will not be fulfilled. The Buddha's teachings of compassion and wisdom are empowering; they encourage us to act. Do not doubt that your good actions will bear fruit, and that change for the better can be born from your life. Gandhi reminds us: "I claim to be no more than an average person with less than average ability. I have not the shadow of a doubt that any man or woman can achieve what I have if he or she would simply make the same effort and cultivate the same hope and faith." From tom at tomhead.net Tue Oct 11 16:18:40 2005 From: tom at tomhead.net (Tom Head) Date: Wed Oct 12 08:33:36 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] An experiment (Gender on Buddha-l) In-Reply-To: <000501c5ce75$b7bbf090$2930cece@charlie> References: <000301c5cdb9$9d8944 f0$2930cece@charlie><7e6c217295753a412a4f131eaad3b611@earthlink.net> <000501c5ce75$b7bbf090$2930cece@charlie> Message-ID: >First off, I want to underline that my views have been >misrepresented by a few of the more more chauvinist members here, in >that I do NOT promote wholesale either/or dichotomies of male vs >female, and I am not a rampaging feminist. Please forgive me; being a rampaging feminist myself, I make that mistake quite often. >In fact, I personally am somewhat androgynous in my behavioral >preferences and views. As am I. I count myself a radical feminist rather than a cultural feminist, though the latter seems to be more popular these days among fellow rampaging feminists. >What I am calling for in general is not stilted behavior but >civility, that's all, just good old civility. Believe it or not, men >are perfectly capable of being civil too. Civility is one way to >begin being compassionate because it allows everyone into the >charmed circle instead of the usual route here of incivility, which >creates nastiness and dukkha. There's an adolescent male "fight club" dynamic that seems to be dominant on most academic listservs, but I don't see much of it here. But I promise to look for it. Cheers, TH From tomokono at blueyonder.co.uk Tue Oct 11 16:18:18 2005 From: tomokono at blueyonder.co.uk (Tomoyuki Kono) Date: Wed Oct 12 08:34:02 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Conze Memoirs Update In-Reply-To: <20051011184032.RWAD15475.outaamta01.mail.tds.net@smtp.tds.net> References: <20051011184032.RWAD15475.outaamta01.mail.tds.net@smtp.tds.net> Message-ID: <9FF8F904-D89F-41B6-B855-F447C91BAC0C@blueyonder.co.uk> Hi Alex. On 11 Oct 2005, at 19:40, wrote: > Some time ago I obtained (& read with great pleasure) the first > two volumes of Edward Conze's _Memoirs of a Modern Gnostic_ in > which he mentions a proposed third volume to be published after > everyone he names in it is dead & therefore unable to resort to > legal action against his heirs. Any ideas as to when this third > volume is scheduled to appear or if it in fact really exists at all > other than as Conze's own projection? A similar enquiry was made at Budschol mailing list (now called H- Buddhism) in November 2001 and some people, including Stephen Hodge, provided information. The third volume not only exists but some people (including Stephen) have actually read/seen it. The most detailed update was provided by Prof. Paul Harrison, whose email to the list I copy below. If you search the H-Buddhism archive, you'll be able to read a couple of other people's emails as well. I know nothing beyond what I read on that list but Stephen himself might be able to tell you more. Best wishes, Tomo -----quote----- From: Paul Harrison List Editor: Monika Dix Editor's Subject: QUERY>Edward Conze's Memoirs, Volume III--An Inquiry Author's Subject: QUERY>Edward Conze's Memoirs, Volume III--An Inquiry Date Written: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 13:40:23 +1300 Date Posted: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 20:53:40 -0800 > Dear Budschol Subscribers, Further to the information Stephen has provided, I can add that as Edward Conze wrote his memoirs, he sent typescripts of all three volumes to Professor Jan Willem de Jong in Canberra, Australia. de Jong had encouraged Conze in his autobiographical endeavours, and is the mysterious "you" occasionally addressed in them. Both Gregory Schopen and I, who were doctoral students with de Jong at the time, read the material as it arrived, including the infamous Volume III. I can confirm what Stephen says, that Vol. III was savagely libellous (as if Vols. I & II are not at times vitriolic enough!), and was therefore not to be published until all those described in its pages were dead. For better or for worse I did not pass it over a photocopier at the time, and returned it to Professor de Jong after reading it. Subsequently, when Vols. I & II were published, de Jong gave me the original typescripts for them. I still have them, but have never checked the extent to which they match the published versions or have been "cleaned up." When Canterbury University acquired Prof. de Jong's library and personal papers last year, we hoped we might find Conze III tucked away somewhere among the books. This has not yet happened, although all the books have been unpacked (they are still being catalogued: see http://library.canterbury.ac.nz/art/rels/dejong.shtml). There is an outside chance, I suppose, that the typescript might still lie hidden among the hundreds of boxes of personal papers and correspondence which remain to be opened and sorted. I do know there is a file containing de Jong's correspondence with Conze, and that makes interesting reading in itself. Paul Harrison -----end of quote----- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20051011/1e4c5970/attachment-0001.html From rhayes at unm.edu Wed Oct 12 08:49:17 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Wed Oct 12 08:57:42 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: ribbing ( Gender on Buddha-l) In-Reply-To: References: <1aa.408123b4.307e24f1@aol.com> Message-ID: <1129128558.4552.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Wed, 2005-10-12 at 11:32 +0100, Mike Austin wrote: > In my family, this is 'normal' - male and female alike. In fact, I spar > about with my sisters most of all. My household had no children, so I had no sisters to tease me. My father was a field geologist and so was away from home for long periods of time, so most of what I saw (and learned from) was my mother and her friends. They were a delightful bunch of sharp-tongued women, much given to teasing each other and me. It was a bit like growing up in an environment of half a dozen clones of Dorothy Parker. (In fact, Dorothy Parker was one of my mother's favorite authors, along with James Thurber and William Saroyan.) > When I spoke of people not appreciating such sparring, I was thinking of > a few men in particular, but I can also recollect women as well. It has been my practice for as long as I can remember not to spar with people who don't enjoy it. I have always tried to be careful about this, even in e-mail forums. What seems to me over the top is when people complain about witnessing sparring behavior in others, as if it offends them to see anyone tease anyone. Complaining about having to witness people engaging in verbal horseplay is not offering reminders about right speech; it is humorless meddling. (I apologize, Mike, for agreeing with you about something. It's not as much fun as when we call each other unregenerate fools.) Richard From rhayes at unm.edu Wed Oct 12 08:57:51 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Wed Oct 12 09:07:38 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo In-Reply-To: <434CFA92.8020401@nerim.net> References: <433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net> <617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org> <4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net> <1359619694.20051004213630@kungzhi.org> <43441B56.7080303@nerim.net> <1479321719.20051006043947@kungzhi.org><003c01c5ca43$01172200$c8369c04@Dan> <4344DA9B.8040908@xs4all.nl> <00bb01c5ca59$2aa93700$c8369c04@Dan> <1128621156.4783.55.camel@localhost.localdomain> <008901c5cabf$30ff5010$bc369c04@Dan> <43461940.1060905@nerim.net> <022701c5cb19$ff594ab0$bc369c04@Dan> <43465FC4.7080207@nerim.net> <019701c5cbf4$23ed7330$e51b9c04@Dan> <4347BFB4.9040105@nerim.net> <022301c5cc15$ed402270$e51b9c04@Dan> <434A178C.9050400@nerim.net> <0cdb01c5cd76$719b8620$a5369c04@Dan> <434A7A24.1020104@nerim.net> <012f01c5ce15$939cd090$5c1b9c04@Dan> <434B6E75.7070808@nerim.net> <1129054543.30986.8.camel@localhost.localdomain> <00a801c5ceb1$0c557eb0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <434CFA92.8020401@nerim.net> Message-ID: <1129129071.4552.19.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Wed, 2005-10-12 at 13:59 +0200, Joy Vriens wrote: > Thanks for the historic summary. If you would like to see another version of history, you might look for the book that is my source on these things. It is not, as Dan guessed, Hodgson's three-volume Venture of Islam, but Derryl MacLean's Religion and Society in Arab Sind. There is no reason to prefer one of these views to the other. What I would tend to guess is that both the voluntary conversion and the coerced conversion accounts are probably accurate reports of things that happened in particular places at particular times. I presuppose that the past was about as complex as the present is and that one-size-fits-all analysis and conspiracy theorizing miss out on some of the subtleties of historical reality. -- Richard Hayes From curt at cola.iges.org Wed Oct 12 09:01:35 2005 From: curt at cola.iges.org (curt) Date: Wed Oct 12 09:08:53 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: [Buddha-l ribbing ( Gender on Buddha-l) In-Reply-To: <1aa.408123b4.307e24f1@aol.com> References: <1aa.408123b4.307e24f1@aol.com> Message-ID: <434D254F.90104@cola.iges.org> What passes for "humor" is very often not only a "form of violence" but is actually part of much larger pattern that includes "actual" violence. My favorite example of this kind of "humor" is Aristophanes' play "The Clouds". This is one of most side-splittingly hilarious pieces of literature even written. But Aristophanes wrote it as part of a campaign to whip up public sentiment against Socrates (who is the "butt" of the play). This campaign, as everyone knows, eventually "succeeded" in Socrates' trial and execution. Anyone with even a little bit of a sense of humor can't help but laugh out loud at the way in which Aristophanes ridicules Socrates (http://classics.mit.edu/Aristophanes/clouds.html). Which is exactly what Aristophanes and his co-conspirators wanted. More immediate examples of this "dark side" of humor are racist and sexist jokes - which obviously perpetuate an environment in which "actual" violence is not only made more acceptable, but is even encouraged or glorified in these "jokes". The reason why this works so well, in my opinion, is that "ribbing" is a natural form of socialization that not only comes easily to human beings - but that we naturally and spontaneously gravitate toward. I think its necessary to distinguish between "ribbing" and "ribbing" (see the difference?). "Ribbing" can be not only harmless, but an expression of great intimacy and affection. And it can also be a way for friends, lovers, and family members to "vent" or express things they don't want to (or aren't able to) come right and say. And it is also a way for people to learn how to establish boundaries and rules in a playful and less confrontational way. Having said all that - unless someone is a good friend or a lover or a family member, then if they don't want to be "kidded", leave 'em alone - anything else goes beyond mere ribbing and slips in to ridicule. But if they are your little brother never ever relent. - Curt StormyTet@aol.com wrote: > ST: Most of the men in my life have been raised in homes where > 'ribbing' was the norm. I was raised in a home where I was basically > told that all people are equal. At five years old, I did not question > this in the least. All of my adult life,. however, I have been > hyper-aware of 'ribbing'. I appreciated Mike and Richards accounts of > the normalcy of this way of relating because I have had men in my life > who viewed this as "normal.' They have had quite a problem with my > view that such 'humor' is not 'funny.' Respect to me means building > an entirely different kind of humor. I have developed this type of > humor with key men in my life. I would be glad to outline this if any > men desire guidance. > > My point is that I KNOW BETTER than to accept ribbing as the only way > men can relate. It is harmful to women who are not into 'ribbing.' The > very idea of ribbing presupposes a form of violence that is cultural > and can be changed. > > The import of this issue to Buddhism is our mental frames. > From joy.vriens at nerim.net Wed Oct 12 09:21:40 2005 From: joy.vriens at nerim.net (Joy Vriens) Date: Wed Oct 12 09:27:37 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddhist pacifism In-Reply-To: <020801c5cf2c$84bc70e0$2c1b9c04@Dan> References: <00a801c5ceb1$0c557eb0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <020801c5cf2c$84bc70e0$2c1b9c04@Dan> Message-ID: <434D2A04.5090803@nerim.net> Dan Lusthaus wrote: > The Buddhists constituted the majority of the > urban mercantile and artisan class, while the Hindus were mostly rural > farmers. The area was ruled by Chach, a Hindu brahmin with a rural basis, > who had usurped control of the government. He supported agriculture and was > not interested in protecting trade. Is there an explanation for why people became Buddhists and for what classes of people would chose to become Buddhists. E.g. are there many cases of farmers turning to Buddhism? Farmers tend to be more conservative and I guess that in those days, it must have been a profession that wasn't subject to many changes and therefore guaranteed a quite regular existence. That being the case, what reasons would they have to convert to Buddhism? On the other hand the mercantile and artisan class was more subject to the ups and downs of economic activity and therefore more anxiety driven. What I want to drive at is did those who became or who were lay Buddhists actually have the choice of being anything else than merchants and artisans? And if they didn't, one can't really speak of their mercantile (capitalist) leanings. It would then be more a question of necessity than of preference. Also I consider "pacifism" or non-violence if you prefer an essential and even constitutional part of Buddhism (even though it is more pronounced in Jainism). Without it, I wouldn't recognise it as Buddhism. Joy From bcarral at kungzhi.org Wed Oct 12 09:23:29 2005 From: bcarral at kungzhi.org (Benito Carral) Date: Wed Oct 12 09:27:45 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Self-inmolation in the Buddhist tradition In-Reply-To: References: <1482385235.20051011194231@kungzhi.org> <1129054955.30986.12.camel@localhost.localdomain> <434C1A36.6040206@cola.iges.org> <375829113.20051012012514@kungzhi.org> Message-ID: <837006096.20051012172329@kungzhi.org> On Wednesday, October 12, 2005, Chan Fu wrote: >>> All that being said, self immolation, to a buddhist >>> practitioner, is impossible. Why? >> The problem with this statement is that it's >> contrary to the facts. So maybe we are >> misunderstanding something here. > Which facts? For example, the case related by Ven. Xu-yun in his autobiography. It's clear that the self-immolated monk was one of great virtue. There is also the interesting question that, in the Chinese tradition (and keeping in mind chapter 23 of _The Lotus Sutra_ not only there), such monks have been regarded as virtuous and worthy of emulation for centuries. > Indeed, maybe we are misunderstanding something here. I would bet. Best wishes, Beni From bclough at aucegypt.edu Wed Oct 12 09:32:19 2005 From: bclough at aucegypt.edu (bclough) Date: Wed Oct 12 09:37:42 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo Message-ID: >bclough wrote: On this issue, I would recommend Reginald Ray's superb analysis of Devadatta as condemned forest ascetic in his *Buddhist Saints in India*, pp. 162-178. Joy Vriens wrote: > Thank you Brad. I had a sneek peek via http://print.google.com and it looks very interesting indeed. Some sources (saddharmapu.n.dariika) mentionned by Reginald Ray go even further than what I dared to imagine. >Great tool print.google. Most welcome, Joy; Ray's book is really a tour de force and should be intriguing to all those interested in the history of Indian Buddhism. And thanks for putting me/us onto print.google. I for one was not aware of this tool. Best, Brad From mike at lamrim.org.uk Wed Oct 12 09:41:09 2005 From: mike at lamrim.org.uk (Mike Austin) Date: Wed Oct 12 09:57:37 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: ribbing ( Gender on Buddha-l) In-Reply-To: <1129128558.4552.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1aa.408123b4.307e24f1@aol.com> <1129128558.4552.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: In message <1129128558.4552.11.camel@localhost.localdomain>, Richard P. Hayes writes >I apologize, Mike, for agreeing with you about something. Aw. You're no fun anymore. -- Metta Mike Austin From mike at lamrim.org.uk Wed Oct 12 09:45:26 2005 From: mike at lamrim.org.uk (Mike Austin) Date: Wed Oct 12 09:57:42 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: on charities In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.0.20051012085154.0120e978@mail.jcu.edu.au> References: <200510111527.j9BFRIXT016449@ns1.swcp.com> <5.2.1.1.0.20051012085154.0120e978@mail.jcu.edu.au> Message-ID: In message <5.2.1.1.0.20051012085154.0120e978@mail.jcu.edu.au>, Laura Castell writes >The October issue of the New Internationalist is dedicated to the >discussion of the the integrity of charities, and it includes many of >the well known as well as others. They have a web page but you can't >access this edition yet. Many libraries have this magazine. Thanks. I'll look out for it. All the research I have done has been into their published accounts, whenever available. >It is a bit sad to read it though! That's OK. There are those who think I am too jovial anyway. -- Metta Mike Austin From curt at cola.iges.org Wed Oct 12 10:03:23 2005 From: curt at cola.iges.org (curt) Date: Wed Oct 12 10:07:41 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddhist pacifism In-Reply-To: <434D2A04.5090803@nerim.net> References: <00a801c5ceb1$0c557eb0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <020801c5cf2c$84bc70e0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <434D2A04.5090803@nerim.net> Message-ID: <434D33CB.9050603@cola.iges.org> The idea that pacifism is essential to Buddhism is a very recent idea, as far as I know. I have never seen any evidence that pacifism has been a major tenet of any school of Buddhism - or of any major (or, for that matter, minor) Buddhist teacher (prior to the present Dalai Lama - none his previous incarnations, for instance, where anything like pacifistic). Buddhism has been a mainstream religion throughout Asia for 2500 years. There has never been any move by any "Buddhist" country to dismantle its standing army and dissolve all police forces and other institutions of "violence". Nor has there been any "call" or "campaign" by Buddhists demanding any such thing. Buddhist teachers and/or priests have had enormous political influence throughout Asia - advising kings and emperors and commanding large followings of their own and also controlling vast amounts of wealth. I think that if Asian Buddhists had been promoting pacifism all along there would be some pretty clear evidence of it. I would be very interested to hear of any such evidence. I would also be very interested to know what basis there is for considering pacifism to be an essential part of Buddhism. Dan gave one example of a group of Buddhists who chose to surrender rather than fight against Muslim invaders. But as the report clearly shows, there were good reasons for the Buddhists to do so: (1) if they did put up a fight they would likely be slaughtered if they lost - whereas if they just gave up they might come out a lot better, (2) they were looking for a change of administration anyway, (3) they did not have a fighting force of their own (which does not at all imply that they were "pacifists" - maybe they were cowards or weaklings or just decadent middle-class types who prefer it when other people to do their fighting for them). Is there perhaps some stronger evidence than this? - Curt Joy Vriens wrote: > Also I consider "pacifism" or non-violence if you prefer an essential > and even constitutional part of Buddhism (even though it is more > pronounced in Jainism). Without it, I wouldn't recognise it as Buddhism. From StormyTet at aol.com Wed Oct 12 10:13:50 2005 From: StormyTet at aol.com (StormyTet@aol.com) Date: Wed Oct 12 10:17:42 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: [Buddha-l ribbing ( Gender on Buddha-l) Message-ID: In a message dated 10/12/2005 6:58:46 A.M. Central Daylight Time, mike@lamrim.org.uk writes: >Stormy (PS What is your real name - not Gail by any chance?) ST: Ha. Cute weather joke. I don't believe I have ever been called a gale. Cute. Last year I got several christmas presents that read "To Tsunami" My name really is Stormy. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20051012/16c05c58/attachment.htm From StormyTet at aol.com Wed Oct 12 10:07:35 2005 From: StormyTet at aol.com (StormyTet@aol.com) Date: Wed Oct 12 10:18:57 2005 Subject: Fwd: [Buddha-l] Re: [Buddha-l ribbing ( Gender on Buddha-l) Message-ID: <84.4fa81cca.307e8ec7@aol.com> Skipped content of type multipart/alternative-------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: Mike Austin Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] Re: [Buddha-l ribbing ( Gender on Buddha-l) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 11:32:09 +0100 Size: 5503 Url: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20051012/c3bb3c9c/attachment.mht From skiltonat at Cardiff.ac.uk Wed Oct 12 10:20:01 2005 From: skiltonat at Cardiff.ac.uk (Andrew Skilton) Date: Wed Oct 12 10:27:49 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: An experiment (Gender on Buddha-l) Message-ID: 12 Oct 2005 "Andrew Skilton" wrote: >My conclusion: Buddha-l is habitually populated by folks who like a particular type of question or exchange. Personally, I might contribute more often to a list with a slightly different 'style'. Well, if I may be permitted to dialogue with myself.... That's really not quite enough Andrew! What about where we started, with Joanna's email about responses to her mails? I do not feel it a duty to listen to women as a group (which group, voice, etc etc?), although I should add that I have undoubtedly learnt, partly through listening to some women, that women are often not heard in a number of circumstances in our society. As a result I have become able occasionally to recognise situations in which a woman is saying something that is not being heard. Big deal! And anyway it is the nature of things that we all occasionally do not get listened to and I could even try to construct a case for saying that it occasionally does us good not to be listened to. This is all obvious. But there are circumstances where I think (and feel) that I do have a duty to try to listen to others (women or otherwise) and these are usually connected with some form of direct or personal communication - perhaps best to say, when I am being addressed by someone who is a member of my 'community'. I guess we all probably participate in a range of different, more or less overlapping communities. Buddha-l is a virtual community that has a kind of 'hard core' of habitual contributors, and a only slightly less 'hard' band of people who regularly contribute, and then a more diffuse membership of people who lurk. I guess I am one of the latter. From my perspective Joanna looks like a member of the 'hard core' - Richard's statistic seems to confirm this - over a period of eight days she was one of the half dozen most frequent contributors. I don't think it matters much if I ignore Joanna (bear with me, J) since I do not really count myself a very active member of the virtual community of which she is such a committed member, and hence she and I do not owe each other a very high degree of attention. But it is significant if the others who are equally committed as her do appear to ignore her contributions. That begins to mean something and seem odd. Its all very well for someone (I cannot recall whom) at one point to suggest her contributions are just not as interesting to the others as their own are (!), but her contributions help constitute the mainstream of this list from where I sit. This sounds like, "we'll only take notice of you while you recite our dialogue, think our thoughts, show an interest in our fancies - yours don't count". This, Franz, is the nearest I can get to a case for saying that JK should perhaps have had a better response to her mails than she did - I personally cannot resort to grand ideological strategies, like the bodhisattva path, in a context which is secular, non-academic and voluntary. Andrew From dlusthau at mailer.fsu.edu Wed Oct 12 10:32:35 2005 From: dlusthau at mailer.fsu.edu (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Wed Oct 12 10:37:44 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddhist pacifism References: <00a801c5ceb1$0c557eb0$2c1b9c04@Dan><020801c5cf2c$84bc70e0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <434D2A04.5090803@nerim.net> Message-ID: <003501c5cf4a$903fff90$35369c04@Dan> In addition to Hodgson and MacLean, an important (and the most thorough -- though there are still frustrating gaps) reference is Andre Wink, _Al-Hind: The Making of the Indo-Islamic World_ (2 vols.). Joy wrote: > Also I consider "pacifism" or non-violence if you prefer an essential > and even constitutional part of Buddhism (even though it is more > pronounced in Jainism). Without it, I wouldn't recognise it as Buddhism. Then the following, from the same site (different webpage) as before, may be unrecognizable: --- Empress Dowager Trima Lo, being friendly with the Chinese court, now turned Tibet?s military ambitions away from that direction and formed an alliance in 705 with the Turki Shahis in Gandhara and Bactria, this time against the Umayyad Arabs. When the Empress Dowager passed away in 712 and Mey-agtsom ascended the throne (r. 712 - 755), he was still a minor. Empress Jincheng, like the late Empress Dowager, subsequently exerted a strong influence on the Tibetan court. The Tibetan-Umayyad Alliance Meanwhile, the power struggle over West Turkistan continued. In 715, after the Arab general, Qutaiba, had taken Bactria back from the Turki Shahis, Tibet switched sides and allied itself with the Umayyad forces they had just been fighting. The Tibetan troops then helped the Arab general take Ferghana from the Turgish and prepare for an advance against Turgish-held Kashgar. The Tibetans? alliance with the Turki Shahis and then the Umayyids was undoubtedly an expediency for keeping a foothold in Bactria with the hope of reestablishing its military, economic, and political presence in the Tarim Basin. Tax from the lucrative Silk Route trade was the ever-present lure for their actions. [... ] Therefore, the Bon faction in the Tibetan court was not leading a "holy war" in Bactria. Furthermore, neither were the Buddhists, as is indicated by the fact that after the loss of Bactria and the devastation of Nava Vihara, the Tibetans did not continue to defend Buddhism in Bactria, but changed alliances and joined with the Muslim Arabs. The primary motivating force behind the Tibetans? foreign policy was political and economic self-interest, not religion. http://www.berzinarchives.com/e-books/historic_interaction_buddhist_islamic/history_cultures_05.html ------------- The Empress Dowager was an admirer of China and Buddhism, and had Chinese monks brought to her court to educate them (especially the women). As mentioned, the Turks (Turki Shahis) were the initial impediment to Arab (Umayyad) conquest of Gandhara and Bactria. Nava Vihara was the main monastery in Tagzig. During this period there were substantial dislocations of Buddhist populations from Central Asia, some fleeing parts of Central Asia for Kashmir and India (especially Valabhi, an important Buddhist university that rivaled Nalanda, was a Yogacara stronghold for many generations -- where Gunamati and Sthiramati hailed from, for instance, a couple of centuries earlier). The dislocatees occasionally moved back to Central Asia (either voluntarily or compelled by the rulers of their new locations -- the age-old refugee problem), only to undergo further travails in time. As for the question as to whether Merchants had no choice but to become Buddhists, that seems unlikely in most cases. In the period following Asoka, Buddhists clearly linked up with the merchants in India's northeast (e.g., gandhara and beyond) -- which became a Sarvastivadin stronghold -- and pursued writing with an eagerness still foreign to Hindus who remained resistant to writing for some time. They followed the merchants through the Silk Road (that is how Buddhism spread through Central Asia and reached China). That symbiosis largely flourished until Arabs entered the region. To repeat, my interest is less in passing judgement on long-ago events as much as evaluating -- historically -- the strategies Buddhists used to deal with persecution, invasion, etc., and observe their effectiveness and consequences. Before advocating a naive adoption of certain principles of action, it seems prudent to look back at how successful or unsuccessful those strategies were in the past, so that we can learn how to improve them -- just as many today would advocate , without much resistance, revisiting Buddhist treatment of women, monastic authority (guru abusing devotees scandals), and a host of other Buddhist issues that seem to be in serious need of revision. Dan Lusthaus From jkirk at spro.net Wed Oct 12 10:47:04 2005 From: jkirk at spro.net (jkirk) Date: Wed Oct 12 10:47:40 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: An experiment (Gender on Buddha-l) References: Message-ID: <002901c5cf4c$93acb2c0$2930cece@charlie> This is not what I > thought you were doing. However some feminist critiques come across like > this > and often enough provoke defensive responses that take us nowhere. There > are > plenty of women out there who would be/are as oppressive or 'deaf' as many > men > can be, surely? > > Andrew Skilton > > Cardiff ============== Yes indeed Andrew, quite so. But this list is not run by women or "a" woman, and there are few women left on it as well. Thus, the aspect of gender behavior you refer to is not relevant to my crit of this list's general tone nor to my call for civility as a more productive and peaceful Style. I was not addressing feminism per se, so why drag it in now? Unless you are fixin' to change the thread. Right? Joanna From bcarral at kungzhi.org Wed Oct 12 10:54:57 2005 From: bcarral at kungzhi.org (Benito Carral) Date: Wed Oct 12 10:58:53 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Devadatta the Renegade: The Thrue History of Buddhism In-Reply-To: <434CE876.2020505@nerim.net> References: <1127942930.6308.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> <433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net><617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org> <4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net><1359619694.20051004213630@kungzhi.org> <43441B56.7080303@nerim.net> <1479321719.20051006043947@kungzhi.org><003c01c5ca43$01172200$c8369c04@Dan> <4344DBFE.8030202@nerim.net> <00c701c5ca62$e5c7f5e0$c8369c04@Dan> <4345220A.5040309@nerim.net> <1667485633.20051007043716@kungzhi.org> <43462606.40507@nerim.net> <1591830279.20051010043322@kungzhi.org> <434A29F1.7080700@nerim.net> <18010600083.20051010172344@kungzhi.org> <434A9578.5040205@nerim.net> <91000758.20051011160943@kungzhi.org> <434BE971.6020008@nerim.net> <215877815.20051011192514@kungzhi.org> <434C31E6.3030108@nerim.net> <195697600.20051012010828@kungzhi.org> <434CE876.2020505@nerim.net> Message-ID: <1145551373.20051012185457@kungzhi.org> On Wednesday, October 12, 2005, Joy Vriens wrote: > Well, either Devadatta invented democracy there and > then on the spot, or the habit of voting with Salaaka > already existed among groups of renunciants. And if > it did, then why shouldn't the Buddha have used it > too? It's clear that the Buddha allowed some decisions to be taken by the sangha, but he always was the last authority. (As I have said in an early post, I find that the idea of a democratic sangha is a most troublesome one, altmost a nightmare.) >> It's my experience with students that they try to >> fit Buddhism into their lives instead of fit their >> lives into Buddhism. > But isn't that what everybody (with basic sanity) > does? I don't agree. For example, I know Buddhists who after finishing their sitting in the Buddhist center go out and drink more than one and two beers. Is that basic sanity? I think that it's hypocrisy at best. It's like going to the doctor and refusing to take some of the pills because they taste bad. >> Do you have any evidence to support your claim that >> Devadatta played an important role in early >> Buddhism? > Yes thanks to Brad. ;-) See "Reginald Ray's superb > analysis of Devadatta as condemned forest ascetic in > his *Buddhist Saints in India*, pp. 162-178." I have just read it and it can't be inferred from it that Devadatta played an important role in early Buddhism. It tells us that a group of rigorist followers decided to marginalize themselves and eventually become decadent having adopting monasteries instead of trees as their abodes. >> The traditional Buddhist history also tell us that >> Devadatta repented and asked the Buddha for >> forgiveness. > The traditional Buddhist history > (saddharmapu.n.dariika) also tells us that in a > previous life Devadatta was the Buddha's eacher. I would not say that such a Mahayana sutra is part of the canon of the traditional Buddhist history. > Which would show that he wasn't that authoritarian > after all. There is a difference between being an authoritarian and being a stupid. :-) He was always the last authority, the Sangha chief, but chiefs don't take all the decisions nor do all the job. > What pleads in favour of my naughty fantasy on > Devadatta and Sariputta's existence after the > Buddha's death is that Devadatta, still according to > Reginal Rey, isn't mentioned in the earliest core of > the skandhaka discussion of the Sa.mghabheda. He > suggests that the Devadatta schism arose after the > death of the Buddha, but also after the split between > Mahasamghikas and Sthaviras. Isn't that interesting, > if one considers everything that Sariputta did with > Devadatta and said to and about him? I see that we have read it in a different vein. :-) If I had to do something with such info, I would say that Devadatta is a character that latter Buddhist writers developed (something similar to Bodhidharma in the Chan tradition). >> Hahaha. In fact, I have also started a new book >> titled, "Devadatta the Renegade: The Truth History >> of Buddhism." :-) > Too late. The Buddhist tradition has already written > it. Is there only place for one book? :-) Maybe I would have to think in a different one, what's about, "The New Devadattian Tradition: Buddhism with guts"? Best wishes, Beni From jkirk at spro.net Wed Oct 12 11:04:28 2005 From: jkirk at spro.net (jkirk) Date: Wed Oct 12 11:07:42 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: "So much for tsunami dana" References: Message-ID: <002f01c5cf4f$01e1d2f0$2930cece@charlie> > On 11/10/05 JKirk rewrote: > > : The more local the organizing, the better chance they might have to > escape > : corruption because the more local, the more visible. > : In the case of Sri Lanka and other Asian areas, I doubt if such > organization > : will happen or that any of it will be corruption-free. Civil society in > : these countries is weak. > > I recall a recent UN report that estimated that, of the 10 billion dollars > sunk > into Cambodia by international agencies over the last decade, only 1 > billion had > reached the target - i.e. desperately poor Cambodian people. Spectacular! > > Is not what we call corruption pretty much the norm in traditional > societies? > (The use of status/power to generate revenue.) --------- I agree with this analysis--we can see it also at work right here in the US, where crony business companies of the Bush administration got contracts for rebuilding New Orleans, and special exemptions from paying regular wages--lower wages became OK. This has now attracted hordes of workers from Mexico who are willing to work for much less, thus denying not only local businesses, but local workers, from rebuilding jobs. Local New Orleans businessmen are now raising hell about it, but i doubt if they will be heard by the status/power factions. JK ------------- My interest in this question is > really how best I might offer aid. Via a local agency of some kind is all > very > well while that agency survives the disaster event. The vihara I mentioned > was > only partially demolished by the tsunami and therefore half survived and > could > still function, but events in Kashmir surely have eliminated some of the > very > agencies that we might have supported? > > In broader terms, I feel driven to the conclusion that the best recourse > for me > is to engage in direct personal dana - which curiously, I feel embarrassed > by - > doubtless my cultural conditioning operating here. When I resort to > impersonal > giving, via a charity or regular bank debits, I tend to feel that I am > contracting out my generosity. Like I am trying to shut it away in a > cupboard > to allow my conscience to feel at ease. But maybe giving has an > uncomfortable > edge for the donor? > > Andrew ============== Can ways of offering dana really be regularized into one particular MO? I doubt it. We give as we can and as we see is fitting. I personally am not giving to any international agencies any more, except Medecins sans Frontieres, because the rest have such poor track records, or their help inevitably ends up in corrupt hands as unsupervised giving. IMO let the multi-millionaire Saudis help out Pakistan, where they've spent millions already on building madressahs on every block, and the multimillionaire Indians (like the Tatas and other wealthy families) help the Kashmiris. Local is better, more responsible, perhaps. I'm off to donate to my local Red Cross, which is suffering because most of the mil. they raised around here went to hurricane aid, and their ability to help locals here has been significantly reduced. Joanna From curt at cola.iges.org Wed Oct 12 11:16:08 2005 From: curt at cola.iges.org (curt) Date: Wed Oct 12 11:17:39 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: "So much for tsunami dana" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <434D44D8.4070502@cola.iges.org> Andrew Skilton wrote: >On 11/10/05 JKirk rewrote: > >: The more local the organizing, the better chance they might have to escape >: corruption because the more local, the more visible. >: In the case of Sri Lanka and other Asian areas, I doubt if such organization >: will happen or that any of it will be corruption-free. Civil society in >: these countries is weak. > >I recall a recent UN report that estimated that, of the 10 billion dollars sunk >into Cambodia by international agencies over the last decade, only 1 billion had >reached the target - i.e. desperately poor Cambodian people. Spectacular! > > File this under "Yes, but...." The current US military budget is approx. $560 billion (http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm). The rest of the world put together spends about as much - so lets round it off to an even $1 trillion per annum. If that money were instead spent on wasteful aid programs in which only 1/10 of the money went to the people who needed it, that would still be $100 billion a year going to people who desparately need it. If the $$$ were specifically targeted at the poorest 1/3 of humanity it would come out to about $50 per person a year. Doesn't sound like much, but in 10 years, or 20 years, or even 50 years it would do more to "save all beings" than has ever been done by all the world's religious do-gooders put together. Throwing money at problems is better than thowing bombs and guns at them. Besides, if I were poor I would definitely want people to throw money at me. - Curt From dlusthau at mailer.fsu.edu Wed Oct 12 11:03:18 2005 From: dlusthau at mailer.fsu.edu (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Wed Oct 12 11:18:50 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddhist pacifism References: <00a801c5ceb1$0c557eb0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <020801c5cf2c$84bc70e0$2c1b9c04@Dan><434D2A04.5090803@nerim.net> <434D33CB.9050603@cola.iges.org> Message-ID: <006201c5cf4f$81c981c0$35369c04@Dan> Curt wrote > Dan gave one example of a group of Buddhists who chose to surrender > rather than fight against Muslim invaders. But as the report clearly > shows, there were good reasons for the Buddhists to do so [...] >Is there perhaps some stronger evidence than this? In fact, those reasons didn't quite pan out, and one blaring inconsistency in the manner that Alexander Berzin (the author of the work on that site) presents things is that, despite taking that pose of appeasement, Buddhist monasteries were subjected to persecutions and destruction. If only Hindus offered resistance, why were monasteries punished? Berzin tends to look for explanations least damning to Muslim actions and intentions, which is not uncommon in this sort of literature. What sort of evidence for what are you seeking? As for pacifism only being a modern innovation in Buddhism, that's not quite the case either. Ahimsa (non-harming) has been a Buddhist ideal since the beginning, though one has evaluate that -- especially in the early period -- against the Jain version of what the same term entails. Buddha tended to consider Jains extreme in most things, including the way they understood and applied ahimsa. Beni has mentioned the Autobiography of Xu Yun (Empty Cloud) many times, a Chinese monk who lived well into his hundreds (1840-1959) who was a vigilant pacifist (although his authobiography shows that not all Buddhists or monks shared his convictions, much less followed his actions). To put in bluntly, he was beaten to within an inch of his life numerous times, including when interceding to resolve conflicts, which in some cases he did eventually succeed in defusing. You can probably find the Charles Luk translation in a bookstore or library near you. He is the stunning contrast in Chan to the type of Zen decried by Victoria -- one of the insuperable gaps between Chan and Zen, especially in recent centuries. As in other spheres, I would recommend against a too quick either/or approach (pacifism/violence). Buddhists had multiple ways of embracing and getting around both. Dan Lusthaus From rhayes at unm.edu Wed Oct 12 11:24:34 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Wed Oct 12 11:27:39 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddhist pacifism In-Reply-To: <434D33CB.9050603@cola.iges.org> References: <00a801c5ceb1$0c557eb0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <020801c5cf2c$84bc70e0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <434D2A04.5090803@nerim.net> <434D33CB.9050603@cola.iges.org> Message-ID: <1129137874.4552.26.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Wed, 2005-10-12 at 12:03 -0400, curt wrote: > The idea that pacifism is essential to Buddhism is a very recent idea, > as far as I know. So what? It's the right idea. If it took Buddhists a long time to catch on to the full implications of the Buddha's teachings, then all I can say is "Better late than never." -- Dh. Dayamati Albuquerque, New Mexico From skiltonat at Cardiff.ac.uk Wed Oct 12 11:22:04 2005 From: skiltonat at Cardiff.ac.uk (Andrew Skilton) Date: Wed Oct 12 11:27:54 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: An experiment (Gender on Buddha-l) Message-ID: On Wed, 12 Oct: [ASkilton] >> There are plenty of women out there who would be/are as oppressive or 'deaf' as many >> men can be, surely? [JKirk] >Yes indeed Andrew, quite so. >But this list is not run by women or "a" woman, and there are few women left >on it as well. Thus, the aspect of gender behavior you refer to is not >relevant to my crit of this list's general tone nor to my call for civility >as a more productive and peaceful Style. I agree that it is irrelevant - I was speculating on why some responses to your post seemed so pathetic. I thought I myself was saying that such responses, if so motivated, are irrelevant. >I was not addressing feminism per se, so why drag it in now? >Unless you are fixin' to change the thread. Right? I have no interest in doing this. It is others, I think, who have first mentioned the 'f' word in relation to your position. Andrew From jpeavler at mindspring.com Wed Oct 12 11:54:48 2005 From: jpeavler at mindspring.com (Jim Peavler) Date: Wed Oct 12 11:57:44 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddhist pacifism In-Reply-To: <1129137874.4552.26.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <00a801c5ceb1$0c557eb0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <020801c5cf2c$84bc70e0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <434D2A04.5090803@nerim.net> <434D33CB.9050603@cola.iges.org> <1129137874.4552.26.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: On Oct 12, 2005, at 11:24 AM, Richard P. Hayes wrote: > On Wed, 2005-10-12 at 12:03 -0400, curt wrote: > >> The idea that pacifism is essential to Buddhism is a very recent idea, >> as far as I know. > > So what? It's the right idea. If it took Buddhists a long time to catch > on to the full implications of the Buddha's teachings, then all I can > Jesus seems to have taught some pacifist ideas, but I don't see too many Christians who have caught on so far. From rhayes at unm.edu Wed Oct 12 11:52:04 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Wed Oct 12 11:57:53 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: An experiment (Gender on Buddha-l) In-Reply-To: <002901c5cf4c$93acb2c0$2930cece@charlie> References: <002901c5cf4c$93acb2c0$2930cece@charlie> Message-ID: <1129139524.4552.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Wed, 2005-10-12 at 10:47 -0600, jkirk wrote: > But this list is not run by women or "a" woman, and there are few women left > on it as well. This list is not run by anyone. It has an administrator whose job is to help people with little technical problems pertaining to their subscriptions. It also has two moderators, whose main function is to set a contributor's moderation flag to "no moderation needed." All the main contributors can send messages directly to the list without moderation or censorship of any kind. Some messages are automatically rejected if they are over the size limit. If people would rather go back to full moderation, that can be arranged in an instant. If people feel one of the moderators should be a female, then let a female step forward to volunteer her services. In the past I have asked for volunteers, and so far not a single woman (or even a married woman) has offered to serve as moderator. So if anyone is a woman and feels an urgent need to "run" this list, let her step forward. There is no way for anyone to know how many subscribers are female, since the majority of the 515 subscribers are subscribed only by address and have left their personal name field blank. Of the 515 subscribers, only 47 have sent messages during the past two months, and there is no way of determining how representative they are of the subscribership as a whole. In one way they are obviously not representative at all, since the vast majority of subscribers never send in any message at all. So when you begin making statements about what kinds of people do and do not subscribe to buddha-l, you are making guesses, perhaps even cooking up evidence to fit your preconceptions. (Such things do happen.) > Thus, the aspect of gender behavior you refer to is not relevant to my > crit of this list's general tone nor to my call for civility as a more > productive and peaceful Style. This may be an example of the perfect being the enemy of the good. The vast majority of the nearly fifty contributors to buddha-l are civil and peaceful. So I think you may owe them an apology by implying that they are uncivil and bellicose. That is painting with much too wide a brush. It is characterizing many people negatively who do not deserve it. And that is, in itself, neither civil nor peaceful. -- Richard Hayes From jkirk at spro.net Wed Oct 12 12:00:36 2005 From: jkirk at spro.net (jkirk) Date: Wed Oct 12 12:07:43 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: An experiment (Gender on Buddha-l) References: Message-ID: <012a01c5cf56$d9a78a20$2930cece@charlie> Yes true---- I misunderstood what you wrote--sometimes the way you write it's a bit hard to decipher your meaning... Jo ================ > I have no interest in doing this. It is others, I think, who have first > mentioned the 'f' word in relation to your position. > > Andrew > > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From joy.vriens at nerim.net Wed Oct 12 12:12:38 2005 From: joy.vriens at nerim.net (Joy Vriens) Date: Wed Oct 12 12:17:43 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddhist pacifism In-Reply-To: <434D33CB.9050603@cola.iges.org> References: <00a801c5ceb1$0c557eb0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <020801c5cf2c$84bc70e0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <434D2A04.5090803@nerim.net> <434D33CB.9050603@cola.iges.org> Message-ID: <434D5216.2000405@nerim.net> curt wrote: > The idea that pacifism is essential to Buddhism is a very recent idea, > as far as I know. Perhaps it's a French surrender monkey thing, but in French pacifism is synonymous with non-violence (ahimsa). And ahimsa is not a very recent idea as far as I know, but I am not an Indianist. > I have never seen any evidence that pacifism has been > a major tenet of any school of Buddhism - or of any major (or, for that > matter, minor) Buddhist teacher (prior to the present Dalai Lama - none > his previous incarnations, for instance, where anything like > pacifistic). The present one isn't either. I have seen two quotations of his, one mentionned by Joanna recently and another one about the invasion of Iraq that don't call up the idea of a pacifist for me. > Buddhism has been a mainstream religion throughout Asia for > 2500 years. There has never been any move by any "Buddhist" country to > dismantle its standing army and dissolve all police forces and other > institutions of "violence". Sure, but I was thinking of the Buddhist theory and method, not of the way nations behave in which Buddhism was the state religion or equivalent to that. Buddhist theories and practices ambition kilesa nirodha. I don't see violence or war as an expression of that. When I examine whether Christianism is pacifist I rather look at Jesus who teaches to turn the other cheek than at Paul Julius II leading the military on horseback or at Mr. B.. That is extremely naive, but perhaps a bit of naivity would be welcome as an antidote to the dominating cynicism. > Nor has there been any "call" or "campaign" > by Buddhists demanding any such thing. Buddhist teachers and/or priests > have had enormous political influence throughout Asia - advising kings > and emperors and commanding large followings of their own and also > controlling vast amounts of wealth. How many philosophers had the dream of being able to influence kings and emperors? How many managed to realise their dream? How many were sincere teachers? Politics is making concessions. If teachers thought that by allying with kings they would promote the cause of their school or of Buddhism, they made a double mistake. Serving a king and serving a school or for that matter "Buddhism" is not serving the objective of Buddhism, which is the most intimate affair there is. One can only take care of one's very own "Buddhism". > I think that if Asian Buddhists had > been promoting pacifism all along there would be some pretty clear > evidence of it. I would be very interested to hear of any such evidence. > I would also be very interested to know what basis there is for > considering pacifism to be an essential part of Buddhism. You are interested in the social history of Buddhism, I am thinking of its philosophy. The Buddhist objective is peace, a peace soothing like the cool moon. Not peace as the opposite of war, but peace. Can you conceive that objective as realisable with violence? Joy From joy.vriens at nerim.net Wed Oct 12 12:28:01 2005 From: joy.vriens at nerim.net (Joy Vriens) Date: Wed Oct 12 12:37:39 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddhist pacifism In-Reply-To: <003501c5cf4a$903fff90$35369c04@Dan> References: <00a801c5ceb1$0c557eb0$2c1b9c04@Dan><020801c5cf2c$84bc70e0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <434D2A04.5090803@nerim.net> <003501c5cf4a$903fff90$35369c04@Dan> Message-ID: <434D55B1.1030508@nerim.net> Dan Lusthaus wrote: > To repeat, my interest is less in passing judgement on long-ago events as > much as evaluating -- historically -- the strategies Buddhists used to deal > with persecution, invasion, etc., and observe their effectiveness and > consequences. Before advocating a naive adoption of certain principles of > action, it seems prudent to look back at how successful or unsuccessful > those strategies were in the past, so that we can learn how to improve > them -- just as many today would advocate , without much resistance, > revisiting Buddhist treatment of women, monastic authority (guru abusing > devotees scandals), and a host of other Buddhist issues that seem to be in > serious need of revision. I think I start to see your point, or at least one of them. Can one judge or evaluate Buddhism on its "strategies" of dealing with persecution, invasion, etc., and observe their effectiveness and consequences? Did Buddhism actually have that intention or did it have "strategies", and was it trying to implement the strategies that had the greatest effectiveness and consequences? Some Buddhists might have had. On the other hand it is legitimate as you seem to suggest to wonder whether as contemporary Buddhists or as people sympathetic to Buddhism, pacifism is the best solution in every conflict our world is confronted with. Joy From joy.vriens at nerim.net Wed Oct 12 12:50:34 2005 From: joy.vriens at nerim.net (Joy Vriens) Date: Wed Oct 12 12:57:40 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Devadatta the Renegade: The Thrue History of Buddhism In-Reply-To: <1145551373.20051012185457@kungzhi.org> References: <1127942930.6308.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> <433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net><617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org> <4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net><1359619694.20051004213630@kungzhi.org> <43441B56.7080303@nerim.net> <1479321719.20051006043947@kungzhi.org><003c01c5ca43$01172200$c8369c04@Dan> <4344DBFE.8030202@nerim.net> <00c701c5ca62$e5c7f5e0$c8369c04@Dan> <4345220A.5040309@nerim.net> <1667485633.20051007043716@kungzhi.org> <43462606.40507@nerim.net> <1591830279.20051010043322@kungzhi.org> <434A29F1.7080700@nerim.net> <18010600083.20051010172344@kungzhi.org> <434A9578.5040205@nerim.net> <91000758.20051011160943@kungzhi.org> <434BE971.6020008@nerim.net> <215877815.20051011192514@kungzhi.org> <434C31E6.3030108@nerim.net> <195697600.20051012010828@kungzhi.org> <434CE876.2020505@nerim.net> <1145551373.20051012185457@kungzhi.org> Message-ID: <434D5AFA.2020405@nerim.net> Benito Carral wrote: > It's clear that the Buddha allowed some decisions to > be taken by the sangha, but he always was the last > authority. Often a very absent one as it seems. > (As I have said in an early post, I find > that the idea of a democratic sangha is a most > troublesome one, altmost a nightmare.) Isn't the idea of any sangha? ;-) >>>It's my experience with students that they try to >>>fit Buddhism into their lives instead of fit their >>>lives into Buddhism. >>But isn't that what everybody (with basic sanity) >>does? > I don't agree. For example, I know Buddhists who > after finishing their sitting in the Buddhist center go > out and drink more than one and two beers. Is that > basic sanity? I think that it's hypocrisy at best. It's > like going to the doctor and refusing to take some of > the pills because they taste bad. I know someone who doesn't even go and sit in a Buddhist center at all and still drinks two or three glasses of wine. Are thoese Buddhists pretending to be monks? Khenpo Nyishul told me once "One should do what one can do". >>Yes thanks to Brad. ;-) See "Reginald Ray's superb >>analysis of Devadatta as condemned forest ascetic in >>his *Buddhist Saints in India*, pp. 162-178." > I have just read it and it can't be inferred from it > that Devadatta played an important role in early > Buddhism. It tells us that a group of rigorist > followers decided to marginalize themselves and > eventually become decadent having adopting monasteries > instead of trees as their abodes. We define ourselves against the world, against others. Don't underestimated those who play second roles or baddies. >>The traditional Buddhist history >>(saddharmapu.n.dariika) also tells us that in a >>previous life Devadatta was the Buddha's eacher. > I would not say that such a Mahayana sutra is part > of the canon of the traditional Buddhist history. Ok point taken. No Mahayana sutras either. So when does the traditional Buddhist history stop? >>What pleads in favour of my naughty fantasy on >>Devadatta and Sariputta's existence after the >>Buddha's death is that Devadatta, still according to >>Reginal Rey, isn't mentioned in the earliest core of >>the skandhaka discussion of the Sa.mghabheda. He >>suggests that the Devadatta schism arose after the >>death of the Buddha, but also after the split between >>Mahasamghikas and Sthaviras. Isn't that interesting, >>if one considers everything that Sariputta did with >>Devadatta and said to and about him? > > > I see that we have read it in a different vein. :-) :-) > If I had to do something with such info, I would say > that Devadatta is a character that latter Buddhist > writers developed (something similar to Bodhidharma in > the Chan tradition). You better would after what Reginald Ray wrote... > Is there only place for one book? :-) Maybe I would > have to think in a different one, what's about, "The > New Devadattian Tradition: Buddhism with guts"? I believe Curt is already writing about Buddhists with guts. ;-) Joy From curt at cola.iges.org Wed Oct 12 13:01:40 2005 From: curt at cola.iges.org (curt) Date: Wed Oct 12 13:07:42 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddhist pacifism In-Reply-To: <1129137874.4552.26.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <00a801c5ceb1$0c557eb0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <020801c5cf2c$84bc70e0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <434D2A04.5090803@nerim.net> <434D33CB.9050603@cola.iges.org> <1129137874.4552.26.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <434D5D94.4010301@cola.iges.org> The proposition that the "full implications of the Buddha's teachings" have only recently been discovered requires more than a mere assertion to make it believable. But the assertion itself does amount to a clear statement that Buddhism has not previously embraced pacifism. - Curt Richard P. Hayes wrote: >On Wed, 2005-10-12 at 12:03 -0400, curt wrote: > > > >>The idea that pacifism is essential to Buddhism is a very recent idea, >>as far as I know. >> >> > >So what? It's the right idea. If it took Buddhists a long time to catch >on to the full implications of the Buddha's teachings, then all I can >say is "Better late than never." > > > From curt at cola.iges.org Wed Oct 12 13:04:52 2005 From: curt at cola.iges.org (curt) Date: Wed Oct 12 13:07:56 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddhist pacifism In-Reply-To: <006201c5cf4f$81c981c0$35369c04@Dan> References: <00a801c5ceb1$0c557eb0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <020801c5cf2c$84bc70e0$2c1b9c04@Dan><434D2A04.5090803@nerim.net> <434D33CB.9050603@cola.iges.org> <006201c5cf4f$81c981c0$35369c04@Dan> Message-ID: <434D5E54.1010609@cola.iges.org> Dan Lusthaus wrote: >Curt wrote > > > >>Dan gave one example of a group of Buddhists who chose to surrender >>rather than fight against Muslim invaders. But as the report clearly >>shows, there were good reasons for the Buddhists to do so >> >> >[...] > > >>Is there perhaps some stronger evidence than this? >> >> > >In fact, those reasons didn't quite pan out, and one blaring inconsistency >in the manner that Alexander Berzin (the author of the work on that site) >presents things is that, despite taking that pose of appeasement, Buddhist >monasteries were subjected to persecutions and destruction. If only Hindus >offered resistance, why were monasteries punished? Berzin tends to look for >explanations least damning to Muslim actions and intentions, which is not >uncommon in this sort of literature. > > That's very interesting - I was hunting around on his website trying to get a better idea of where he is coming from. Berzin certainly struck me as someone who has an agenda of some kind (oh, alright - it takes one to know one). >What sort of evidence for what are you seeking? > > Any kind of evidence will do - as long as it is evidence of either some concrete actions taken "under the influence" of Buddhism, or of Buddhists calling for such concrete actions. The things I mentioned previously were dismantling of standing armies and dissolving of police forces. But I am not a pacifist, so I am not the best person to define what "evidence" would amount to a demonstration that Buddhism has historically promoted pacifism in Asia. I would love to hear a pacifist Buddhist explain what it would mean, in practice, for Buddhists "in power" to promote pacifism. It would have to go much further than what Asoka did, for example. Simply renouncing wars of aggression and conquest is hardly "pacifism". Pacifists, as I understand it, renounce "all" violence. I am of the opinion that this is not a "coherent" position, and they get away with it because they never have to act on it. Personally I detest violence - but I also detest cowardice and weakness in the face injustice and oppression - and I admire people and groups who stand up for themselves and, even better, help to defend others who are victimized by bullies of all shapes and sizes. This latter, coming to the defense of others, is usually the best and wisest of "self-defense" policies: don't wait until they come after you, it will very likely be too late by then. I'll bet you agree with that one, Dan, although we would probably differ on a lot of the details of how it should be put into practice. >As for pacifism only being a modern innovation in Buddhism, that's not quite >the case either. Ahimsa (non-harming) has been a Buddhist ideal since the >beginning, though one has evaluate that -- especially in the early period -- >against the Jain version of what the same term entails. > But was Ahimsa every promoted as a practical policy that States should adopt? And, if so, did it ever go any further than Asoka's policies after his conversion? (His conversion, btw, came rather conveniently after he had already done quite a bit of conquering). >Buddha tended to >consider Jains extreme in most things, including the way they understood and >applied ahimsa. Beni has mentioned the Autobiography of Xu Yun (Empty Cloud) >many times, a Chinese monk who lived well into his hundreds (1840-1959) who >was a vigilant pacifist (although his authobiography shows that not all >Buddhists or monks shared his convictions, much less followed his actions). >To put in bluntly, he was beaten to within an inch of his life numerous >times, including when interceding to resolve conflicts, which in some cases >he did eventually succeed in defusing. > Being able to withstand that kind of treatment is not necessarily pacifism. In fact it has nothing to do with pacifism, and everything to do with self-control. Self-control is one of the primary attributes usually glorified by "warrior" types - and for good reason. If one of your arms has been hacked off, you can still use your good arm to hack someone else's arm off - if you possess enough self-control. This, of course, continues until there is only one person left with only one arm (and everyone else is armless) - and that person is the winner. >You can probably find the Charles Luk >translation in a bookstore or library near you. He is the stunning contrast >in Chan to the type of Zen decried by Victoria -- one of the insuperable >gaps between Chan and Zen, especially in recent centuries. > This conflates the issue of "pacifism" with the completely separate fact that the Japanese Empire was an evil institution - so that any method of supporting it, overtly violent or not, was morally wrong. I think that the "propaganda" efforts of Yasutani Roshi, for instance, constitute a much greater sin than merely serving in the military. Yasutani actually twisted Dogen's teachings to support the theory of Racial Hygiene - seeing what is wrong with that has nothing to do with pacifism. When Buddhist Monks, as they did when Korea was invaded by the Japanese in the 16th century, fight against a foreign invasion - this poses the question in a completely different way. Is the use of "violence" acceptable under circumstances when you are fighting against something that is wrong? And here is where many "pacifists" start making absolute statements about "all" violence. One should, of course, do everything one can to avoid violence - so long as doing so does not allow even greater harm to be done. And I don't have much time for people who pretend that its too difficult to decide what the greater harm will be - you decide as best you can and take the karmic consequences. And inaction creates just as much karma as action does - ofttimes more. >As in other >spheres, I would recommend against a too quick either/or approach >(pacifism/violence). Buddhists had multiple ways of embracing and getting >around both. > > Yes - and not only that, but Buddhism as a religion has clearly tried to promote peace - but it has never promoted what people today call pacifism. Sometimes I have been accused of making sweeping statements, btw. I prefer to call them "testable hypotheses". I don't mind being proved wrong - if I did I would hedge my bets a lot more. But I'm still willing to bet, even money, that I'm right and there is no evidence of the Buddhist religion in Asia ever promoting pacifism (OK - one small hedge - prior to the current Dalai Lama). - Curt From curt at cola.iges.org Wed Oct 12 13:39:48 2005 From: curt at cola.iges.org (curt) Date: Wed Oct 12 13:47:44 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddhist pacifism In-Reply-To: <434D5216.2000405@nerim.net> References: <00a801c5ceb1$0c557eb0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <020801c5cf2c$84bc70e0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <434D2A04.5090803@nerim.net> <434D33CB.9050603@cola.iges.org> <434D5216.2000405@nerim.net> Message-ID: <434D6684.9020608@cola.iges.org> Joy Vriens wrote: >> Buddhism has been a mainstream religion throughout Asia for 2500 >> years. There has never been any move by any "Buddhist" country to >> dismantle its standing army and dissolve all police forces and other >> institutions of "violence". > > > Sure, but I was thinking of the Buddhist theory and method, not of the > way nations behave in which Buddhism was the state religion or > equivalent to that. Buddhist theories and practices ambition kilesa > nirodha. I don't see violence or war as an expression of that. When I > examine whether Christianism is pacifist I rather look at Jesus who > teaches to turn the other cheek than at Paul Julius II leading the > military on horseback or at Mr. B.. That is extremely naive, but > perhaps a bit of naivity would be welcome as an antidote to the > dominating cynicism. Oh good - I'm glad you mentioned turning the other cheek. Sometimes the right thing to do is to hit back. Why not? Why is it always "right" to invite another slap to yourself? My wife and I recently watched "In the Heat of the Night" - its a great movie starring Sidney Poitier. The key scene in the movie is when Poitier, who is playing a police officer from Philadelphia who ends up investigating a murder case in the deep South, is slapped by racist who also happens to the the richest and most powerful man in the county and the head of the local KKK (well, more or less). Poitier, without hesitation, slaps him back. It is one of the most electrifying things you'll ever see on film. (Of course, its just a movie - but the Avatamsaka Sutra is just a book.) There are 500 years of history behind those slaps, and that second slap is a sign that history was changing for the better. People (white people, to put it bluntly) give way to much credit to "non-violence" when it comes to making some progress against racism in the US. During the same period as the civil rights movement there was an ever increasing willingness on the part of African Americans to simply stand up for themselves and hit back when struck first - both literally and figuratively. A great many of the people who participated in the civil rights movement weren't pacifists, either - but they adopted non-violence as a tactical method that was right for a certain time and a certain place. And, while I'm at it, Ghandi's campaign of non-violence only worked because the British and French Empires were hopelessly on the ropes in the face of a worldwide armed uprising against colonialism. Sometimes if there is a person who goes around slapping other people - someone needs to slap him or her just once - then it stops. I know that this makes pacifists very nervous - they don't want it to be true. But I believe it is. >> Nor has there been any "call" or "campaign" by Buddhists demanding >> any such thing. Buddhist teachers and/or priests have had enormous >> political influence throughout Asia - advising kings and emperors and >> commanding large followings of their own and also controlling vast >> amounts of wealth. > > > How many philosophers had the dream of being able to influence kings > and emperors? How many managed to realise their dream? How many were > sincere teachers? Politics is making concessions. If teachers thought > that by allying with kings they would promote the cause of their > school or of Buddhism, they made a double mistake. Serving a king and > serving a school or for that matter "Buddhism" is not serving the > objective of Buddhism, which is the most intimate affair there is. One > can only take care of one's very own "Buddhism". Actually I would say this is not true. I think a great deal of good can come from Buddhists taking every opportunity to try to influence political and social change in a positive direction - and historically that has included "serving" kings and emperors. The priests who "served" Asoka seemed to have done a pretty good job. Perhaps they could have done more - but I think its good that they did what they did. Perhaps this isn't quite what you meant - maybe we should try to clarify this more. >> I think that if Asian Buddhists had been promoting pacifism all along >> there would be some pretty clear evidence of it. I would be very >> interested to hear of any such evidence. I would also be very >> interested to know what basis there is for considering pacifism to be >> an essential part of Buddhism. > > > You are interested in the social history of Buddhism, I am thinking of > its philosophy. I don't make this distinction - at least I don't accept it at face value. I think that no philosophy can exist separate from ethics - and I think that ethics must be both personal and social. > The Buddhist objective is peace, a peace soothing like the cool moon. > Not peace as the opposite of war, but peace. Can you conceive that > objective as realisable with violence? I don't believe that the "ends justify the means". But I also don't believe that the "means justify the ends" (ie - as long as you don't use violence any result is acceptable). Just "avoiding violence" is an empty position - it only makes people feel good for a while - but allows real problems to persist unchallenged. I am glad when people defend themselves - and even more glad when they defend each other. We live in a violent world - it is not possible to avoid violence. - Curt From rhayes at unm.edu Wed Oct 12 12:21:01 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Wed Oct 12 14:07:40 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: An experiment (Gender on Buddha-l) In-Reply-To: <012a01c5cf56$d9a78a20$2930cece@charlie> References: <012a01c5cf56$d9a78a20$2930cece@charlie> Message-ID: <1129141261.5965.5.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Wed, 2005-10-12 at 12:00 -0600, jkirk wrote: > I misunderstood what you wrote--sometimes the way you write it's > a bit hard to decipher your meaning... You write this of Andrew Skilton, who is one of the most lucid writers on Buddhism currently publishing? Even though he writes in English (rather than American), even students in such cultural backwaters as New Mexico have no problem at all deciphering his writings. I can only say that I am delighted he is making time to contribute to buddha-l, for his material can only add to the high quality of prose available to our discerning readership. -- Richard Hayes From rhayes at unm.edu Wed Oct 12 11:20:31 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Wed Oct 12 14:07:48 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism In-Reply-To: <434D2A04.5090803@nerim.net> References: <00a801c5ceb1$0c557eb0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <020801c5cf2c$84bc70e0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <434D2A04.5090803@nerim.net> Message-ID: <1129137631.4552.23.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Wed, 2005-10-12 at 17:21 +0200, Joy Vriens wrote: > Also I consider "pacifism" or non-violence if you prefer an essential > and even constitutional part of Buddhism (even though it is more > pronounced in Jainism). Without it, I wouldn't recognise it as Buddhism. I agree. As the saying goes "There are things I would die for, but there is nothing I would kill for." If the price to pay in defending non- violence is my own death, so be it. And if Buddhism is eliminated by aggressors, I'd rather see it perish that way that to perish by defending itself in a way that is a betrayal of its own basic principles. -- Richard Hayes Department of Philosophy University of New Mexico From rhayes at unm.edu Wed Oct 12 12:02:01 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Wed Oct 12 14:07:55 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: An experiment (Gender on Buddha-l) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1129140121.4552.55.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Wed, 2005-10-12 at 13:34 +0100, Andrew Skilton wrote: > But is Buddha-l a Buddhist environment? With recent revision of the > 'constitution' and from observed practice, Buddha-l is pretty much anything that > the moderators (and some contributors) want it to be. It is was contributors want it to be. Hardly any moderation is done (or needed), since this list has shown itself to be stable and well behaved. > My conclusion: Buddha-l is habitually populated by folks who like a particular > type of question or exchange. Personally, I might contribute more often to a > list with a slightly different 'style'. Surely the only way to change the style of the list is to be a regular contributor. I anyone wishes to set a different tone than the one that they see here, all they need do is to write in the tone they like. If others like it, they will respond in kind. There is probably no other way to achieve change on a mostly unmoderated list. -- Dh. Dayamati Albuquerque, New Mexico From curt at cola.iges.org Wed Oct 12 14:21:30 2005 From: curt at cola.iges.org (curt) Date: Wed Oct 12 14:27:43 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddhist pacifism In-Reply-To: <1129137874.4552.26.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <00a801c5ceb1$0c557eb0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <020801c5cf2c$84bc70e0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <434D2A04.5090803@nerim.net> <434D33CB.9050603@cola.iges.org> <1129137874.4552.26.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <434D704A.60709@cola.iges.org> So you are willing to accept any result, no matter what, so long as you, personally, do not have to commit any acts of violence? This does not strike me as an especially appealing "ethical" posture. Is there any principle or consideration, whatsoever, in this ethical system that is more important than avoiding personal involvement in acts of violence? Is your primary concern the avoidance of bad karma for yourself? Sorry, I hope I am not badgering the witness. - Curt Richard P. Hayes wrote: >On Wed, 2005-10-12 at 12:03 -0400, curt wrote: > > > >>The idea that pacifism is essential to Buddhism is a very recent idea, >>as far as I know. >> >> > >So what? It's the right idea. If it took Buddhists a long time to catch >on to the full implications of the Buddha's teachings, then all I can >say is "Better late than never." > > > From leedillion at gmail.com Wed Oct 12 10:40:49 2005 From: leedillion at gmail.com (Lee Dillion) Date: Wed Oct 12 14:57:42 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddhist pacifism In-Reply-To: <434D33CB.9050603@cola.iges.org> References: <00a801c5ceb1$0c557eb0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <020801c5cf2c$84bc70e0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <434D2A04.5090803@nerim.net> <434D33CB.9050603@cola.iges.org> Message-ID: <809daec80510120940k295f5d3fx87b25c3206b08c34@mail.gmail.com> On 10/12/05, curt wrote: > > The idea that pacifism is essential to Buddhism is a very recent idea, > as far as I know. I have never seen any evidence that pacifism has been > a major tenet of any school of Buddhism Hi Curt: Granting all you say, I have not seen any canonical source where the Buddha approved of personal or political violence. I understand that some Sri Lankan monks have articulted a "just war" style argument based on some extra-canonical sources, but have not seen any other justification. Have you? Lee Dillion -- Lee Dillion -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20051012/f26f398e/attachment.html From richard.nance at gmail.com Wed Oct 12 15:15:37 2005 From: richard.nance at gmail.com (Richard Nance) Date: Wed Oct 12 15:17:42 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddhist pacifism In-Reply-To: <434D5E54.1010609@cola.iges.org> References: <00a801c5ceb1$0c557eb0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <020801c5cf2c$84bc70e0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <434D2A04.5090803@nerim.net> <434D33CB.9050603@cola.iges.org> <006201c5cf4f$81c981c0$35369c04@Dan> <434D5E54.1010609@cola.iges.org> Message-ID: Curt wrote: > But I'm still > willing to bet, even money, that I'm right and there is no evidence of > the Buddhist religion in Asia ever promoting pacifism (OK - one small > hedge - prior to the current Dalai Lama). Why doesn't this surprise me? I'm not sure what you'd count as a countexample, but the following passages might be worth consideration (pardon the lack of diacritics): 1. The Angulimala sutta (MN 86) An excerpt is available here: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn-086-tb0.html Does the sutta claim that violence is *everywhere* and *at all times* the wrong path to take? No. But the moral lesson to be learned is, it seems to me, pretty clear: violence is something in which a Buddhist should not engage. 2. For monks, killing is addressed in the parajika and pacittiya sections of the patimokkha. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/vinaya/bhikkhu-pati.html (In the Theravadin vinaya, the relevant vows are parajika 3 and pacittiya 61) For commentary, cf. the (admittedly recent) English language gloss by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. (I don't other vinaya commentaries ready to hand, but I doubt seriously that Thanissaro Bhikkhu's interpretations diverge considerably from those advocated by earlier commentators -- e.g. Buddhaghosa.) http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/bmc1/ch04.html http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/bmc1/ch08-7.html#61 Cf. also: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/vinaya/bhikkhuni-pati.html The Uposatha-atthangika Sutta (http://accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/wheels/wheel206/visakha.html) offers recommendations specifically targeted to laypersons. Best wishes, R. Nance From rhayes at unm.edu Wed Oct 12 15:57:20 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Wed Oct 12 15:57:42 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddhist pacifism In-Reply-To: <434D704A.60709@cola.iges.org> References: <00a801c5ceb1$0c557eb0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <020801c5cf2c$84bc70e0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <434D2A04.5090803@nerim.net> <434D33CB.9050603@cola.iges.org> <1129137874.4552.26.camel@localhost.localdomain> <434D704A.60709@cola.iges.org> Message-ID: <1129154240.6783.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Wed, 2005-10-12 at 16:21 -0400, curt wrote: > So you are willing to accept any result, no matter what, so long as you, > personally, do not have to commit any acts of violence? This does not > strike me as an especially appealing "ethical" posture. Then don't follow it. > Is your primary concern the avoidance of bad karma for yourself? No, my primary concern is the avoidance of causing death to others. I have never yet seen a situation in which killing someone improved their condition. -- Richard Hayes From rhayes at unm.edu Wed Oct 12 15:54:52 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Wed Oct 12 15:57:50 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddhist pacifism In-Reply-To: <434D5D94.4010301@cola.iges.org> References: <00a801c5ceb1$0c557eb0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <020801c5cf2c$84bc70e0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <434D2A04.5090803@nerim.net> <434D33CB.9050603@cola.iges.org> <1129137874.4552.26.camel@localhost.localdomain> <434D5D94.4010301@cola.iges.org> Message-ID: <1129154092.6783.1.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Wed, 2005-10-12 at 15:01 -0400, curt wrote: > The proposition that the "full implications of the Buddha's teachings" > have only recently been discovered requires more than a mere assertion > to make it believable. It was not an assertion. It was part of a hypothetical. Read the following with care: > If it took Buddhists a long time to catch > >on to the full implications of the Buddha's teachings, then all I can > >say is "Better late than never." -- Richard Hayes Department of Philosophy University of New Mexico From jpeavler at mindspring.com Wed Oct 12 15:50:32 2005 From: jpeavler at mindspring.com (Jim Peavler) Date: Wed Oct 12 15:57:59 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddhist pacifism In-Reply-To: References: <00a801c5ceb1$0c557eb0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <020801c5cf2c$84bc70e0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <434D2A04.5090803@nerim.net> <434D33CB.9050603@cola.iges.org> <006201c5cf4f$81c981c0$35369c04@Dan> <434D5E54.1010609@cola.iges.org> Message-ID: <79baa1bf05a535b9326b8dda9d2ecaeb@mindspring.com> On Oct 12, 2005, at 3:15 PM, Richard Nance wrote: > Curt wrote: > >> But I'm still >> willing to bet, even money, that I'm right and there is no evidence of >> the Buddhist religion in Asia ever promoting pacifism (OK - one small >> hedge - prior to the current Dalai Lama). > > Didn't King Asoka advocate pacifism (after killing a few tens of thousands of "non-believers of course.) From tom at tomhead.net Wed Oct 12 14:48:30 2005 From: tom at tomhead.net (Tom Head) Date: Wed Oct 12 15:58:14 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: An experiment (Gender on Buddha-l) In-Reply-To: <012a01c5cf56$d9a78a20$2930cece@charlie> References: <012a01c5cf56$d9a78a20$2930cece@charlie> Message-ID: Joanna writes: >Yes true---- >I misunderstood what you wrote--sometimes the way you write it's a >bit hard to decipher your meaning... Now, see, this is a perfect example of the kinds of abrasive male comments that we need to watch out for on this list. Cheers, TH From tom at tomhead.net Wed Oct 12 14:49:55 2005 From: tom at tomhead.net (Tom Head) Date: Wed Oct 12 15:58:18 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: An experiment (Gender on Buddha-l) In-Reply-To: <002901c5cf4c$93acb2c0$2930cece@charlie> References: <002901c5cf4c$93acb2c0$2930cece@charlie> Message-ID: JK writes: >But this list is not run by women or "a" woman, and there are few >women left on it as well. There are few women in Buddhist studies in general, sadly, so it would be remarkable if there were anything approaching gender balance on this listserv. But I take comfort in the fact that the listserv I co-moderate, a UU listserv, is predominantly female (only about 25 percent of UUs are male). Cheers, TH From jpeavler at mindspring.com Wed Oct 12 16:02:56 2005 From: jpeavler at mindspring.com (Jim Peavler) Date: Wed Oct 12 16:08:54 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Immoderaate nonmoderation In-Reply-To: References: <00a801c5ceb1$0c557eb0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <020801c5cf2c$84bc70e0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <434D2A04.5090803@nerim.net> <434D33CB.9050603@cola.iges.org> <006201c5cf4f$81c981c0$35369c04@Dan> <434D5E54.1010609@cola.iges.org> Message-ID: <1cc155bef97f9766494e162ae24ab7ad@mindspring.com> I have been on this list since very early on, and I cannot remember how many times the "moderators" have been attacked for their biases, their prejudices, their aggressiveness, their hautiness, their cold unfeeling cruelty, their lack of cooth and kindness, and on and on. And I have seen Richard explain about twice a year that the list is NOT MODERATED BY ANYBODY (normally). What the subscribers get is exactly what the subscribers want because it is only the subscribers who determine what Buddha-l is like. So, it is fair enough to urge that Buddha-l change its flavor, its color, its civility, its degree of academic discipline, or whatever. But remember, you are talking to all of us and asking all of us to participate in effecting the change. And the best way to effect that change, as Richard explains so clearly, is to submit the kinds of topics you would like to see discussed, and discuss them with the amount of academic rigor or the amount of loving kindness that you would like to see on Buddha-L. Which, by the way, is exactly what Joanna did in her original posting on the subject. She did not blame some unfair moderator for the situation she described. She said the list was strongly male oriented and male dominated -- which it is. And she felt she would like to have people pay attention to her postings more, and to respond to them. And her postings, while apparently not everyone's cup of tea, are highly valued by many of us, and, in fact, raise the kinds of subjects she would like to see discussed, and are written in a way that she would like to see more postings written. So she is doing her part to effect the kind of changes she would like to see. So, play on. From rhayes at unm.edu Wed Oct 12 16:36:47 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Wed Oct 12 16:37:44 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Immoderaate nonmoderation In-Reply-To: <1cc155bef97f9766494e162ae24ab7ad@mindspring.com> References: <00a801c5ceb1$0c557eb0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <020801c5cf2c$84bc70e0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <434D2A04.5090803@nerim.net> <434D33CB.9050603@cola.iges.org> <006201c5cf4f$81c981c0$35369c04@Dan> <434D5E54.1010609@cola.iges.org> <1cc155bef97f9766494e162ae24ab7ad@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <1129156607.6783.38.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Wed, 2005-10-12 at 16:02 -0600, Jim Peavler wrote: > Which, by the way, is exactly what Joanna did in her original posting > on the subject. She did not blame some unfair moderator for the > situation she described. She said the list was strongly male oriented > and male dominated -- which it is. Yes, and that is a state of affairs that many of us do not see as a problem. Those who do see it as a problem can change it easily enough. No one is stopping anyone from posting. > And she felt she would like to have people pay attention to her > postings more, and to respond to them. People have explained why they do not. > And her postings, while apparently not everyone's cup of tea, are highly > valued by many of us, and, in fact, raise the kinds of subjects she > would like to see discussed, and are written in a way that she would > like to see more postings written. Amen to that, Brother James. While I admit that I do not read a lot of them beyond the first two or three sentences, I always appreciate the fact that they have been posted. And I have noted that in September, just about everything she sent in promoted a discussion. Some of the longest threads in August and September were initiated by her. So it looks as though pretty much everyone appreciates what she does. > So she is doing her part to effect the kind of changes she would like to see. Amen again, Brother James. Now if others would follow her fine example, we'd be that much closer to heaven. Brother Richard From skiltonat at Cardiff.ac.uk Wed Oct 12 18:14:38 2005 From: skiltonat at Cardiff.ac.uk (Andrew Skilton) Date: Wed Oct 12 18:17:44 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: "So much for tsunami dana" Message-ID: [ASkilton] >I recall a recent UN report that estimated that, of the 10 billion dollars sunk >into Cambodia by international agencies over the last decade, only 1 billion had >reached the target - i.e. desperately poor Cambodian people. Spectacular! [Curt] >File this under "Yes, but...." The current US military budget is approx. $560 billion (http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm). The rest of the world put together spends about as much - so lets round it off to an even $1 trillion per annum. If that money were instead spent on wasteful aid programs in which only 1/10 of the money went to the people who needed it, that would still be $100 billion a year going to people who desparately need it. If the $$$ were specifically targeted at the poorest 1/3 of humanity it would come out to about $50 per person a year. Sure, fine. I hereby authorise you to redirect the UK 'Defence' budget! I've heard before, probably on this list, the argument that even if only a small percentage of an aid budget actually filters through to the target community, the programme is still validated by that small percentage of good done. I certainly don't begrudge the Khmer people that single billion dollars I mentioned, and surely cannot be understood to have been suggesting that the inefficiency of aid programmes plus local corruption warrants the withdrawal of aid? But one of the points swilling around in my opaque statements was the possibility that by exercising what control we can, in the case of charitable donation by making more astute choices of recipient, we can increase the percentage that hits the target. I therefore do not understand your 'but'. Andrew From skiltonat at Cardiff.ac.uk Wed Oct 12 18:25:11 2005 From: skiltonat at Cardiff.ac.uk (Andrew Skilton) Date: Wed Oct 12 18:27:44 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: buddha-l Digest, Vol 8, Issue 75 Message-ID: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 "Richard P. Hayes" wrote: >> But is Buddha-l a Buddhist environment? With recent revision of the >> 'constitution' and from observed practice, Buddha-l is pretty much anything that >> the moderators (and some contributors) want it to be. >It is was contributors want it to be. Hardly any moderation is done (or >needed), since this list has shown itself to be stable and well behaved. This is a fair response and corrects my assumption of a higher degree of moderation than is actually performed. And it is one of the successes of Buddha-l that it remains stable, pretty well-behaved and interesting. > Surely the only way to change the style of the list is to be a regular >contributor. I anyone wishes to set a different tone than the one that >they see here, all they need do is to write in the tone they like. If >others like it, they will respond in kind. There is probably no other >way to achieve change on a mostly unmoderated list. I agree! Andrew From chanfu at gmail.com Wed Oct 12 18:34:57 2005 From: chanfu at gmail.com (Chan Fu) Date: Wed Oct 12 18:37:51 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Immoderaate nonmoderation In-Reply-To: <1cc155bef97f9766494e162ae24ab7ad@mindspring.com> References: <00a801c5ceb1$0c557eb0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <020801c5cf2c$84bc70e0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <434D2A04.5090803@nerim.net> <434D33CB.9050603@cola.iges.org> <006201c5cf4f$81c981c0$35369c04@Dan> <434D5E54.1010609@cola.iges.org> <1cc155bef97f9766494e162ae24ab7ad@mindspring.com> Message-ID: On 10/12/05, Jim Peavler wrote: > I have been on this list since very early on, and I cannot remember how > many times the "moderators" have been attacked for their biases, their > prejudices, their aggressiveness, their hautiness, their cold unfeeling > cruelty, their lack of cooth and kindness, and on and on. > > And I have seen Richard explain about twice a year that the list is NOT > MODERATED BY ANYBODY (normally). What the subscribers get is exactly > what the subscribers want because it is only the subscribers who > determine what Buddha-l is like. > > So, it is fair enough to urge that Buddha-l change its flavor, its > color, its civility, its degree of academic discipline, or whatever. > But remember, you are talking to all of us and asking all of us to > participate in effecting the change. And the best way to effect that > change, as Richard explains so clearly, is to submit the kinds of > topics you would like to see discussed, and discuss them with the > amount of academic rigor or the amount of loving kindness that you > would like to see on Buddha-L. > > Which, by the way, is exactly what Joanna did in her original posting > on the subject. She did not blame some unfair moderator for the > situation she described. She said the list was strongly male oriented > and male dominated -- which it is. And she felt she would like to have > people pay attention to her postings more, and to respond to them. And > her postings, while apparently not everyone's cup of tea, are highly > valued by many of us, and, in fact, raise the kinds of subjects she > would like to see discussed, and are written in a way that she would > like to see more postings written. So she is doing her part to effect > the kind of changes she would like to see. > > So, play on. Speaking of buddhism... oops, well... Was there something between the begiining of that message and the end of it? The buffet here provides a lot of such air sandwiches, for which I am not ungrateful, mind you. But, nutritionally speaking, it's a rather sparse diet. A few calories from Richard's irony or Joy's disenchantment are hardly enough to support this poor snake in the grass. In fact, Jo's posts have been the ones that most inspired introspection and inspection. I'd quote Blyth, but I sent that book to someone who wanted it and I don't trust memory. Thus neither do I trust the memories of 2500-yr-old monks. So, as Jim says, "Play on." "A breeze blew the scent of cherry blossom. Just once, thought Lu-Tse, it would be nice to pick cherries." --Terry Pratchett, "Thief of Time" From jkirk at spro.net Wed Oct 12 18:43:40 2005 From: jkirk at spro.net (jkirk) Date: Wed Oct 12 18:47:48 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: "So much for tsunami dana" References: Message-ID: <007b01c5cf8f$285fb100$2930cece@charlie> > > I've heard before, probably on this list, the argument that even if only a > small > percentage of an aid budget actually filters through to the target > community, > the programme is still validated by that small percentage of good done. I > certainly don't begrudge the Khmer people that single billion dollars I > mentioned, and surely cannot be understood to have been suggesting that > the > inefficiency of aid programmes plus local corruption warrants the > withdrawal of > aid? But one of the points swilling around in my opaque statements was the > possibility that by exercising what control we can, in the case of > charitable > donation by making more astute choices of recipient, we can increase the > percentage that hits the target. I therefore do not understand your 'but'. > > Andrew ================== Well, Andrew--as I and Catalina also recommended, one of the truly sterling NGOs to which to contribute, with good assurance that the money will be used the way it was intended, is Medecins sans Frontieres. I am going to send them some dough as well as my local RC. Joanna From chanfu at gmail.com Wed Oct 12 18:37:43 2005 From: chanfu at gmail.com (Chan Fu) Date: Wed Oct 12 18:47:51 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: buddha-l Digest, Vol 8, Issue 75 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 10/12/05, Andrew Skilton wrote: > Wed, 12 Oct 2005 "Richard P. Hayes" wrote: > > >> But is Buddha-l a Buddhist environment? With recent revision of the > >> 'constitution' and from observed practice, Buddha-l is pretty much anything > that > >> the moderators (and some contributors) want it to be. > > >It is was contributors want it to be. Hardly any moderation is done (or > >needed), since this list has shown itself to be stable and well behaved. > > This is a fair response and corrects my assumption of a higher degree of > moderation than is actually performed. And it is one of the successes of > Buddha-l that it remains stable, pretty well-behaved and interesting. > > > Surely the only way to change the style of the list is to be a regular > >contributor. I anyone wishes to set a different tone than the one that > >they see here, all they need do is to write in the tone they like. If > >others like it, they will respond in kind. There is probably no other > >way to achieve change on a mostly unmoderated list. > > I agree! > > Andrew You could be wrong. Evolution is tricky and no external intelligent rule sets seem to apply. Such is not the case here. From chanfu at gmail.com Wed Oct 12 19:52:31 2005 From: chanfu at gmail.com (Chan Fu) Date: Wed Oct 12 19:57:47 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: "So much for tsunami dana" In-Reply-To: <007b01c5cf8f$285fb100$2930cece@charlie> References: <007b01c5cf8f$285fb100$2930cece@charlie> Message-ID: On 10/12/05, jkirk wrote: > > > > > I've heard before, probably on this list, the argument that even if only a > > small > > percentage of an aid budget actually filters through to the target > > community, > > the programme is still validated by that small percentage of good done. I > > certainly don't begrudge the Khmer people that single billion dollars I > > mentioned, and surely cannot be understood to have been suggesting that > > the > > inefficiency of aid programmes plus local corruption warrants the > > withdrawal of > > aid? But one of the points swilling around in my opaque statements was the > > possibility that by exercising what control we can, in the case of > > charitable > > donation by making more astute choices of recipient, we can increase the > > percentage that hits the target. I therefore do not understand your 'but'. > > > > Andrew > ================== > Well, Andrew--as I and Catalina also recommended, one of the truly sterling > NGOs to which to contribute, with good assurance that the money will be used > the way it was intended, is Medecins sans Frontieres. I am going to send > them some dough as well as my local RC. > Joanna This is actually quite funny. As a certified EMT (and having nothing else to do), I volunteered to take a trip down there. I was asked my age (63) and then told , "No, we don't think you'll be needed". From s.hodge at padmacholing.freeserve.co.uk Wed Oct 12 19:50:58 2005 From: s.hodge at padmacholing.freeserve.co.uk (Stephen Hodge) Date: Wed Oct 12 20:07:45 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: +AFs-Buddha-l+AF0- Re: An experiment (Gender on Buddha-l) References: +ADw-s34d1116.003+AEA-zgrw01.cf.ac.uk+AD4- +ADw-1129140121.4552.55.camel+AEA-localhost.localdomain+AD4- Message-ID: <004901c5cf99$ec332d50$3de786d9@zen> Dear Richard, > Hardly any moderation is done Though, of course, non-moderation can in itself be a form of moderation. Best wishes, Stephen Hodge From curt at cola.iges.org Wed Oct 12 20:02:54 2005 From: curt at cola.iges.org (curt) Date: Wed Oct 12 20:07:54 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddhist pacifism In-Reply-To: References: <00a801c5ceb1$0c557eb0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <020801c5cf2c$84bc70e0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <434D2A04.5090803@nerim.net> <434D33CB.9050603@cola.iges.org> <006201c5cf4f$81c981c0$35369c04@Dan> <434D5E54.1010609@cola.iges.org> Message-ID: <434DC04E.4060107@cola.iges.org> Thank you for these links (free reading material is always appreciated by me) - I would be very interested in any others. Does Gombrich get into this in his "social history" of Theravada? I have that around somewhere, but I haven't yet read it. I am more interested in how things work out in practice. In theory I of course abhor all violence, as I suspect any Buddhist would. But in practice I do not believe that "pacifism" offers a reliable guide to correct action - and I do not believe that Buddhist teaching can be shown to have ever been interpreted as promoting such a view. - Curt Richard Nance wrote: >I'm not sure what you'd count as a countexample, but the following >passages might be worth consideration (pardon the lack of diacritics): > >1. The Angulimala sutta (MN 86) An excerpt is available here: > >http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn-086-tb0.html > >Does the sutta claim that violence is *everywhere* and *at all times* >the wrong path to take? No. But the moral lesson to be learned is, it >seems to me, pretty clear: violence is something in which a Buddhist >should not engage. > >2. For monks, killing is addressed in the parajika and pacittiya >sections of the patimokkha. > >http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/vinaya/bhikkhu-pati.html > >(In the Theravadin vinaya, the relevant vows are parajika 3 and pacittiya 61) > >For commentary, cf. the (admittedly recent) English language gloss by >Thanissaro Bhikkhu. (I don't other vinaya commentaries ready to hand, >but I doubt seriously that Thanissaro Bhikkhu's interpretations >diverge considerably from those advocated by earlier commentators -- >e.g. Buddhaghosa.) > >http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/bmc1/ch04.html >http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/bmc1/ch08-7.html#61 > >Cf. also: >http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/vinaya/bhikkhuni-pati.html > >The Uposatha-atthangika Sutta >(http://accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/wheels/wheel206/visakha.html) >offers recommendations specifically targeted to laypersons. > >Best wishes, > >R. Nance > >_______________________________________________ >buddha-l mailing list >buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com >http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l > > > > From dante at interport.net Wed Oct 12 16:50:17 2005 From: dante at interport.net (Dante Rosati) Date: Wed Oct 12 20:41:53 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Conze Memoirs Update In-Reply-To: <9FF8F904-D89F-41B6-B855-F447C91BAC0C@blueyonder.co.uk> Message-ID: Electronic versions of the first two parts of "The Memoirs" can be downloaded from here: http://nagarjuna.onlinestoragesolution.com/conze/ these are in djvu format, which is a superior kind of pdf format (smaller file sizes, etc). To view them, I recommed the open source reader found here (win and mac versions available): http://windjview.sourceforge.net/ Alas, there is no Part III, but he does provide a "Bird's-Eye View of Part III" as an appendix to Part II. Dante From Bshmr at aol.com Wed Oct 12 20:52:25 2005 From: Bshmr at aol.com (Bshmr@aol.com) Date: Wed Oct 12 20:57:49 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Immoderaate nonmoderation Message-ID: <1db.45f5d99d.307f25e9@aol.com> >Jim Peavler <_jpeavler@mindspring.com_ (mailto:jpeavler@mindspring.com) >: ... , and I cannot remember how many times the "moderators" have been attacked for their biases, their prejudices, their aggressiveness, their hautiness, their cold unfeeling cruelty, their lack of cooth and kindness, and on and on. > Well, self-selecting moderators with those traits will lead to those complaints about those sorts of persons. Plus, I haven't seen any moderating activities that I categorize as biased, aggressive, hauty, cruel, un-couth, etc. Of course 99.99% of the censorship is done in secret (probably by monotheistic, autocratic, imperialistic, capitalistic loyalists under contract to the USAn DHS *VBG*). The dominant themes have changed as several have opened up to let other aspects live (arise) or to let go of notions of a mechanized permanent self-object. I appreciate the openly expressive personal portion which has been added to make the buddha-l room more complete, so to speak. This differs from scent of hidden 'wants or graspings' wafting about recently. Very much like insight meditation, from some perspectives. Richard Basham -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20051012/2b2bb92b/attachment.html From rhayes at unm.edu Wed Oct 12 21:51:12 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Wed Oct 12 21:57:49 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Unitarian-Universalist Buddhism In-Reply-To: References: <002901c5cf4c$93acb2c0$2930cece@charlie> Message-ID: <1129175473.4383.29.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Wed, 2005-10-12 at 15:49 -0500, Tom Head wrote: > But I take comfort in the fact that the listserv I co-moderate, a UU > listserv, is predominantly female (only about 25 percent of UUs are > male). Well, I'll be damned. (Oh hell! No, I won't. I'm a Universalist.) Is that statistic published somewhere? I ask only because none of the four UU congregations I have attended have memberships in which there is such a paucity of males. My impression is that there is probably a higher percentage of gay men and women in the average UU congregation than in the average Catholic seminary, but all the congregations I have attended in Quebec, Colorado and New Mexico seem to have a pretty even distribution of men and women. Should we worry about being abnormal? Our congregation is having a planning meeting next week. Should I be recommending that about half the males get sex change operations? Now if you are interested in seeing some heavy-duty gender imbalance, go to the meetings of your local Jungian Society. For about five years I attended most of the meetings of the Jung Society in Montreal, and most of the time I was one of four men in an audience of 150 people. There were women running the whole gamut from age 59 to around 63. I can tell you, mister, the four of us men had to work pretty hard to dominate that brood of crones. (That's a technical term in Jungian psychology, by the way.) Do you happen to know of any UU Buddhist list serves? I keep reading about Buddhist Unitarians on the web, but I can't find any to talk to. The more I learn about Unitarian-Universalists, and the more I ignore about Buddhists, the more I can't see much difference, except that UUs don't try to pretend they are Asians who can sit on the floor for hours at a time without needing to call an ambulance. Are there any good UU jokes? The only two I know are: 1) Unitarians believe in the unity of God, the brotherhood of man and the neighborhood of Boston, and 2) The difference between a Unitarian and a Universalist is that Universalists believe that God is too good to damn, and Unitarians believe they are too good to be damned. -- My Unitarian Jihad Name (http://tinyurl.com/6valr ) is: The Logging Chain of Loving Kindness You can get your own at http://homepage.mac.com/whump/ujname.html From rhayes at unm.edu Wed Oct 12 22:08:54 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Wed Oct 12 22:17:47 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Speaking of tests... Message-ID: <1129176534.4708.6.camel@localhost.localdomain> Have any of you taken the test called "What's your spiritual type?" on www.beliefnet.com? It doesn't take much time, and it's sort of fun. I got a score of 40 out of 100 (which, by the way, is considered a perfect score). I am thinking of requiring this test of everyone who seeks admission to buddha-l. No one who gets a score over under 25 or over 45 will be allowed to subscribe. -- Richard Hayes *** "It is wrong always, everywhere, and for every one, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence." -- William Clifford From joy.vriens at nerim.net Wed Oct 12 23:58:01 2005 From: joy.vriens at nerim.net (Joy Vriens) Date: Thu Oct 13 00:07:50 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism In-Reply-To: <1129137631.4552.23.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <00a801c5ceb1$0c557eb0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <020801c5cf2c$84bc70e0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <434D2A04.5090803@nerim.net> <1129137631.4552.23.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <434DF769.5050704@nerim.net> Richard P. Hayes wrote: > On Wed, 2005-10-12 at 17:21 +0200, Joy Vriens wrote: > > >>Also I consider "pacifism" or non-violence if you prefer an essential >>and even constitutional part of Buddhism (even though it is more >>pronounced in Jainism). Without it, I wouldn't recognise it as Buddhism. > > > I agree. As the saying goes "There are things I would die for, but there > is nothing I would kill for." If the price to pay in defending non- > violence is my own death, so be it. And if Buddhism is eliminated by > aggressors, I'd rather see it perish that way that to perish by > defending itself in a way that is a betrayal of its own basic > principles. My turn to agree. In which case something else will turn up instead because the appeal and the need for peace, inner and outer, will never dissappear. In the same way, I don't want democracy and freedom to defend "themselves" against aggressors through means that are antidemocratic and anti-freedom. They would then perhaps win all battles but loose the war. The real battlefield is the defense of one's democracy and freedom. Joy From joy.vriens at nerim.net Thu Oct 13 00:09:46 2005 From: joy.vriens at nerim.net (Joy Vriens) Date: Thu Oct 13 00:17:50 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddhist pacifism In-Reply-To: <434D5E54.1010609@cola.iges.org> References: <00a801c5ceb1$0c557eb0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <020801c5cf2c$84bc70e0$2c1b9c04@Dan><434D2A04.5090803@nerim.net> <434D33CB.9050603@cola.iges.org> <006201c5cf4f$81c981c0$35369c04@Dan> <434D5E54.1010609@cola.iges.org> Message-ID: <434DFA2A.70102@nerim.net> curt wrote: > I would love to hear a pacifist > Buddhist explain what it would mean, in practice, for Buddhists "in > power" to promote pacifism. Yesterday I watched an interview with Michel Serres, a French philosopher. He is from the region where Catharism (with its Manichaean leaning) was once born and says it is still very present in his psychological make-up. In this vision the world is the creation of an evil genius and the nearer one gets to power, the nearer one gets to evil. He explained that being a brilliant student when he came home with good notes, his father (even stronger influenced by the Manichaean outlook) would slap him, because it would bring him higher up in the hierarchy, nearer to power and therefore nearer to evil. And he himself is still very much convinced of this. So from that point of view a Buddhist "in power" would very much be a contradiction in terms. Joy From c_castell at yahoo.com Thu Oct 13 00:20:39 2005 From: c_castell at yahoo.com (Catalina Castell-du Payrat) Date: Thu Oct 13 00:29:01 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: "So much for tsunami dana" In-Reply-To: <002f01c5cf4f$01e1d2f0$2930cece@charlie> Message-ID: <20051013062040.48263.qmail@web60820.mail.yahoo.com> JK wrote: <> Mexico workers (legal and illegal) have alwayas been an important part of California economy..........the USA goverment knows that, they need them. But don't worry, some of those illegal mexicans are just killed by some farmers. What scandalises me more is the fact that a huge part of the money that USA got will go to fix oil plattforms.......... catalina Catalina Castell - du Payrat c_castell@yahoo.com --------------------------------- Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20051012/5308263f/attachment.html From joy.vriens at nerim.net Thu Oct 13 00:52:49 2005 From: joy.vriens at nerim.net (Joy Vriens) Date: Thu Oct 13 00:59:05 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddhist pacifism In-Reply-To: <434D6684.9020608@cola.iges.org> References: <00a801c5ceb1$0c557eb0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <020801c5cf2c$84bc70e0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <434D2A04.5090803@nerim.net> <434D33CB.9050603@cola.iges.org> <434D5216.2000405@nerim.net> <434D6684.9020608@cola.iges.org> Message-ID: <434E0441.1060706@nerim.net> curt wrote: > Joy Vriens wrote: > Oh good - I'm glad you mentioned turning the other cheek. I thought you would. > Sometimes the > right thing to do is to hit back. Why not? Why is it always "right" to > invite another slap to yourself? 3-6: 'He insulted me, hit me, beat me, robbed me' ? for those who brood on this, hostility isn't stilled. 'He insulted me, hit me, beat me, robbed me' ? for those who don't brood on this, hostility is stilled. Hostilities aren't stilled through hostility, regardless. Hostilities are stilled through non-hostility: this, an unending truth. I see turning the other cheek as a very powerful teaser or mind-opener. We are so used to exchange evil for evil and so utterly convinced of our *right* to do so, that we overlook the question whether it is actually in our interest to do so. Not using one's rights has almost become a crime, like not using and exploiting nature was considered folly after Descartes. "Turning the other cheek" makes one sit up and ask "Huh, what!?" > People (white people, to put it bluntly) > give way to much credit to "non-violence" when it comes to making some > progress against racism in the US. During the same period as the civil > rights movement there was an ever increasing willingness on the part of > African Americans to simply stand up for themselves and hit back when > struck first - both literally and figuratively. A great many of the > people who participated in the civil rights movement weren't pacifists, > either - but they adopted non-violence as a tactical method that was > right for a certain time and a certain place. And, while I'm at it, > Ghandi's campaign of non-violence only worked because the British and > French Empires were hopelessly on the ropes in the face of a worldwide > armed uprising against colonialism. Sometimes if there is a person who > goes around slapping other people - someone needs to slap him or her > just once - then it stops. I know that this makes pacifists very nervous > - they don't want it to be true. But I believe it is. "Victoria ascended to the throne in 1837, only four years after the abolition of slavery in the British Empire. The anti-slavery movement had campaigned for years to achieve the ban, succeeding with a partial abolition in 1807 and the full ban in 1833. It had taken so long because the anti-slavery morality was pitted against a powerful capitalist element in the empire which claimed that their businesses would be destroyed if they were not permitted to exploit slave labour. Eventually plantation owners in the Caribbean received ?20 million in compensation." http://www.answers.com/topic/victorian-morality I didn't have the impression that any slaves stood up against their condition to achieve this. Victorians simply became gradually aware of the wrongness of slavery. >> How many philosophers had the dream of being able to influence kings >> and emperors? How many managed to realise their dream? How many were >> sincere teachers? Politics is making concessions. If teachers thought >> that by allying with kings they would promote the cause of their >> school or of Buddhism, they made a double mistake. Serving a king and >> serving a school or for that matter "Buddhism" is not serving the >> objective of Buddhism, which is the most intimate affair there is. One >> can only take care of one's very own "Buddhism". > Actually I would say this is not true. I think a great deal of good can > come from Buddhists taking every opportunity to try to influence > political and social change in a positive direction - and historically > that has included "serving" kings and emperors. What specific Buddhist values could Buddhists bring into politics that aren't universal values? I could only think of non-violence, but you don't seem to want that particular value. I personally don't see what Buddhists could bring to politics. We Buddhists apparently are not even capable of agreeing on what that influence should be? > The priests who "served" > Asoka seemed to have done a pretty good job. Perhaps they could have > done more - but I think its good that they did what they did. Perhaps > this isn't quite what you meant - maybe we should try to clarify this more. In how far were Asoka and his time prepared for more universal values through contacts with the Hellenistic world? Just a question of somehow who doesn't know much about this period? And didn't Asoka have other interests in "listening" to those priests (like e.g. King Clovis in France)? Aren't there any personal factors either, an aging person getting nearer to death may start questioning some of his actions and start fearing death and the afterdeath? etc. etc. >> The Buddhist objective is peace, a peace soothing like the cool moon. >> Not peace as the opposite of war, but peace. Can you conceive that >> objective as realisable with violence? > I don't believe that the "ends justify the means". But I also don't > believe that the "means justify the ends" (ie - as long as you don't use > violence any result is acceptable). Just "avoiding violence" is an empty > position - it only makes people feel good for a while - but allows real > problems to persist unchallenged. I am glad when people defend > themselves - and even more glad when they defend each other. We live in > a violent world - it is not possible to avoid violence. Don't you want to defend yourself and others and challenge that problem of violence, deal with it instead of allowing it to persist unchallenged and instead of accepting it as unavoidable? Joy From stroble at hawaii.edu Thu Oct 13 01:30:50 2005 From: stroble at hawaii.edu (James A. Stroble) Date: Thu Oct 13 01:39:11 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddhist pacifism In-Reply-To: <434E0441.1060706@nerim.net> References: <00a801c5ceb1$0c557eb0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <020801c5cf2c$84bc70e0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <434D2A04.5090803@nerim.net> <434D33CB.9050603@cola.iges.org> <434D5216.2000405@nerim.net> <434D6684.9020608@cola.iges.org> <434E0441.1060706@nerim.net> Message-ID: <1129188650.5150.18.camel@spinoza> On Thu, 2005-10-13 at 08:52 +0200, Joy Vriens wrote: > curt wrote: > > > Joy Vriens wrote: > > > Oh good - I'm glad you mentioned turning the other cheek. > > I thought you would. I don't appear in the stats for recent postings, but I have to de-lurk at this point to say that the list has been taken over by substantialists, metaphysical monists and realpolitikers. Sometimes I think you have to maintain eternal vigilance to defend the dharma against all sorts of perversion. The worst of these is the attempt to westernize Buddhism so that the instrumental use of violence is acceptable. Now it bad enought that members of the United States administration think they are accomplishing something, making something safe, by means of violence. But from a Buddhist perspective, this is just plain wrong. I mean plain wrong. I would like to challenge (damn testosterone! Sorry, Joanna) Curt to show one instance where buddhism disavows pacifism. Of course we will leave out Zen under Imperial Japan on the grounds that their position was Japanese of the time, not Buddhist. And Dan.... wait, never start two fights at the same time. More on self-defense later. >From the Dhammapada: ``He abused me, he beat me, he defeated me, he robbed me,'' in those who harbour such thoughts hatred is not appeased. ``He abused me, he beat me, he defeated me, he robbed me,'' in those who do not harbour such thoughts hatred is appeased. ________________________________________________________________ Hate is not overcome by hate; by Love (Metta) alone is hate appeased. This is an eternal law. The others know not that in this quarrel we perish; those of them who realise it, have their quarrels calmed thereby. > > Sometimes the > > right thing to do is to hit back. Why not? Why is it always "right" to > > invite another slap to yourself? > Don't you want to defend yourself and others and challenge that problem > of violence, deal with it instead of allowing it to persist unchallenged > and instead of accepting it as unavoidable? > > Joy > Joy's point is well taken. It was not the violence that made the difference, but the refusal to accept violence, non-violent resistance or resistance to violence. Same thing? -- James A. Stroble From joy.vriens at nerim.net Thu Oct 13 01:53:48 2005 From: joy.vriens at nerim.net (Joy Vriens) Date: Thu Oct 13 01:57:52 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Speaking of tests... In-Reply-To: <1129176534.4708.6.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1129176534.4708.6.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <434E128C.100@nerim.net> Richard P. Hayes wrote: > Have any of you taken the test called "What's your spiritual type?" on > www.beliefnet.com? It doesn't take much time, and it's sort of fun. I > got a score of 40 out of 100 (which, by the way, is considered a perfect > score). > > I am thinking of requiring this test of everyone who seeks admission to > buddha-l. No one who gets a score over under 25 or over 45 will be > allowed to subscribe. Damn, 30-39 I am a Spiritual Dabbler -- Open to spiritual matters but far from impressed... From alex at chagchen.org Thu Oct 13 02:59:55 2005 From: alex at chagchen.org (Alex Wilding) Date: Thu Oct 13 03:38:43 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Speaking of tests... References: <1129176534.4708.6.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <01d501c5cfd8$807d2d60$8fd5869f@m4k8m7> Richard P. Hayes wrote: > Have any of you taken the test called "What's your spiritual type?" on > www.beliefnet.com? It doesn't take much time, and it's sort of fun. I > got a score of 40 out of 100 (which, by the way, is considered a > perfect score). > I took the test the other day about - what was it now? - oh yes, male and female brain. Came out slightly above average on both tests, and therefore quite androgynously brained. So what did I learn from that? Basically zilch, except for noting that my spiritual narcissism is strong enough to let me waste 10 minutes on getting a few lines of computer codes say something about *MEEE*. The same motive led me to this test, the result of which was "straddler", in other words no real comment, as informative as the first test. But I did learn something else, or at least I got a reminder. Time and again I was dissatisfied by *all* the four options because the very perspective from which the questions appear to have been written is something I would want to challenge. Many of the questions suggest an equation of "spirituality" with a belief in or relationship with "god" (hellooo .... there are buddhists here ...). Some questions seem to take a dichotomy of the supernatural and the natural (the latter, it would appear, being "blind") for granted, and appeared only to offer choices between a belief in the supernatural and a conventional, mechanistic materialism. My own little attitudes were just not being mapped onto the answers, and surely I'm not *that* unusual? I also note that I am still naive enough to have even entertained the idea that a multiple choice quizette on spirituality would rise above the level of the daily newspaper horoscope. AW From castanford at gmail.com Thu Oct 13 05:01:10 2005 From: castanford at gmail.com (Chris) Date: Thu Oct 13 05:09:05 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Speaking of tests... In-Reply-To: <01d501c5cfd8$807d2d60$8fd5869f@m4k8m7> References: <1129176534.4708.6.camel@localhost.localdomain> <01d501c5cfd8$807d2d60$8fd5869f@m4k8m7> Message-ID: <290923980510130401r26b18857pbe15e22f91356cec@mail.gmail.com> Did it; 46. Not surprising, given what I know about Richard and myself (more about Richard, thanks to his on-going self disclosure on this list, than about myself!) Why set the bar at 45, Richard? Our group scores from 40 to 49. They're right on about having a distrust for organized religion. That's me! On 10/13/05, Alex Wilding wrote: > Richard P. Hayes wrote: > > Have any of you taken the test called "What's your spiritual type?" on > > www.beliefnet.com? It doesn't take much time, and it's sort of fun. I > > got a score of 40 out of 100 (which, by the way, is considered a > > perfect score). > > > I took the test the other day about - what was it now? - oh yes, male and > female brain. Came out slightly above average on both tests, and therefore > quite androgynously brained. So what did I learn from that? Basically > zilch, > except for noting that my spiritual narcissism is strong enough to let me > waste 10 minutes on getting a few lines of computer codes say something > about *MEEE*. > The same motive led me to this test, the result of which was "straddler", > in > other words no real comment, as informative as the first test. But I did > learn something else, or at least I got a reminder. Time and again I was > dissatisfied by *all* the four options because the very perspective from > which the questions appear to have been written is something I would want > to > challenge. Many of the questions suggest an equation of "spirituality" with > a belief in or relationship with "god" (hellooo .... there are buddhists > here ...). Some questions seem to take a dichotomy of the supernatural and > the natural (the latter, it would appear, being "blind") for granted, and > appeared only to offer choices between a belief in the supernatural and a > conventional, mechanistic materialism. My own little attitudes were just > not > being mapped onto the answers, and surely I'm not *that* unusual? > I also note that I am still naive enough to have even entertained the idea > that a multiple choice quizette on spirituality would rise above the level > of the daily newspaper horoscope. > AW > > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l > From ghoti at consultron.ca Thu Oct 13 05:55:14 2005 From: ghoti at consultron.ca (Tom Troughton) Date: Thu Oct 13 05:57:53 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism In-Reply-To: <434DF769.5050704@nerim.net> Message-ID: <200510131155.j9DBtUJb006247@mail1.magma.ca> On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 07:58:01 +0200, Joy Vriens wrote: >Richard P. Hayes wrote: >> On Wed, 2005-10-12 at 17:21 +0200, Joy Vriens wrote: >> >> >>>Also I consider "pacifism" or non-violence if you prefer an essential >>>and even constitutional part of Buddhism (even though it is more >>>pronounced in Jainism). Without it, I wouldn't recognise it as Buddhism. >> >> >> I agree. As the saying goes "There are things I would die for, but there >> is nothing I would kill for." If the price to pay in defending non- >> violence is my own death, so be it. And if Buddhism is eliminated by >> aggressors, I'd rather see it perish that way that to perish by >> defending itself in a way that is a betrayal of its own basic >> principles. > >My turn to agree. >In which case something else will turn up instead because the appeal and >the need for peace, inner and outer, will never dissappear. In the same >way, I don't want democracy and freedom to defend "themselves" against >aggressors through means that are antidemocratic and anti-freedom. They >would then perhaps win all battles but loose the war. The real >battlefield is the defense of one's democracy and freedom. If I understand you both well, you would let loved ones suffer rather than damage your own purity. Is this typical of Buddhist moral thinking? Best wishes, Tom From joy.vriens at nerim.net Thu Oct 13 06:21:06 2005 From: joy.vriens at nerim.net (Joy Vriens) Date: Thu Oct 13 06:28:06 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism In-Reply-To: <200510131155.j9DBtUJb006247@mail1.magma.ca> References: <200510131155.j9DBtUJb006247@mail1.magma.ca> Message-ID: <434E5132.8080405@nerim.net> Tom Troughton wrote: > If I understand you both well, you would let loved ones suffer rather > than damage your own purity. Is this typical of Buddhist moral > thinking? I am seriously considering giving up my loved ones. As soon as I admit loving someone, an anti-pacifist pops up and wants to me to go to the other end of the earth and throw atom bombs or cluster bombs on people that need my love too. Besides my loved ones have let me know they are are getting fed up with having to pop up and being used as a potential target for aggressors every time I have a discussion with an anti-pacifist. Joy From mike at lamrim.org.uk Thu Oct 13 06:02:42 2005 From: mike at lamrim.org.uk (Mike Austin) Date: Thu Oct 13 06:28:23 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Speaking of tests... In-Reply-To: <01d501c5cfd8$807d2d60$8fd5869f@m4k8m7> References: <1129176534.4708.6.camel@localhost.localdomain> <01d501c5cfd8$807d2d60$8fd5869f@m4k8m7> Message-ID: In message <01d501c5cfd8$807d2d60$8fd5869f@m4k8m7>, Alex Wilding writes >I also note that I am still naive enough to have even entertained the idea >that a multiple choice quizette on spirituality would rise above the level >of the daily newspaper horoscope. Hehe! I am still wavering, but may yet have a go as boredom creeps up on me in front of my computer. So, when nobody else's naivety is around to entertain us, we have to make do with our own. I agree about the inadequacy of the questions on questionnaires. This is a general problem - that of trying to measure one 'thing' with a smaller 'thing'. I see something similar happening in myself and others when the Dharma is being studied. The small mind should expand to accommodate the 'object', but often a limited representation of the 'object' is produced to fit the small mind, and nothing new is understood. -- Metta Mike Austin From curt at cola.iges.org Thu Oct 13 06:28:37 2005 From: curt at cola.iges.org (curt) Date: Thu Oct 13 06:38:15 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddhist pacifism In-Reply-To: <1129188650.5150.18.camel@spinoza> References: <00a801c5ceb1$0c557eb0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <020801c5cf2c$84bc70e0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <434D2A04.5090803@nerim.net> <434D33CB.9050603@cola.iges.org> <434D5216.2000405@nerim.net> <434D6684.9020608@cola.iges.org> <434E0441.1060706@nerim.net> <1129188650.5150.18.camel@spinoza> Message-ID: <434E52F5.5060106@cola.iges.org> James A. Stroble wrote: >I don't appear in the stats for recent postings, but I have to de-lurk >at this point to say that the list has been taken over by >substantialists, metaphysical monists and realpolitikers. Sometimes I >think you have to maintain eternal vigilance to defend the dharma >against all sorts of perversion. The worst of these is the attempt to >westernize Buddhism so that the instrumental use of violence is >acceptable. Now it bad enought that members of the United States >administration think they are accomplishing something, making something >safe, by means of violence. But from a Buddhist perspective, this is >just plain wrong. I mean plain wrong. > I would like to challenge (damn testosterone! Sorry, Joanna) Curt to >show one instance where buddhism disavows pacifism. Of course we will >leave out Zen under Imperial Japan on the grounds that their position >was Japanese of the time, not Buddhist. > > Two clear cut examples: (1) Tibet, a Buddhist Theocracy for the last 1,000 years or so, has all along maintained (and used) a standing army. It has also maintained, and used, the death penalty as part of its legal system. (2) The Korean monk Sosan Taesa organized a guerrilla army in 1592 to defend Korea against a foreign invasion. To this day Korean Buddhists honor Sosan Taesa and are especially proud of his role as a "national hero". The Korean Buddhist Jogye has a several biographies of "Great Masters of Korean Buddhism" at this url: http://eng.buddhism.or.kr/master/list.asp - look for "Hyoo Jung". Instead of "Sosan Taesa" they spell it "Sursan Daesah" - transliteration of Korean is extremely non-standardized. All modern day Korean Zen Masters trace their lineage, with pride, back to Sosan Taesa and hist four most senior students, who served as his lieutenants during the guerrilla war that eventually succeeded in repelling the invaders (with a little help from the Chinese). This is a case of the pot calling the kettle a pot. Pacifism is a western idea. Buddhism in Asia has never promoted pacifism. Buddhist countries have always maintained armies and have used them in self-defense. Buddhists, including great teachers and masters have both supported this and participated in it, and there has never been a "Buddhist" criticism of that fact. Ever. I'm pretty sure that I am in fact a metaphysical monist and possibly a pervert - but I'm not sure about that other stuff. I might be using the terminology wrong, but I think that Yogacara is "metaphysically monist" - ain't it? And Tantra gets pretty perverted sometimes, don't it? - Curt From curt at cola.iges.org Thu Oct 13 06:33:18 2005 From: curt at cola.iges.org (curt) Date: Thu Oct 13 06:39:21 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddhist pacifism In-Reply-To: <434E0441.1060706@nerim.net> References: <00a801c5ceb1$0c557eb0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <020801c5cf2c$84bc70e0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <434D2A04.5090803@nerim.net> <434D33CB.9050603@cola.iges.org> <434D5216.2000405@nerim.net> <434D6684.9020608@cola.iges.org> <434E0441.1060706@nerim.net> Message-ID: <434E540E.9000905@cola.iges.org> Joy Vriens wrote: > "Victoria ascended to the throne in 1837, only four years after the > abolition of slavery in the British Empire. The anti-slavery movement > had campaigned for years to achieve the ban, succeeding with a partial > abolition in 1807 and the full ban in 1833. It had taken so long > because the anti-slavery morality was pitted against a powerful > capitalist element in the empire which claimed that their businesses > would be destroyed if they were not permitted to exploit slave labour. > Eventually plantation owners in the Caribbean received ?20 million in > compensation." > http://www.answers.com/topic/victorian-morality > > I didn't have the impression that any slaves stood up against their > condition to achieve this. Victorians simply became gradually aware of > the wrongness of slavery. Slaves have always rebelled against their condition. In the specific case of African slavery there is a classic history book by Herbert Aptheker called "American Negro Slave Revolts". It is a very inspiring book. Wherever there are slaves their masters should sleep in fear. Also C.L.R. James wrote a book called "The Black Jacobins: Toussaint L'Ouverture and the San Domingo Revolution" - which is about the slave revolt on the island of San Domingo - modern day Haiti and the Dominican Republic. Carlos Santana (the musician and a very "spiritual" artist in my book) wrote a song inspired by Toussaint L'Overture - the leader of the "San Domingo Revolution". > >>> How many philosophers had the dream of being able to influence kings >>> and emperors? How many managed to realise their dream? How many were >>> sincere teachers? Politics is making concessions. If teachers >>> thought that by allying with kings they would promote the cause of >>> their school or of Buddhism, they made a double mistake. Serving a >>> king and serving a school or for that matter "Buddhism" is not >>> serving the objective of Buddhism, which is the most intimate affair >>> there is. One can only take care of one's very own "Buddhism". >> > >> Actually I would say this is not true. I think a great deal of good >> can come from Buddhists taking every opportunity to try to influence >> political and social change in a positive direction - and >> historically that has included "serving" kings and emperors. > > > What specific Buddhist values could Buddhists bring into politics that > aren't universal values? I could only think of non-violence, but you > don't seem to want that particular value. I personally don't see what > Buddhists could bring to politics. We Buddhists apparently are not > even capable of agreeing on what that influence should be? In the specific case of King Asoka I think a strong argument can be made that a very positive influence on state policy is attributable directly to his conversion to Buddhism. Two things in particular are notable about Asoka's regime after his conversion: (1) his renunciation of wars of aggression and conquest, (2) his strong support for religious tolerance. > >> The priests who "served" Asoka seemed to have done a pretty good job. >> Perhaps they could have done more - but I think its good that they >> did what they did. Perhaps this isn't quite what you meant - maybe we >> should try to clarify this more. > > > In how far were Asoka and his time prepared for more universal values > through contacts with the Hellenistic world? Just a question of > somehow who doesn't know much about this period? And didn't Asoka have > other interests in "listening" to those priests (like e.g. King Clovis > in France)? Aren't there any personal factors either, an aging person > getting nearer to death may start questioning some of his actions and > start fearing death and the afterdeath? etc. etc. The influences between the Hellenistic world and India went both ways. The Hellenes generally considered both the Indians and the Egyptians as their spiritual "superiors". Whether they were right or not is a separate issue - but that was the view at the time - and that view was universally accepted as valid prior to the 18th century. As far as the influence of advancing age and maturity, this was probably a factor - but it is far from inevitable that someone will become more wise and peaceful as they get older. And the fact is that Asoka quite clearly turned to Buddhism for guidance in how he could be a better king - and I think the results of that decision were positive. > >>> The Buddhist objective is peace, a peace soothing like the cool >>> moon. Not peace as the opposite of war, but peace. Can you conceive >>> that objective as realisable with violence? >> > >> I don't believe that the "ends justify the means". But I also don't >> believe that the "means justify the ends" (ie - as long as you don't >> use violence any result is acceptable). Just "avoiding violence" is >> an empty position - it only makes people feel good for a while - but >> allows real problems to persist unchallenged. I am glad when people >> defend themselves - and even more glad when they defend each other. >> We live in a violent world - it is not possible to avoid violence. > > > Don't you want to defend yourself and others and challenge that > problem of violence, deal with it instead of allowing it to persist > unchallenged and instead of accepting it as unavoidable? To some limited extent there may always be some violence "necessary" for humans. To physically restrain a person is an act of "violence", and yet this is sometimes necessary for everyone's good. Sometimes even confining a person against their will might be necessary for periods of time - again for their own good and that of everyone else. But there are few things more "violent" than placing a person under such confinement. And, of course, we will always have our "animal nature". I don't believe that animal nature to be an inherently evil thing - but I do suspect that it is something that humanity will never be able to fully control and predict. As long as their are people willing to commit acts of violence such as physically assaulting others, rape, child molestation, etc - some means will need to exist for "handling" such people, and such handling will involve some kinds of "violence" - but it should be as humane as possible. But except for cases like that I do believe that it is possible for humans to create a different kind of society in which the violence that we now know will become unknown. Carlos Santana has a nice little phrase (he probably got it from somewhere else - but maybe he made it up himself): "Un Mundo sin carteras, sin banderas y sin fronteras" (a world without wallets, without flags, and without borders). - Curt From joy.vriens at nerim.net Thu Oct 13 07:12:55 2005 From: joy.vriens at nerim.net (Joy Vriens) Date: Thu Oct 13 07:20:14 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddhist pacifism In-Reply-To: <434E540E.9000905@cola.iges.org> References: <00a801c5ceb1$0c557eb0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <020801c5cf2c$84bc70e0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <434D2A04.5090803@nerim.net> <434D33CB.9050603@cola.iges.org> <434D5216.2000405@nerim.net> <434D6684.9020608@cola.iges.org> <434E0441.1060706@nerim.net> <434E540E.9000905@cola.iges.org> Message-ID: <434E5D57.40008@nerim.net> curt wrote: >> I didn't have the impression that any slaves stood up against their >> condition to achieve this. Victorians simply became gradually aware of >> the wrongness of slavery. > Slaves have always rebelled against their condition. I bet, but the resistance to abolishing it came from the very ones exploiting them. They couldn't have slept that badly. The slave rebellion didn't lead to the abolishment. The public opinion was ready for it. >> What specific Buddhist values could Buddhists bring into politics that >> aren't universal values? I could only think of non-violence, but you >> don't seem to want that particular value. I personally don't see what >> Buddhists could bring to politics. We Buddhists apparently are not >> even capable of agreeing on what that influence should be? > In the specific case of King Asoka I think a strong argument can be made > that a very positive influence on state policy is attributable directly > to his conversion to Buddhism. Two things in particular are notable > about Asoka's regime after his conversion: (1) his renunciation of wars > of aggression and conquest, (2) his strong support for religious tolerance. But what does renunciation of wars of aggression and conquest have to do with Buddhist influence? Religious tolerance is not a Buddhist monopoly either. >> In how far were Asoka and his time prepared for more universal values >> through contacts with the Hellenistic world? Just a question of >> somehow who doesn't know much about this period? And didn't Asoka have >> other interests in "listening" to those priests (like e.g. King Clovis >> in France)? Aren't there any personal factors either, an aging person >> getting nearer to death may start questioning some of his actions and >> start fearing death and the afterdeath? etc. etc. > The influences between the Hellenistic world and India went both ways. > The Hellenes generally considered both the Indians and the Egyptians as > their spiritual "superiors". Yes, I just read the other day that Plotinus (Plotin?) dreamed of going to the Orient (like Pyrrhon and others) for that reason, which proves it must have really been a hype. > Whether they were right or not is a > separate issue - but that was the view at the time - and that view was > universally accepted as valid prior to the 18th century. As far as the > influence of advancing age and maturity, this was probably a factor - > but it is far from inevitable that someone will become more wise and > peaceful as they get older. Wise and peaceful is not inevitable as you say, but simply scared is very likely. >> Don't you want to defend yourself and others and challenge that >> problem of violence, deal with it instead of allowing it to persist >> unchallenged and instead of accepting it as unavoidable? > To some limited extent there may always be some violence "necessary" for > humans. Yes, that is what I wrote to Dan. The use of violence as a large scale police action by international organisations could be positive if it is as humane as possible as you say. Violence used in one's own country to stop violence by one's own citizens is different from violence used abroad against foreigners. The latter type of violence is much more careless and sloppy. Joy From ghoti at consultron.ca Thu Oct 13 07:42:50 2005 From: ghoti at consultron.ca (Tom Troughton) Date: Thu Oct 13 07:47:57 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism In-Reply-To: <434E5132.8080405@nerim.net> Message-ID: <200510131342.j9DDgn8F008383@mail4.magma.ca> On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 14:21:06 +0200, Joy Vriens wrote: >Tom Troughton wrote: > >> If I understand you both well, you would let loved ones suffer rather >> than damage your own purity. Is this typical of Buddhist moral >> thinking? > >I am seriously considering giving up my loved ones. As soon as I admit >loving someone, an anti-pacifist pops up and wants to me to go to the >other end of the earth and throw atom bombs or cluster bombs on people >that need my love too. Besides my loved ones have let me know they are >are getting fed up with having to pop up and being used as a potential >target for aggressors every time I have a discussion with an >anti-pacifist. hehe. A thorough-going renunciation of the world and the suffering of the beings in it seems to solve one problem while creating another, and vice-versa. Abandoning a thorough-going engagement with problem solving also creates problems. What to do? The inference of anti-pacifism is interesting, but I am more curious if you think that Buddhist moral thinking revolves around a valuing of personal ontological purity over and above action. Best wishes Tom From curt at cola.iges.org Thu Oct 13 08:13:31 2005 From: curt at cola.iges.org (curt) Date: Thu Oct 13 08:19:06 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddhist pacifism In-Reply-To: <434E5D57.40008@nerim.net> References: <00a801c5ceb1$0c557eb0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <020801c5cf2c$84bc70e0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <434D2A04.5090803@nerim.net> <434D33CB.9050603@cola.iges.org> <434D5216.2000405@nerim.net> <434D6684.9020608@cola.iges.org> <434E0441.1060706@nerim.net> <434E540E.9000905@cola.iges.org> <434E5D57.40008@nerim.net> Message-ID: <434E6B8B.7050508@cola.iges.org> Joy Vriens wrote: > curt wrote: > >>> I didn't have the impression that any slaves stood up against their >>> condition to achieve this. Victorians simply became gradually aware >>> of the wrongness of slavery. >> > >> Slaves have always rebelled against their condition. > > > I bet, but the resistance to abolishing it came from the very ones > exploiting them. They couldn't have slept that badly. O contraire - sometimes they never woke up (in other words, they were killed in their sleep. Most slave uprisings began at night, and often involved breaking into the main house and killing the Master and his family in their beds). One of the main points of Aptheker's book is to document just how much concern, even hysteria, resulted from the constant and bloody uprisings of slaves on plantations throughout the South. He quotes extensively from newspapers and other original sources to make this point. Just about 100 miles from where I live is the little town of Harpers Ferry - where old John Brown tried to start a nationwide, coordinated slave uprising. He actually had a good overall strategy, but his planning for the initial phase proved to be insufficient. Although he failed and was captured and hanged along with all of his fellow conspirators it is no exaggeration to say that John Brown scared the living crap out of every single person who owned human slaves. And I say good for him. He was a fundamentalist Christian, by the way. > The slave rebellion didn't lead to the abolishment. The public opinion > was ready for it. Saying exactly what caused what in history is always speculative. But there is plenty of evidence that slave resistance played a significant role in the end of African Slavery. In the case of the San Domingo revolution, slavery ended because the slaves revolted and took over the island, for instance. In the case of the US, slavery ended as a direct consequence of the Civil War, and liberated slaves fought in large numbers and with great effect in the Union army. The "Emancipation Proclamation" followed by enrollment of huge numbers of former slaves in the Union army made it possible for the North to impose unconditional surrender on the South - which in turn made it possible to completely dismantle the Slave system. Things would have gone much further had Radical Reconstruction not been sabotaged by the Republican Party (those darned Republicans - of course back then the "Democrats" were the Party of the former slave-holders!). African Slavery was far more central to the US economy than to any other nation - it was part of the very foundation of American Capitalism. So other nations could more easily simply say to themselves "this slavery business really is rather embarrassing for us good Christians, ain't it?" > >>> What specific Buddhist values could Buddhists bring into politics >>> that aren't universal values? I could only think of non-violence, >>> but you don't seem to want that particular value. I personally don't >>> see what Buddhists could bring to politics. We Buddhists apparently >>> are not even capable of agreeing on what that influence should be? >> > >> In the specific case of King Asoka I think a strong argument can be >> made that a very positive influence on state policy is attributable >> directly to his conversion to Buddhism. Two things in particular are >> notable about Asoka's regime after his conversion: (1) his >> renunciation of wars of aggression and conquest, (2) his strong >> support for religious tolerance. > > > But what does > renunciation of wars of aggression and conquest have to do with > Buddhist influence? > Religious tolerance is not a Buddhist monopoly either. Yes, I agree. But in Asoka's case he was directly influenced in this direction by the teachings of the Buddha in particular. > >>> In how far were Asoka and his time prepared for more universal >>> values through contacts with the Hellenistic world? Just a question >>> of somehow who doesn't know much about this period? And didn't Asoka >>> have other interests in "listening" to those priests (like e.g. King >>> Clovis in France)? Aren't there any personal factors either, an >>> aging person getting nearer to death may start questioning some of >>> his actions and start fearing death and the afterdeath? etc. etc. >> > >> The influences between the Hellenistic world and India went both >> ways. The Hellenes generally considered both the Indians and the >> Egyptians as their spiritual "superiors". > > > Yes, I just read the other day that Plotinus (Plotin?) dreamed of > going to the Orient (like Pyrrhon and others) for that reason, which > proves it must have really been a hype. In fact he made it part way - but the expedition he joined up with met with disaster, and Plotinus almost lost his life. I think he actually was enslaved for a while, while we're still on the subject of slavery. And Epictetus, the great Stoic philosopher, spent his youth as a slave. > >> Whether they were right or not is a separate issue - but that was the >> view at the time - and that view was universally accepted as valid >> prior to the 18th century. As far as the influence of advancing age >> and maturity, this was probably a factor - but it is far from >> inevitable that someone will become more wise and peaceful as they >> get older. > > > Wise and peaceful is not inevitable as you say, but simply scared is > very likely. > >>> Don't you want to defend yourself and others and challenge that >>> problem of violence, deal with it instead of allowing it to persist >>> unchallenged and instead of accepting it as unavoidable? >> > >> To some limited extent there may always be some violence "necessary" >> for humans. > > > Yes, that is what I wrote to Dan. The use of violence as a large scale > police action by international organisations could be positive if it > is as humane as possible as you say. Violence used in one's own > country to stop violence by one's own citizens is different from > violence used abroad against foreigners. The latter type of violence > is much more careless and sloppy. And I would also say that even in cases where one decides that violence may be "necessary" - that one still has to bear the karmic burden of one's actions. I would never say that violence is simply "OK". It is always wrong to hurt someone else - but things aren't always so simple, as in the case of what to do with an individual who has committed multiple violent crimes and intends to commit more. Whatever is done to that person is not "free" of karma - but I still think it has to be done. Nor do I think that a slave is free of karma when he or she slits the Master's throat, and those of his family, while they sleep in their beds - but I would much rather have that happen than have to live in a world in which slave masters sleep peacefully. And since I feel that way, then in order to be consistent (which is not always a high priority for me, but in this case I think its a good idea), then I would have to say that I would be willing to take on that karmic debt as well. - Curt From curt at cola.iges.org Thu Oct 13 08:46:36 2005 From: curt at cola.iges.org (curt) Date: Thu Oct 13 08:47:57 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Gender on Buddha-l In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <434E734C.4090504@cola.iges.org> An aspect of the Buddha's traditional life story/hagiography that is often overlooked, is that it was necessary for Yashodhara to bear a son in order for her to be guaranteed a secure position in the family she had married into (after her husband split, that is). Also, this was no modern nuclear family in which Yashodhara was left to fend for herself - her husband's departure may have had little practical impact on her - and it may have actually improved her standing in the family (now that it was obvious that Siddhartha was unlikely to take over the family business her son would become next in line). As far as little Rahula goes - he was probably better off without his old man around - after all, the guy named him "Fetter". With doting grandparents, a loving mother, and a big extended family (not to mention servants - I have no idea how it worked back then, but its likely they did most of the child-rearing) - the kid probably missed his Daddy, but I don't think we should consider him to have been greatly harmed by the fact that his old man turned out to be some kind of religious nut. I think that in the traditional retellings of this story, Siddhartha usually leaves the palace very soon after Rahula's birth. I don't think its ever spelled out, but I do think its not too big of a stretch to read into that the implication that he was waiting for just that event before taking off. And his motivation might very well have been (yeah yeah yeah, I know) to ensure that everything would be cool for Yashodhara in his absence. - Curt StormyTet@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 10/9/2005 11:39:30 A.M. Central Daylight Time, > rhayes@unm.edu writes: > > Joanna: > Sorry but that's wrong----if you hold to that view, then > you have no concept > > of culture whatsoever, thanks to an apparent decision to > disregard some very > > huge social realities. > > RH: Sorry, but that's not an argument. If you'd like to convince > me, you'll > have to provide some evidence. Or is evidence a guy thing? > > Hi Richard, Joanna, and Dylan, > > Richard Hayes seemed to suggest that there was no male point of view > vs. female. Well, my early comments about mothering/academics and > detachment are a good example. The Buddha left his child. It hurt him, > but he left. The stigma associated with this was minimal and even > today when a man is across the country and sees his children > periodically he does not face the same stigmatization as a mother who > has pursued her career. > > From joy.vriens at nerim.net Thu Oct 13 08:51:06 2005 From: joy.vriens at nerim.net (Joy Vriens) Date: Thu Oct 13 08:57:57 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism In-Reply-To: <200510131342.j9DDgn8F008383@mail4.magma.ca> References: <200510131342.j9DDgn8F008383@mail4.magma.ca> Message-ID: <434E745A.20701@nerim.net> Tom Troughton wrote: >What to do? The inference of anti-pacifism is > interesting, but I am more curious if you think that Buddhist moral > thinking revolves around a valuing of personal ontological purity over > and above action. I have no idea. What type of Buddhism are we talking about? One that acknowledges personal ontological purity? And I have my doubts about the sort of "action" you are referring to here. :-) Anti-pacifist action? Buddhism tends to promote only skilful action. But apart from Buddhism, yes I think my own personal ontological "purity" (sense of what is right and wrong) is very essential to what I am. It is not more important than action; it is very much part of my action, since my actions should be guided by it. I couldn't do any actions that I would consider going against my personal ethics, without feeling I somehow betray myself. That may be an illusion, but it is all that "I" have to offer to the world. Without there is nothing for "me" to offer to it. Joy From bclough at aucegypt.edu Thu Oct 13 09:21:01 2005 From: bclough at aucegypt.edu (bclough) Date: Thu Oct 13 09:27:56 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Speaking of tests... Message-ID: Richard Hayes wrote: > Have any of you taken the test called "What's your spiritual type?" on www.beliefnet.com? ...No one who gets a score over under 25 or over 45 will be allowed to subscribe. Well Richard, I guess I should humbly unsubscribe, after receiving a score of 50, which apparently makes me a "Sprirtual Straddler," whereas you with your score of 40 are an "Active Spiritual Seeker." I completely understand that a real seeker such as yourself would want nothing to do with someone as religiously wishy-washy as me! By the way, I trust, Richard, that while on the belief.net site, you ordered up a bunch of "angel bracelets," which apparently function to "empower your intentions." Typically, I was on the fence about such a purchase, but I'm sure a true spiritual seeker has a truckload of these at the ready. Cheers, Brad From curt at cola.iges.org Thu Oct 13 09:52:02 2005 From: curt at cola.iges.org (curt) Date: Thu Oct 13 09:57:57 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Speaking of tests... In-Reply-To: <1129176534.4708.6.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1129176534.4708.6.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <434E82A2.1050604@cola.iges.org> This test is almost completely crap. The very first question lets you know that there is a strong bias toward a Western/Christian approach to Religion. That the very first question is framed in terms of "God" automatically makes it impossible for anyone who does not belong to a monotheistic spiritual tradition to accurately answer the question. Of course the fact that the site is called "beliefnet" is the first clue that they've got it all wrong. The idea that different religions can be distinguished/categorized on the basis of their "beliefs" is one of the crudest and most obvious signs of a person who has never seriously studied any kind of spirituality outside of Christianity/Islam/Judaism. Even many Jews reject the idea that their religion is primarily a matter of what they "believe", for that matter. I scored a 67 - I thought I would score higher than that, actually. So far it looks like I'm in the lead. I was praying for a high score - I guess I should have prayed harder. I kind of cheated though - but it was necessary since about half the questions had no answer that was right for me. - Curt Richard P. Hayes wrote: >Have any of you taken the test called "What's your spiritual type?" on >www.beliefnet.com? It doesn't take much time, and it's sort of fun. I >got a score of 40 out of 100 (which, by the way, is considered a perfect >score). > >I am thinking of requiring this test of everyone who seeks admission to >buddha-l. No one who gets a score over under 25 or over 45 will be >allowed to subscribe. > > > From rhayes at unm.edu Thu Oct 13 10:08:04 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Thu Oct 13 10:17:57 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism In-Reply-To: <200510131155.j9DBtUJb006247@mail1.magma.ca> References: <200510131155.j9DBtUJb006247@mail1.magma.ca> Message-ID: <1129219684.4381.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Thu, 2005-10-13 at 07:55 -0400, Tom Troughton wrote: > If I understand you both well, you would let loved ones suffer rather > than damage your own purity. Is this typical of Buddhist moral > thinking? It has nothing to do with purity. Buddhist moral thinking is based on upekkhaa (non-partiality). If something is threatening my life, or the life of a loved one, then someone is going to die. If I kill the aggressor, then someone is going to die. In either case, somebody dies. Why prefer one death to another? Just let things happen as they may. That is Buddhist moral thinking. (Read your Shantideva.) -- Richard Hayes From jpeavler at mindspring.com Thu Oct 13 10:10:49 2005 From: jpeavler at mindspring.com (Jim Peavler) Date: Thu Oct 13 10:18:07 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Speaking of tests... In-Reply-To: <434E82A2.1050604@cola.iges.org> References: <1129176534.4708.6.camel@localhost.localdomain> <434E82A2.1050604@cola.iges.org> Message-ID: On Oct 13, 2005, at 9:52 AM, curt wrote: > This test is almost completely crap. The test was recommended as a kind of silly, fun thing to try. Of course it's crap. If it weren't obvious crap some idiot would take it seriously. You might try out some of the other "tests" on BeliefNet. They are crap too! From rhayes at unm.edu Thu Oct 13 10:27:36 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Thu Oct 13 10:28:00 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Speaking of tests... In-Reply-To: <01d501c5cfd8$807d2d60$8fd5869f@m4k8m7> References: <1129176534.4708.6.camel@localhost.localdomain> <01d501c5cfd8$807d2d60$8fd5869f@m4k8m7> Message-ID: <1129220856.4381.20.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Thu, 2005-10-13 at 09:59 +0100, Alex Wilding wrote: > The same motive led me to this test, the result of which was "straddler", in > other words no real comment, as informative as the first test. But I did > learn something else, or at least I got a reminder. Time and again I was > dissatisfied by *all* the four options because the very perspective from > which the questions appear to have been written is something I would want to > challenge. That was also my experience. There was hardly a single question on the test that had an answer that spoke to my condition. The test was quite obviously written by someone whose main interest was to help people decided whether they were Methodists or Baptists. It clearly did not occur to the authors of the test that there are a few Hindus and Buddhists who speak English well enough to take the quiz. But what would one expect on a site called Belief Net? Nobody regards belief as important but Christians. Belief is not at all important in most forms of Hinduism or Buddhism. It is not even important in the many non-creedal forms of Christianity (Quakerism, Unitarianism, Universalism, at least one form of Baptism, and several of the low- church forms of Protestantism that have sprung up in Europe). > My own little attitudes were just not being mapped onto the answers, > and surely I'm not *that* unusual? My guess would be that most subscribers to buddha-l would report the same thing. The test reminded me of an analogy I have heard several Vietnamese Buddhists use. They say that Americans kept wanting to know whether Vietnamese Buddhists preferred capitalism or communism. This question, they claim, is like asking a person who does not drink alcohol whether they prefer wine, beer or whiskey. The beliefnet questionnaire kept reminding me of that analogy. It kept offering wine, beer or whiskey but ignoring the possibility that some people drink water. > I also note that I am still naive enough to have even entertained the idea > that a multiple choice quizette on spirituality would rise above the level > of the daily newspaper horoscope. I have to confess that I never expect anything on the Internet to be as useful as the daily horoscope in the newspapers. The horoscope can be used to line the bottom of a bird cage. -- Richard Hayes From zen at westpa.net Thu Oct 13 10:36:55 2005 From: zen at westpa.net (Ross Barlow) Date: Thu Oct 13 10:37:58 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Speaking of tests... References: <1129176534.4708.6.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <008701c5d014$537ab080$f7656e41@oemcomputer> I scored a 30, putting me in the lowest range of Spiritual Dabblers (open to spiritual matters but far from impressed). If I would have dropped one more point, I would be a Hardcore Skeptic. Damn. If I do turn out to be on the losing side of Pascal's Wager, and if Hell really does exist, I'm cooked. -Ross Barlow. From rhayes at unm.edu Thu Oct 13 10:31:08 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Thu Oct 13 10:38:04 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Speaking of tests... In-Reply-To: <290923980510130401r26b18857pbe15e22f91356cec@mail.gmail.com> References: <1129176534.4708.6.camel@localhost.localdomain> <01d501c5cfd8$807d2d60$8fd5869f@m4k8m7> <290923980510130401r26b18857pbe15e22f91356cec@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1129221068.4381.23.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Thu, 2005-10-13 at 18:01 +0700, Chris wrote: > Did it; 46. Not surprising, given what I know about Richard and myself > (more about Richard, thanks to his on-going self disclosure on this > list, than about myself!) > Why set the bar at 45, Richard? I'd hate to lose you on buddha-l, Chris. We'll set the bar at 46. I hope you'll agree with me that buddha-l is no place for anyone who does not have a deep mistrust of organized religion. (My greatest fear in life is that all of us who dread organized religion will somehow get organized.) -- Richard Hayes From rhayes at unm.edu Thu Oct 13 10:52:33 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Thu Oct 13 10:57:58 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Speaking of tests... In-Reply-To: <008701c5d014$537ab080$f7656e41@oemcomputer> References: <1129176534.4708.6.camel@localhost.localdomain> <008701c5d014$537ab080$f7656e41@oemcomputer> Message-ID: <1129222353.5399.6.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Thu, 2005-10-13 at 12:36 -0400, Ross Barlow wrote: > I scored a 30, putting me in the lowest range of Spiritual > Dabblers (open to spiritual matters but far from impressed). It is not often that I admit to being envious, but this time I really have to confess for all to see that I wish I had been able to score 30 or below. I keep trying to convince myself that I'm a Hardcore Skeptic, but somehow I just can't believe it without adequate evidence. > Damn. If I do turn out to be on the losing side of Pascal's > Wager, and if Hell really does exist, I'm cooked. At least you'll be in an interesting stew. Cooking with a bunch of other skeptics will be a hell of a lot more fun than floating around on the clouds with a bunch of Pentecostals who died in a bus crash on their way home form a Sunday school picnic. -- Richard Hayes *** "It is wrong always, everywhere, and for every one, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence." -- William Clifford From jpeavler at mindspring.com Thu Oct 13 11:42:55 2005 From: jpeavler at mindspring.com (Jim Peavler) Date: Thu Oct 13 11:47:59 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Speaking of tests... In-Reply-To: <1129222353.5399.6.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1129176534.4708.6.camel@localhost.localdomain> <008701c5d014$537ab080$f7656e41@oemcomputer> <1129222353.5399.6.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <7ff8c1697ac7e2c13c16d51ce84d1296@mindspring.com> On Oct 13, 2005, at 10:52 AM, Richard P. Hayes wrote: >> Damn. If I do turn out to be on the losing side of Pascal's >> Wager, and if Hell really does exist, I'm cooked. > > At least you'll be in an interesting stew. Cooking with a bunch of > other > skeptics will be a hell of a lot more fun than floating around on the > clouds with a bunch of Pentecostals who died in a bus crash on their > way > home form a Sunday school picnic. As Mark Twain said (and I'll have to paraphrase, not having the book handy): As for the afterlife, I would like heaven for the climate, but prefer hell for the conversation." From bcarral at kungzhi.org Thu Oct 13 11:48:41 2005 From: bcarral at kungzhi.org (Benito Carral) Date: Thu Oct 13 11:48:03 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism In-Reply-To: <434D6684.9020608@cola.iges.org> References: <00a801c5ceb1$0c557eb0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <020801c5cf2c$84bc70e0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <434D2A04.5090803@nerim.net> <434D33CB.9050603@cola.iges.org> <434D5216.2000405@nerim.net> <434D6684.9020608@cola.iges.org> Message-ID: <294991653.20051013194841@kungzhi.org> On Wednesday, October 12, 2005, Curt wrote: > I think that no philosophy can exist separate from > ethics - and I think that ethics must be both > personal and social. I don't know what you mean by "ethics must be both personal and social," but, as a neopragmatist, I'm inclined to ask, "What could be the basis for social ethics? Is it possible that every individual in a group agree with such a basis?" Best wishes, Beni From bcarral at kungzhi.org Thu Oct 13 11:56:08 2005 From: bcarral at kungzhi.org (Benito Carral) Date: Thu Oct 13 11:57:59 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism In-Reply-To: <1129137631.4552.23.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <00a801c5ceb1$0c557eb0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <020801c5cf2c$84bc70e0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <434D2A04.5090803@nerim.net> <1129137631.4552.23.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <862659731.20051013195608@kungzhi.org> On Wednesday, October 12, 2005, Richard P. Hayes wrote: > I agree. As the saying goes "There are things I would > die for, but there is nothing I would kill for." If > the price to pay in defending non- violence is my own > death, so be it. And if Buddhism is eliminated by > aggressors, I'd rather see it perish that way that to > perish by defending itself in a way that is a > betrayal of its own basic principles. The first of Thich Nhat Hanh's Fourteen Mindfulness Trainings says: Aware of the suffering created by fanaticism and intolerance, I am determined not to be idolatrous about or bound to any doctrine, theory or ideology, even Buddhist ones. Buddhist teachings are guiding means to help me learn to look deeply and to develop my understanding and compassion. They are not doctrines to fight, kill or die for. I wouldn't die without trying to defend the world I have chosen to live in. I believe that a meaningful and warm life is quite more importat than just surviving. I will do everything in my hand to stop exterminators. So it seems to me that I'm not Buddhist enough. Best wishes, Beni From curt at cola.iges.org Thu Oct 13 12:05:30 2005 From: curt at cola.iges.org (curt) Date: Thu Oct 13 12:08:07 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism In-Reply-To: <294991653.20051013194841@kungzhi.org> References: <00a801c5ceb1$0c557eb0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <020801c5cf2c$84bc70e0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <434D2A04.5090803@nerim.net> <434D33CB.9050603@cola.iges.org> <434D5216.2000405@nerim.net> <434D6684.9020608@cola.iges.org> <294991653.20051013194841@kungzhi.org> Message-ID: <434EA1EA.30109@cola.iges.org> As an anarcho-communist I'm inclined to say that spontaneously and volutarily organized communities can exist in a way that not only doesn't tred on individuals - but that offer human beings the only real chance we have to fully realize our individuality. Such an organization is not based primarily on "agreement" but rather on "affinity". People who want to be together will figure a way to make it work - or else they'll f*ck it up. But I do not believe that failure is inevitable in such a venture, and even if it is, anarchists are known for spouting phrases like "demand the impossible". After all, just because something has never happened before - why conclude that it is impossible? Agreement is always a bad way of starting anything, anyway. - Curt Benito Carral wrote: >On Wednesday, October 12, 2005, Curt wrote: > > > >>I think that no philosophy can exist separate from >>ethics - and I think that ethics must be both >>personal and social. >> >> > > I don't know what you mean by "ethics must be both >personal and social," but, as a neopragmatist, I'm >inclined to ask, "What could be the basis for social >ethics? Is it possible that every individual in a group >agree with such a basis?" > > Best wishes, > > Beni > > >_______________________________________________ >buddha-l mailing list >buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com >http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l > > > > From rhayes at unm.edu Thu Oct 13 12:12:28 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Thu Oct 13 12:17:58 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism In-Reply-To: <862659731.20051013195608@kungzhi.org> References: <00a801c5ceb1$0c557eb0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <020801c5cf2c$84bc70e0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <434D2A04.5090803@nerim.net> <1129137631.4552.23.camel@localhost.localdomain> <862659731.20051013195608@kungzhi.org> Message-ID: <1129227148.5569.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Thu, 2005-10-13 at 19:56 +0200, Benito Carral wrote: > I wouldn't die without trying to defend the world I > have chosen to live in. We may differ on this. I didn't choose to live in any world. It just happened. And I'm quite happy to let it just stop happening when the conditions support that. -- Richard Hayes From bcarral at kungzhi.org Thu Oct 13 12:12:52 2005 From: bcarral at kungzhi.org (Benito Carral) Date: Thu Oct 13 12:18:08 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: "So much for tsunami dana" In-Reply-To: <434D44D8.4070502@cola.iges.org> References: <434D44D8.4070502@cola.iges.org> Message-ID: <58164516.20051013201252@kungzhi.org> On Wednesday, October 12, 2005, Curt wrote: > If that money were instead spent on wasteful aid > programs in which only 1/10 of the money went to the > people who needed it, that would still be $100 > billion a year going to people who desparately need > it. [...]Throwing money at problems is better than > thowing bombs and guns at them. I don't agree with this argument at all, I think that it is wishful thinking at best. If of $100 billion $90 billion go to a rich minority and $10 billion go to a poor majority, would not it increase the breach between poor and rich people?, would not it empower the oligarchy that keeps the breach growing? Best wishes, Beni From bcarral at kungzhi.org Thu Oct 13 12:29:13 2005 From: bcarral at kungzhi.org (Benito Carral) Date: Thu Oct 13 12:28:00 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism In-Reply-To: <434E5D57.40008@nerim.net> References: <00a801c5ceb1$0c557eb0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <020801c5cf2c$84bc70e0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <434D2A04.5090803@nerim.net> <434D33CB.9050603@cola.iges.org> <434D5216.2000405@nerim.net> <434D6684.9020608@cola.iges.org> <434E0441.1060706@nerim.net> <434E540E.9000905@cola.iges.org> <434E5D57.40008@nerim.net> Message-ID: <1227580220.20051013202913@kungzhi.org> On Thursday, October 13, 2005, Joy Vriens wrote: > I bet, but the resistance to abolishing it came from > the very ones exploiting them. They couldn't have > slept that badly. The slave rebellion didn't lead to > the abolishment. The public opinion was ready for it. In relation with this topic, I would recommend the reading of Jerome Bruner's _Making Stories: Law, Literature, Life._ It's not specifically Buddhist, but much interesting as everything Bruner has written on narrative psychology. Best wishes, Beni From Bshmr at aol.com Thu Oct 13 12:32:50 2005 From: Bshmr at aol.com (Bshmr@aol.com) Date: Thu Oct 13 12:39:13 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Speaking of tests Message-ID: <12c.683c1e99.30800252@aol.com> BeliefNet has value although its appeal or targeted niche is biased/narrow. I fantasize that a poll (today) would score like an open (voice) vote in the USAn Executive staff meeting or a USAn House of Representatives tally for a free lunch. The Buddhist discussion topics invariably have advice from Abrahamic traditions and a covey of 'zen' amateurs pretending to be 'masters'. That said. _http://www.beliefnet.com/about/management.asp_ (http://www.beliefnet.com/about/management.asp) [ Their principals used to include a Brookings Institute principal but now it appears to be run by media and sales heavies. One used to be able to track some of the money -- LeHavre advertised heavily there; a few of the start-up 'angels' were known. A QAD background was near nil. l WALDMAN, STEVEN -- _http://www.namebase.org/cgi-bin/nb01?Na=WALDMAN%2C+STEVEN_ (http://www.namebase.org/cgi-bin/nb01?Na=WALDMAN,+STEVEN) BECKER, DAVID SAMS, ELIZABETH JACQUOT, ALAIN HAMILTON, ROLAND _http://www.beliefnet.com/mediakit/contact.htm_ (http://www.beliefnet.com/mediakit/contact.htm) [ To comment on operation or hype your gig (pop art(icle). ] ** While I was there, I re-took some inventories: Spiritual type = 38, Spiritual Dabbler, one who ain't impressed with theism. Note less superstitious or 'ghost-driven' than others here, perhaps we should ban them. Participating at 'buddha-l' is removing religion from me, in case that is important to anyone. * Belief-O-Matic (by SelectSmart) [ I refuse to wear that suggestive (UU) symbol; I fancy 'UUA', BTW, which can't be mistaken for a stutter. Again, it is possible that reading The Most Senior Richard, that Dr. Hayes, promotes UUA-ism and hermitage buddhism. TTBOMK, this is not Hobbesan or genetic but something prion-ish (see spongiform encephalitis), that is, uniquely contagious. ] 1. Unitarian Universalism (100%) 2. Theravada Buddhism (93%) 3. Secular Humanism (88%) 4. Liberal Quakers (87%) ... Richard Basham PS: Digest E-mail works well when things are slow or very, very busy. I am just hours behind. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20051013/5866c0e4/attachment.html From bcarral at kungzhi.org Thu Oct 13 12:41:22 2005 From: bcarral at kungzhi.org (Benito Carral) Date: Thu Oct 13 12:48:00 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism In-Reply-To: <1129219684.4381.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <200510131155.j9DBtUJb006247@mail1.magma.ca> <1129219684.4381.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <7310401914.20051013204122@kungzhi.org> On Thursday, October 13, 2005, Richard P. Hayes wrote: >> If I understand you both well, you would let loved >> ones suffer rather than damage your own purity. Is >> this typical of Buddhist moral thinking? > It has nothing to do with purity. Buddhist moral > thinking is based on upekkhaa (non-partiality). I think that we are forgetting something important about the Buddhist cosmovision, i.e. karma. If someone kills other, he will get bad karma and be reborn in a worst environment. If someone practices non-violence even to the extent of offering his relative's and own life, he will get good karma and be reborn in a better enviroment. It is clear that many westerners don't like such an Indian view of karma and so they overlook its role in Buddhist soteriology. Best wishes, Beni From joy.vriens at nerim.net Thu Oct 13 13:07:39 2005 From: joy.vriens at nerim.net (Joy Vriens) Date: Thu Oct 13 13:07:59 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddhist pacifism In-Reply-To: <1129188650.5150.18.camel@spinoza> References: <00a801c5ceb1$0c557eb0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <020801c5cf2c$84bc70e0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <434D2A04.5090803@nerim.net> <434D33CB.9050603@cola.iges.org> <434D5216.2000405@nerim.net> <434D6684.9020608@cola.iges.org> <434E0441.1060706@nerim.net> <1129188650.5150.18.camel@spinoza> Message-ID: <434EB07B.7070303@nerim.net> James A. Stroble wrote: > And Dan.... wait, never start two fights at the same time. More on > self-defense later. Thanks James. If you take on Curt frontally, I will tackle Dan from behind. From curt at cola.iges.org Thu Oct 13 13:05:45 2005 From: curt at cola.iges.org (curt) Date: Thu Oct 13 13:08:11 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: "So much for tsunami dana" In-Reply-To: <58164516.20051013201252@kungzhi.org> References: <434D44D8.4070502@cola.iges.org> <58164516.20051013201252@kungzhi.org> Message-ID: <434EB009.4020800@cola.iges.org> I think your argument only holds if the initial disparity between rich and poor is less than 10:1 to start with (and, in fact, the actual disparity is more like 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000:1 - give or take). And even that makes assumptions about where the money is coming from - but I was assuming that all of the money would be coming from the rich Capitalist fat-cats. If they get 90% of their $$$ "back" then we've have still managed to take some of it - which is a start. I admit that I personally prefer a more rapid redistribution of the wealth - is that what you are proposing? If so, count me in. I was primarily putting forth that hypothetical in an effort to argue that its better to "waste" money on programs that actually do some good than it is to "save" money by not doing anything. In the US we have been "saving" a lot of $$$ over the last 30 years or so by "wasting" less of our $$$ on education, health-care for poor children, dyke maintenance in New Orleans - stuff like that. We've "saved" a bundle, by the way!!! But somehow we have still managed to be something like $1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 in the hole. How the heck did that happen? - Curt Benito Carral wrote: >On Wednesday, October 12, 2005, Curt wrote: > > > >>If that money were instead spent on wasteful aid >>programs in which only 1/10 of the money went to the >>people who needed it, that would still be $100 >>billion a year going to people who desparately need >>it. [...]Throwing money at problems is better than >>thowing bombs and guns at them. >> >> > > I don't agree with this argument at all, I think >that it is wishful thinking at best. > > If of $100 billion $90 billion go to a rich minority >and $10 billion go to a poor majority, would not it >increase the breach between poor and rich people?, >would not it empower the oligarchy that keeps the >breach growing? > > Best wishes, > > Beni > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >buddha-l mailing list >buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com >http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l > > > > From joy.vriens at nerim.net Thu Oct 13 13:05:01 2005 From: joy.vriens at nerim.net (Joy Vriens) Date: Thu Oct 13 13:08:16 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddhist pacifism In-Reply-To: <434E6B8B.7050508@cola.iges.org> References: <00a801c5ceb1$0c557eb0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <020801c5cf2c$84bc70e0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <434D2A04.5090803@nerim.net> <434D33CB.9050603@cola.iges.org> <434D5216.2000405@nerim.net> <434D6684.9020608@cola.iges.org> <434E0441.1060706@nerim.net> <434E540E.9000905@cola.iges.org> <434E5D57.40008@nerim.net> <434E6B8B.7050508@cola.iges.org> Message-ID: <434EAFDD.4050502@nerim.net> curt wrote: > Saying exactly what caused what in history is always speculative. But > there is plenty of evidence that slave resistance played a significant > role in the end of African Slavery. I better drop this subject, you are much more knowledgable than me (and I am not excluding that you aren't also for the other subjects we are discussing). Buddha-L has become much better than the news for me lately ;-) >> Yes, I just read the other day that Plotinus (Plotin?) dreamed of >> going to the Orient (like Pyrrhon and others) for that reason, which >> proves it must have really been a hype. > In fact he made it part way - but the expedition he joined up with met > with disaster, and Plotinus almost lost his life. I think he actually > was enslaved for a while, while we're still on the subject of slavery. > And Epictetus, the great Stoic philosopher, spent his youth as a slave. I often tend to think that romanticism and fanatical identification with real or fictional heroes are relatively recent phenomena, but I have no problem imagining Plotinus as a sickly dreamy boy imagining traveling to far off India like his beloved philosphers from the past. And then I think of the Buddha and can imagine him too as a young man that was wildly enthusiastic about becoming a Fully Enlightened One, perfect in knowledge and conduct, the Happy One, the knower of the world, the paramount trainer of beings, the teacher of gods and men, the Enlightened One, the Blessed One, etc. everything that was the dream of the day of young immature Indians inclined to ascetism. Is nobody safe from fiction? > And I would also say that even in cases where one decides that violence > may be "necessary" - that one still has to bear the karmic burden of > one's actions. Or simply without bringing in karma, every action has consequences and side effects that we aren't even aware of. > I would never say that violence is simply "OK". It is > always wrong to hurt someone else - but things aren't always so simple, > as in the case of what to do with an individual who has committed > multiple violent crimes and intends to commit more. Whatever is done to > that person is not "free" of karma - but I still think it has to be > done. Which is kind of strange, because karma is already linked to specific sets of ethics, discovered/repertoriated/invented by renunciants, further edited by Buddhists and then there seems to be nother sets of ethics that are even "more" ethical than karma (e.g. the bodhisattva ideal) and can somehow override it. > Nor do I think that a slave is free of karma when he or she slits > the Master's throat, and those of his family, while they sleep in their > beds - but I would much rather have that happen than have to live in a > world in which slave masters sleep peacefully. And since I feel that > way, then in order to be consistent (which is not always a high priority > for me, but in this case I think its a good idea), then I would have to > say that I would be willing to take on that karmic debt as well. Willing or not, there is no choice anyway. From rhayes at unm.edu Thu Oct 13 13:19:17 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Thu Oct 13 13:28:01 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Speaking of tests In-Reply-To: <12c.683c1e99.30800252@aol.com> References: <12c.683c1e99.30800252@aol.com> Message-ID: <1129231157.5900.32.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Thu, 2005-10-13 at 14:32 -0400, Richard wrote that according to Belief-O-Matic (by SelectSmart), the religions with which he had the most affinity are: > 1. Unitarian Universalism (100%) > 2. Theravada Buddhism (93%) > 3. Secular Humanism (88%) > 4. Liberal Quakers (87%) Not bad, not bad at all. I took the quiz and got scores similar to yours: Unitarian Universalism (100%) Secular Humanism (96%) Liberal Quakers (96%) Theravada Buddhism (85%) Pretty far down my list was Mahayana Buddhism (which came in 11th in a field of 27), but that was still well ahead of Jainism, Reform Judaism and Christian Science. At the bottom of my list were these five: Jehovah's Witness (19%) Islam (17%) Orthodox Judaism (17%) Eastern Orthodox (8%) Roman Catholic (8%) Those results seem just about exactly right as a description of my religious proclivities, although I am mildly amazed that Orthodox Judaism and Jehovah's Witness scored above zero. That Orthodox Judaism and Islam got the same score seems about right to me, since I have never been able to see any important difference between them. But now, I cant afford to spend any more time taking tests or writing e- mail messages, because I have a large pile of things I to read between now and Monday, and I'm eager, if time remains, to spend some time savoring a new book I just got, Ann Lee Bresler's The Universalist Movement in America, 1770-1880, which has lots of interesting-looking material on Hosea Ballou, William Channing and Ralph Waldo Emerson. (And when I finish that, there is a book on George Fox waiting for me.) By the way, given that Theravada Buddhism only got 85% and Mahayana only got 65% on my affinity scale, I am thinking I should probably resign from buddha-l and let somebody who has more affinity with Buddhism take over. Yours in secular humanistic pacifist spiritual dabbledom, Richard the Moderate -- Richard Hayes *** "Above all things, take heed in judging one another, for in that ye may destroy one another... and eat out the good of one another."-- George Fox From jkirk at spro.net Thu Oct 13 13:43:39 2005 From: jkirk at spro.net (jkirk) Date: Thu Oct 13 13:48:03 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: "So much for tsunami dana" References: <20051013062040.48263.qmail@web60820.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <001e01c5d02e$68e6b3f0$2930cece@charlie> Hi Catalina, I was citing Mexican workers in the context of Katrina's hurricane damage, where local former resident African-Americans need those jobs of rebuilding New Orleans in the state of Louisiana, not of California.... Yes--The money that goes to fix oil platforms will be taxpayers' money that the feds will go into debt for. Instead of forcing the oil companies to pay for the repairs themselves out of their insurance and their windfall profits! Joanna ============ Mexico workers (legal and illegal) have alwayas been an important part of California economy..........the USA goverment knows that, they need them. But don't worry, some of those illegal mexicans are just killed by some farmers. What scandalises me more is the fact that a huge part of the money that USA got will go to fix oil plattforms.......... catalina -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20051013/b52903d2/attachment.html From curt at cola.iges.org Thu Oct 13 13:51:53 2005 From: curt at cola.iges.org (curt) Date: Thu Oct 13 13:58:01 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddhist pacifism In-Reply-To: <434EAFDD.4050502@nerim.net> References: <00a801c5ceb1$0c557eb0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <020801c5cf2c$84bc70e0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <434D2A04.5090803@nerim.net> <434D33CB.9050603@cola.iges.org> <434D5216.2000405@nerim.net> <434D6684.9020608@cola.iges.org> <434E0441.1060706@nerim.net> <434E540E.9000905@cola.iges.org> <434E5D57.40008@nerim.net> <434E6B8B.7050508@cola.iges.org> <434EAFDD.4050502@nerim.net> Message-ID: <434EBAD9.4060404@cola.iges.org> Joy Vriens wrote: > curt wrote: > >> Saying exactly what caused what in history is always speculative. But >> there is plenty of evidence that slave resistance played a >> significant role in the end of African Slavery. > > > I better drop this subject, you are much more knowledgable than me (and > I am not excluding that you aren't also for the other subjects we are > discussing). Sorry about that - sometimes I try too hard to overcompensate for the fact that I come from Indiana - where the state motto is "Pi is exactly 3". Its a lot to live down. > Buddha-L has become much better than the news for me lately ;-) Actually I think the news has been pretty good lately. And by good I mean bad for George Bush. - Curt From curt at cola.iges.org Thu Oct 13 14:34:15 2005 From: curt at cola.iges.org (curt) Date: Thu Oct 13 14:38:01 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Speaking of tests In-Reply-To: <1129231157.5900.32.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <12c.683c1e99.30800252@aol.com> <1129231157.5900.32.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <434EC4C7.2010506@cola.iges.org> Now that I have cursed the darkness, I've started working on my own "candle", as it were. I've only got four questions so far - does anyone else want to help out with this noble cause? 1. Do you consider yourself a a. Polytheist b. Monotheist c. Non-theist d. Atheist e. Agnostic 2. If someone starts a sentence with "That's so weird, last night I dreamed ...." do you a. move closer b. scream c. roll your eyes d. suddenly remember a dream you had last night, too e. this never happens to you 3. How many times in your life have you considered either changing religions, or adding yet another one to your hyphenated spiritual identity? a. at least five b. never c. at least once or twice d. several times a day e. you don't understand the question 4. Astrology is a. an exact science b. pure bunk c. somewhere in between a and b d. a source of spiritual insight e. your primary source of income From stroble at hawaii.edu Thu Oct 13 14:36:21 2005 From: stroble at hawaii.edu (James A. Stroble) Date: Thu Oct 13 14:39:11 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddhist pacifism In-Reply-To: <434E52F5.5060106@cola.iges.org> References: <00a801c5ceb1$0c557eb0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <020801c5cf2c$84bc70e0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <434D2A04.5090803@nerim.net> <434D33CB.9050603@cola.iges.org> <434D5216.2000405@nerim.net> <434D6684.9020608@cola.iges.org> <434E0441.1060706@nerim.net> <1129188650.5150.18.camel@spinoza> <434E52F5.5060106@cola.iges.org> Message-ID: <1129235781.5150.57.camel@spinoza> On Thu, 2005-10-13 at 08:28 -0400, curt wrote: > James A. Stroble wrote: > > I would like to challenge (damn testosterone! Sorry, Joanna) Curt to > >show one instance where buddhism disavows pacifism. Of course we will > >leave out Zen under Imperial Japan on the grounds that their position > >was Japanese of the time, not Buddhist. > > > > > Two clear cut examples: (1) Tibet, a Buddhist Theocracy for the last > 1,000 years or so, has all along maintained (and used) a standing army. > It has also maintained, and used, the death penalty as part of its legal > system. (2) The Korean monk Sosan Taesa organized a guerrilla army in > 1592 to defend Korea against a foreign invasion. To this day Korean > Buddhists honor Sosan Taesa and are especially proud of his role as a > "national hero". The Korean Buddhist Jogye has a several biographies of > "Great Masters of Korean Buddhism" at this url: > http://eng.buddhism.or.kr/master/list.asp - look for "Hyoo Jung". > Instead of "Sosan Taesa" they spell it "Sursan Daesah" - transliteration > of Korean is extremely non-standardized. All modern day Korean Zen > Masters trace their lineage, with pride, back to Sosan Taesa and hist > four most senior students, who served as his lieutenants during the > guerrilla war that eventually succeeded in repelling the invaders (with > a little help from the Chinese). > And I was afraid you would bring up Sri Lanka!! Are we confusing Buddhist states with Buddhism itself? It may be impossible for a government to be pacifist, or at least be pacifist and survive, as illustrated in the examples Dan gave us from the period of the Muslim conquests. But the survival of a Buddhist state is not synonymous with the survival of Buddhism. > This is a case of the pot calling the kettle a pot. Pacifism is a > western idea. Buddhism in Asia has never promoted pacifism. Buddhist > countries have always maintained armies and have used them in > self-defense. Buddhists, including great teachers and masters have both > supported this and participated in it, and there has never been a > "Buddhist" criticism of that fact. Ever. The critique is there, it is just not as adversarial as the Western pacifist traditions where one must "speak truth to power." The Mahaparinibbana sutta contains an evaluation of the relative strength of two states, but in the Buddha's version good government (the seven factors of non-decline) are determinative, not military power. The Cakkavatti Sutta gives a critique by showing what happens when a state moves from non-violence to the use of force. These "critiques" do not so much denounce violence as wrong as they suggest the causal relations between the use of force and suffering. This changes, admittedly, when Buddhism finds itself making a sales pitch for itself as a "Protector of the State," the kind of thing that has already been discussed in relation to Buddhism in Japan. But I would think this is more a matter of magic and nationalism than Buddhism. > > I'm pretty sure that I am in fact a metaphysical monist and possibly a > pervert - but I'm not sure about that other stuff. I might be using the > terminology wrong, but I think that Yogacara is "metaphysically monist" > - ain't it? And Tantra gets pretty perverted sometimes, don't it? > > - Curt Maybe it's not the monism that is the problem. Christian pacifism is based on the understanding that the ultimate value is not at stake in the violence of the world, but our attitude toward that ultimate value is. Thus the usual critique, voiced here by Tom, that pacifism is a selfish concern with one's own purity over the political realities of a world of violence. Ultimately, however, justifications for the use of violence are much more dualist, or Manichaean, because insisting on the necessity of violence amounts to admitting that the ultimate value needs defending, whether that is the Faith, the Dharma, the Nation, or the Self. An absolute that needs defending is hardly absolute, and this then is idolatry in the Judeo-Christian-Muslim tradition, and delusion and a source of suffering in Buddhism. Buddhist pacifism just makes the simple point that violence causes suffering, and thus does not consitute skillful means. So Richard is right, in his response to Benito: >> I wouldn't die without trying to defend the world I >> have chosen to live in. >We may differ on this. I didn't choose to live in any world. It just >happened. And I'm quite happy to let it just stop happening when the >conditions support that. There is nothing that requires defending. -- James A. Stroble From curt at cola.iges.org Thu Oct 13 14:52:43 2005 From: curt at cola.iges.org (curt) Date: Thu Oct 13 14:58:03 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Speaking of tests In-Reply-To: <434EC4C7.2010506@cola.iges.org> References: <12c.683c1e99.30800252@aol.com> <1129231157.5900.32.camel@localhost.localdomain> <434EC4C7.2010506@cola.iges.org> Message-ID: <434EC91B.1010404@cola.iges.org> but wait, there's more: 5. Jesus Christ was a. a cool guy b. a good man c. the savior of all mankind - except for everyone who's going to hell d. a great American e. primarily a plagiarist 6. Mohammed was a. a cool guy b. a good man c. the very very very last prophet d. the founder of Al Qaida e. primarily a plagiarist 7. Moses was a. a cool guy b. a good man c. had more facetime with God than anyone else before or since - except for maybe Adam d. the first Premier of Israel e. primarily a plagiarist 8. Buddha was a. a cool guy b. a good man c. able to see and know everything all at the same time - oh and also fly d. the first King of Tibet e. primarily a plagiarist 9. Confucius was a. a cool guy b. a good man c. the most brilliant philosopher in the history of humanity d. the first Emperor of China e.. primarily a plagiarist 10. Pythagoras was a. a cool guy b. really good at math c. basically a God, or almost anyway d. the inventor of Greek democracy e. primarily a plagiarist 11. There are no women mentioned in the last five questions because a. women are not very spiritual b. women are not ambitious enough c. women were too busy doing all the actual work you pig d. they were, in fact, all women e. women are not very good at plagiarism - Curt p.s. I'll stop now. From parisjm2004 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 13 15:10:23 2005 From: parisjm2004 at yahoo.com (Michael Paris) Date: Thu Oct 13 15:18:00 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: An experiment (Gender on Buddha-l) In-Reply-To: <3b153ebf64047f275e79c438310729dc@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <20051013211023.22463.qmail@web32611.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Franz Metcalf wrote: [snip] > Michael Paris, very reasonably, questioned my recommendations: Thank you. > [snip] The "how" is, as she said, to promote an environment that feels inclusive and appreciative of differing voices. Since we're online we can only do this through our style of interaction. > I am uncomfortable with the word "feels." Way too subjective. What may feel inclusive to one may be quite exclusive, even hostile, to another. Nor can I anticipate what another's feelings may be in normal discourse. Seems that this forum is indeed appreciative of differing voices. Agreement is not required for participation here. More or less reasoned opinions are welcomed, even responses that have nothing to do with Buddhism (of which I am certainly guilty). > Still, I'll throw it out there and say it seems to me that a Buddhist > environment ought to be inclusive and appreciative. How is the environment here exclusive and unappreciative? There's a diversity of opinions and expressions of those opinions. I appreciate that people take the time to participate. Good conversations on the Internet are as scares as liberals in Texas. (Go ahead, Richard -- I dare you!) > [snip] Preserving these voices, hearing these voices, respecting these voices, learning from these voices is "better" (to try to answer Michael's question) because it compensates for or complements the majority voice of the list. [snip] > I must be dense. What majority voice? Certainly there is contention between individuals with rather strong ideas, but isn't that good in itself? What else is required? Sure, things get a bit strained, but that happens with a nice, juicy argument. As long as the discussion is reasonably intelligent, civil, and not ad hominem, I'm fine with Buddha-l. > I guess I see buddha-l as somehow inherently Buddhist or therapeutic. [snip] To me it's an amusement and diversion, occasionally as place to learn. Not unlike, say, The History Channel. In any event, thank you for an enjoyable post. It's fun to engage in a bit of give-and-take. ... One last word... Humor goes a long way in making live good, or at least tolerable. It's not healthy to be over-serious about anything. Didn't some Zen master say the best thing one could do is start the day by a good, long laugh? Michael __________________________________ Yahoo! Music Unlimited Access over 1 million songs. Try it free. http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/ From parisjm2004 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 13 15:33:59 2005 From: parisjm2004 at yahoo.com (Michael Paris) Date: Thu Oct 13 15:38:02 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: An experiment (Gender on Buddha-l) In-Reply-To: <002901c5cf4c$93acb2c0$2930cece@charlie> Message-ID: <20051013213359.82493.qmail@web32613.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Joanna, At the risk of appearing clueless (often the case, but I hide it well), is there anything other than civility that you think would improve this list? For what it's worth, I do look at all the posts (at least the first few lines) but,reply as either I have time, interest, or competence in the subject. I'm primarily a lurker, with no academic and little practical background in Buddhism. And I feel quite lucky to have found Buddha-l. Michael --- jkirk wrote: [snip] > But this list is not run by women or "a" woman, and there are few women left on it as well. Thus, the aspect of gender behavior you [Andrew] refer to is not relevant to my crit of this list's general tone nor to my call for civility as a more productive and peaceful Style. [snip] __________________________________ Yahoo! Music Unlimited Access over 1 million songs. Try it free. http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/ From rhayes at unm.edu Thu Oct 13 15:51:27 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Thu Oct 13 15:58:02 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: An experiment (Gender on Buddha-l) In-Reply-To: <20051013211023.22463.qmail@web32611.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20051013211023.22463.qmail@web32611.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1129240287.6888.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Thu, 2005-10-13 at 14:10 -0700, Michael Paris wrote: > Good conversations on the Internet are as scares as liberals in Texas. > (Go ahead, Richard -- I dare you!) Being a liberal New Mexican, I believe everyone should be allowed to spell words however they like. I myself may prefer the spelling "scarce," but I fully respect a Texan's right to spell it "scares". -- Richard Hayes From parisjm2004 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 13 16:06:21 2005 From: parisjm2004 at yahoo.com (Michael Paris) Date: Thu Oct 13 16:08:04 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Unitarian-Universalist Buddhism In-Reply-To: <1129175473.4383.29.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20051013220621.33016.qmail@web32601.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Replies below. --- "Richard P. Hayes" wrote: [snip] > [N]one of the four UU congregations I have attended have memberships in which there is such a paucity of males. [snip] Likewise my experience in three congregations in my area. The ratio is about 3-1 males to females. > Do you happen to know of any UU Buddhist list serves? UUBF-L http://lists.uua.org/mailman/listinfo/uubf-l Also see http://www.uua.org/uubf/ Michael __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From bcarral at kungzhi.org Thu Oct 13 16:02:32 2005 From: bcarral at kungzhi.org (Benito Carral) Date: Thu Oct 13 16:08:08 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism In-Reply-To: <1129235781.5150.57.camel@spinoza> References: <00a801c5ceb1$0c557eb0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <020801c5cf2c$84bc70e0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <434D2A04.5090803@nerim.net> <434D33CB.9050603@cola.iges.org> <434D5216.2000405@nerim.net> <434D6684.9020608@cola.iges.org> <434E0441.1060706@nerim.net> <1129188650.5150.18.camel@spinoza> <434E52F5.5060106@cola.iges.org> <1129235781.5150.57.camel@spinoza> Message-ID: <742428727.20051014000232@kungzhi.org> On Thursday, October 13, 2005, James A. Stroble wrote: > There is nothing that requires defending. Could you elaborate it? Best wishes, Beni From parisjm2004 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 13 16:08:18 2005 From: parisjm2004 at yahoo.com (Michael Paris) Date: Thu Oct 13 16:18:03 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Teaching Zen Buddhist philosophy In-Reply-To: <1666754494.20051012012309@kungzhi.org> Message-ID: <20051013220818.61041.qmail@web32610.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Richard, Have you considered Kapleau's The Three Pillars of Zen? Michael __________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page! http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From bcarral at kungzhi.org Thu Oct 13 16:10:57 2005 From: bcarral at kungzhi.org (Benito Carral) Date: Thu Oct 13 16:18:13 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism In-Reply-To: <1129227148.5569.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <00a801c5ceb1$0c557eb0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <020801c5cf2c$84bc70e0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <434D2A04.5090803@nerim.net> <1129137631.4552.23.camel@localhost.localdomain> <862659731.20051013195608@kungzhi.org> <1129227148.5569.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <415792673.20051014001057@kungzhi.org> On Thursday, October 13, 2005, Richard P. Hayes wrote: >> I wouldn't die without trying to defend the world I >> have chosen to live in. > We may differ on this. Sure. :-) > I didn't choose to live in any world. It just > happened. For me, it is obvious that I didn't practice enough to leave samsara in my previous rebirth, and that's why I was born in a specific world. Anyway, I have (freely?) chosen many things in this current life, among them the values I live by. > And I'm quite happy to let it just stop happening > when the conditions support that. I'm not afraid of death. That's not my problem. I'm afraid of having to live according to the values that others try to force me to live by. I will not allow it. Best wishes, Beni From franzmetcalf at earthlink.net Thu Oct 13 16:34:13 2005 From: franzmetcalf at earthlink.net (Franz Metcalf) Date: Thu Oct 13 16:38:06 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: An experiment (Gender on Buddha-l) In-Reply-To: <20051013211023.22463.qmail@web32611.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20051013211023.22463.qmail@web32611.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6f2f8d6da24936d28ad474792e94b5e5@earthlink.net> Michael, I'm sorry I don't have time to adequately respond to you. I'll just say that I generally agree with what you write. Any "need" for buddha-l to be more inclusive is merely my perceived need, not a constitutionally or religiously mandated need (since buddha-l never was "Buddhist," and is no longer "academic"). I simply "feel" (yes, a highly subjective word) that there is more to difference than difference of opinion, and that the list would benefit from such difference. But, hey, it's already good, and, I think, more than an "amusement." To really engage others in conversation on the dharma (broadly defined) is not a diversion, it is awakened activity. It better be, or I am really blowing this priceless human birth. Franz From rhayes at unm.edu Thu Oct 13 17:00:22 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Thu Oct 13 17:08:02 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism In-Reply-To: <415792673.20051014001057@kungzhi.org> References: <00a801c5ceb1$0c557eb0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <020801c5cf2c$84bc70e0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <434D2A04.5090803@nerim.net> <1129137631.4552.23.camel@localhost.localdomain> <862659731.20051013195608@kungzhi.org> <1129227148.5569.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> <415792673.20051014001057@kungzhi.org> Message-ID: <1129244423.7405.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Fri, 2005-10-14 at 00:10 +0200, Benito Carral wrote: > I'm not afraid of death. That's not my problem. I'm > afraid of having to live according to the values that > others try to force me to live by. I will not allow it. My guess is that you probably do allow it in more ways than you are willing to admit. Are you allowing yourself to live in a globalized economy in which your every choice is dictated by the interests of international corporations and by the paranoid fantasies of an American administration that has lost all touch with reality? Or are you, like some of the rest of us, just helplessly enduring it? -- Richard Hayes From bcarral at kungzhi.org Thu Oct 13 17:45:31 2005 From: bcarral at kungzhi.org (Benito Carral) Date: Thu Oct 13 17:48:06 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism In-Reply-To: <1129244423.7405.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <00a801c5ceb1$0c557eb0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <020801c5cf2c$84bc70e0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <434D2A04.5090803@nerim.net> <1129137631.4552.23.camel@localhost.localdomain> <862659731.20051013195608@kungzhi.org> <1129227148.5569.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> <415792673.20051014001057@kungzhi.org> <1129244423.7405.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <967955945.20051014014531@kungzhi.org> On Friday, October 14, 2005, Richard P. Hayes wrote: >> I'm not afraid of death. That's not my problem. I'm >> afraid of having to live according to the values >> that others try to force me to live by. I will not >> allow it. > My guess is that you probably do allow it in more > ways than you are willing to admit. I'm aware of some of those ways and surely unware of many more. > Or are you, like some of the rest of us, just > helplessly enduring it? I have a set of core values to wich I will not renounce. Life is not the highest value for me - I think that a life without meaning and warmth is completely unworthy and useless. If I really thought that the best life has to offer is keeping me entertained, I wouldn't doubt a second in killing myself. So there are some compromises that I will not take. That's probably why I'll start a new life next March in a world apart (well, not so apart after all, but a different one anyway). Best wishes, Beni From stroble at hawaii.edu Thu Oct 13 17:54:26 2005 From: stroble at hawaii.edu (James A. Stroble) Date: Thu Oct 13 17:59:13 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism In-Reply-To: <742428727.20051014000232@kungzhi.org> References: <00a801c5ceb1$0c557eb0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <020801c5cf2c$84bc70e0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <434D2A04.5090803@nerim.net> <434D33CB.9050603@cola.iges.org> <434D5216.2000405@nerim.net> <434D6684.9020608@cola.iges.org> <434E0441.1060706@nerim.net> <1129188650.5150.18.camel@spinoza> <434E52F5.5060106@cola.iges.org> <1129235781.5150.57.camel@spinoza> <742428727.20051014000232@kungzhi.org> Message-ID: <1129247666.5150.95.camel@spinoza> On Fri, 2005-10-14 at 00:02 +0200, Benito Carral wrote: > On Thursday, October 13, 2005, James A. Stroble wrote: > > > There is nothing that requires defending. > > Could you elaborate it? > > Best wishes, > > Beni Sure! I will defend my assertion that there is nothing to defend! Seems like I have undertaken an impossible task. I was somewhat bothered by Dan's warnings about the threat of Islam of Oct. 6: >The problem of Islam in Europe is real. As Bat Yaor has >warned, if Europe doesn't wake up, it will *be* the Muslim world in less >than 20 years (like Kashmir, Bali soon, etc.). It's a war of hegemony. This was followed by the chastisement of the left (which I guess is Richard): >Let me put it this way: unless people on the left begin to recognize the >reality of the problem of Islam and devote some creative energy to dealing >with that (enlisting and empowering moderate Muslims would be a start), the >only ones who will be dealing with it are the Bushes and right wing >demagogues. As long as the left thinks the way to solve the problem is to >join the jihadists in their anti-American choruses (as if that somehow >immunizes them from being the target of the next attack -- it doesn't), the >problem will only get worse, and those in the middle will continue moving to >the right. Now while I agree that some creative energy is in order, I think it is wrong to think that American foreign policy is "dealing with" the problem by using force. What is it that we are afraid of? What is it that we could lose? I am a little insulted at the accusation that those of us who are critical of American policy are somehow doing so in expectation of immunity from attack (just ribbing, right?). The assumption that "something has to be done" stems from fear, and we all know what Yoda said about that, if anyone missed my quotation of the Dhammapada. This is where the nothing comes in. In Christian pacifism, or even in Catholic Just War Doctrine, nothing is really at stake in human conflicts, God or even the faithful do not need defending. True, wars are the result of greed, lust, arrogance, and delusion, and these are to be opposed, but we should not adapt the same means lest we fall victim to the same vices. And the Diety, omnipotent and omniscient, can take care of itself. God does not need hegemony. We might make the same point about truth? Truth does not need defending, at least from us inthe reality-based community. Relying on force betrays a deep cynicism about the truth of one's beliefs. And Buddhism, which is not here just a mandatory mention, has even less to defend that theistic religions. Holy war, national defense, and self-defense are of the same idiom; Buddhism dispenses with all these entities, they are the products of co-dependent origination, and so at some time will cease to be. The only question in Buddhism is the cessation of suffering, and the path to that is to not create more suffering by defending that which is in itself impermanent. So I agree with Richard. So Joy, ya got my back? (We really have to stop using these combative terms to refer to our debate here!) -- James A. Stroble From franzmetcalf at earthlink.net Thu Oct 13 18:00:20 2005 From: franzmetcalf at earthlink.net (Franz Metcalf) Date: Thu Oct 13 18:09:20 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddhist pacifism In-Reply-To: <1129188650.5150.18.camel@spinoza> References: <00a801c5ceb1$0c557eb0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <020801c5cf2c$84bc70e0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <434D2A04.5090803@nerim.net> <434D33CB.9050603@cola.iges.org> <434D5216.2000405@nerim.net> <434D6684.9020608@cola.iges.org> <434E0441.1060706@nerim.net> <1129188650.5150.18.camel@spinoza> Message-ID: <4d1669b22c7b5409ae909bbf7ad731ab@earthlink.net> Gang, (in my town, we have plenty of women gang members) On buddha-l we've had several discussions much like this. Looking through posts I've saved from those threads, I find several references given by various members of buddha-l. I've been thinking of collecting them and I do so now, ad majorem buddhi gloriam. (Diversionary note: Here I've assigned the masculine gender to "Buddha," despite its "a" ending indicating the feminine gender in Latin. Perhaps I should I have written "buddhae." How *is* "Buddha" written in Latin, anyway?) First, though James was too genteel to mention it, if you'd like to read more of his convincing analysis of this issue, see James Stroble, "Buddhism and War: A Study of the Status of Violence in Early Buddhism" at http://www2.hawaii.edu/%7Estroble/BUDDWAR.HTM For an opposing view, see _The Budhha Taught Nonviolence, Not Pacifism_ by Paul Fleischman, M.D. published by Pariyatti Press; http://www.pariyatti.com. I've not read the book, but the excerpt is available online at http://www.dharma.org/ij/archives/2002a/nonviolence.htm is plenty maddening enough for me. A classic article by Paul Demieville was first published as ?Le bouddhisme et la guerre," postscript to _l'Histoire des moines guerriers du Japon_ by Gaston Renondeau, _M?langes publi?s par l?Institut des Hautes Etudes chinoises_, v1, Paris, 1957, p347-385. It might be easier to find in Paul Demi?ville, _Choix d'Etudes bouddhiques (1929-1970)_, Leiden, E. J. Brill, 1973, p261-299. When we discussed this issue on buddha-l in 2003, Nobu Iyanaga promised he would try to except and comment on Demi?ville's article. He more than fulfilled his promise, also including lengthy and articulate posts from buddha-l (back when there was a high proportion of Buddhist scholars on it). You can read his good work at: http://www.bekkoame.ne.jp/~n-iyanag/buddhism/buddhism_war.html For those who care about contemporary Sri Lankan positions: "In Defense of Dharma: Just-War Ideology in Buddhist Sri Lanka" By Tessa Bartholomeusz, http://jbe.gold.ac.uk/6/bartho991.htm Schmithausen, Lambert. 1999. "Aspects of the Buddhist Attitude to War" in _Violence Denied: Violence, Non-Violence and the Rationalization of Violence in South Asian Cultural History_, edited by J. E. M. Houben and K. R. van Kooij (Leiden: Brill), pp. 45?67. "Can a Buddhist Join the Army?" http://www.saigon.com/~anson/ebud/whatbudbeliev/290.htm Buddhism & The Soldier, by Major General Ananda Weerasekera, http://www.beyondthenet.net/thedway/soldier.htm Can We Justify War? http://www.saigon.com/~anson/ebud/whatbudbeliev/287.htm And, from the Pali Canon, SN III.15: Sangama Sutta, SN XLII.3: Yodhajiva Sutta, and SN III.14:Sangama Sutta. (For canonical Mahayana sources, see Iyanaga-sensei's article, cited above.) Peacefully, Franz From s.hodge at padmacholing.freeserve.co.uk Thu Oct 13 18:15:23 2005 From: s.hodge at padmacholing.freeserve.co.uk (Stephen Hodge) Date: Thu Oct 13 18:28:03 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Speaking of tests... References: Message-ID: <00a301c5d056$0b99c980$8f6f4e51@zen> Richard Hayes wrote: >> Have any of you taken the test called "What's your spiritual type?" > on www.beliefnet.com ? I thought I'd give it a whirl -- got 47. But the questions are really difficult to answer meaningfully, given their inherent bias. But for the other test, I got: 1 Mahayana Buddhism (100%) [Really. Must be doing something right !] 2 Unitarian Universalism (98%) 3 Hinduism (87%) 4 Liberal Quakers (87%) 5 Theravada Buddhism (86%) ....... 23 Orthodox Judaism (26%) 24 Seventh Day Adventist (26%) 25 Eastern Orthodox (15%) 26 Islam (15%) 27 Roman Catholic (15%) Chuckle and best wishes, Stephen Hodge From franzmetcalf at earthlink.net Thu Oct 13 18:51:53 2005 From: franzmetcalf at earthlink.net (Franz Metcalf) Date: Thu Oct 13 18:58:04 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Speaking of tests... In-Reply-To: <00a301c5d056$0b99c980$8f6f4e51@zen> References: <00a301c5d056$0b99c980$8f6f4e51@zen> Message-ID: <1f6326f1cf6c01b5a63fcbc4a7aece43@earthlink.net> Gang, I liked the previous tests, but the "Belief-o-Matic" really knocked my spiritual socks off. Indeed, I can't decide which freaks me out more: that Mainline Protestantism outscored Theravada Buddhism, or all of these and MORMONISM outscored Mahayana Buddhism. 1. Unitarian Universalism (100%) 2. Secular Humanism (86%) 3. Liberal Quakers (85%) 4. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (83%) 5. Theravada Buddhism (74%) ... 10. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (48%) 11. Mahayana Buddhism (46%) ... 25. Eastern Orthodox (15%) 26. Islam (15%) 27. Roman Catholic (15%) Or perhaps the scariest result of all: my top three and my placement for Mahayana Buddhism are exactly the same as Richard Hayes's. Uh-oh, Franz From bcarral at kungzhi.org Thu Oct 13 18:56:33 2005 From: bcarral at kungzhi.org (Benito Carral) Date: Thu Oct 13 19:00:24 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: "So much for tsunami dana" In-Reply-To: <434EB009.4020800@cola.iges.org> References: <434D44D8.4070502@cola.iges.org> <58164516.20051013201252@kungzhi.org> <434EB009.4020800@cola.iges.org> Message-ID: <1069343246.20051014025633@kungzhi.org> On Thursday, October 13, 2005, Curt wrote: >> If of $100 billion $90 billion go to a rich minority >> and $10 billion go to a poor majority, would not it >> increase the breach between poor and rich people?, >> would not it empower the oligarchy that keeps the >> breach growing? > I think your argument only holds if the initial > disparity between rich and poor is less than 10:1 to > start with [...] Could you elaborate it? > And even that makes assumptions about where the money > is coming from - but I was assuming that all of the > money would be coming from the rich Capitalist > fat-cats. I think that the process works somehow differently. Many middle-class society members send money to humanitarian causes - I'm also thinking here in gubernamental funds mainly collected between middle-class. This money is taken from what corporations let middle-class for enjoyment (in a postmodern vein, we could call it "money for entertainment"). So by sending funds to humanitarian causes, middle-class is using its money for entertainment to empower local oligarchies (and more). BTW, middle-class feels good thinking they are really helping people out there, so its money for entertainment has been well spent after all. The $10 billon that poor people receive will buy basic goods and services (owned by corporations) and build infrastructures that will by exploited latter (also by corporations). So as far as I can see it, sending funds to humanitarian causes is acepting global taxes for middle-class that help corporations keep making money without having to spend a buck. > I admit that I personally prefer a more rapid > redistribution of the wealth - is that what you are > proposing? Not exactly. What I'm saying is that it's not the kind of redistribution we think it is, but just a sure non-investment for oligarchies and corporations. I agree that we need new strategies for dealing with such circunstances. I would start suggesting to empower the UN and unempower the US, to make corporations internalize social and ecological expenses, to create a Fair Trade Federation for Disasters... Best wishes, Beni From rhayes at unm.edu Thu Oct 13 19:24:18 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Thu Oct 13 19:28:04 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Unitarian-Universalist Buddhism In-Reply-To: <20051013220621.33016.qmail@web32601.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20051013220621.33016.qmail@web32601.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1129253058.7832.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Thu, 2005-10-13 at 15:06 -0700, Michael Paris wrote: > UUBF-L > http://lists.uua.org/mailman/listinfo/uubf-l Thanks for the information, Michael. I've subscribed to it. But don't worry about being responsible for turning an abusive monster loose on the Unitarian Buddhists. I subscribe to many lists and just lurk, and I suspect this will be one of them. Unless somebody says something really stupid that NEEDS abuse. >From the looks of things, quite a few buddha-l subscribers are discovering that they are really Unitarian-Universalists after all. Maybe we should just ask the owner of UUBF-L to mass subscribe everyone on buddha-l. That would put the alleged tolerance of UUA folks to the test, eh? -- Richard Hayes From rhayes at unm.edu Thu Oct 13 19:44:55 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Thu Oct 13 19:58:07 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Speaking of tests... In-Reply-To: <00a301c5d056$0b99c980$8f6f4e51@zen> References: <00a301c5d056$0b99c980$8f6f4e51@zen> Message-ID: <1129254296.7832.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Fri, 2005-10-14 at 01:15 +0100, Stephen Hodge wrote: > But for the other test, I got: > > 1 Mahayana Buddhism (100%) [Really. Must be doing something right !] > 2 Unitarian Universalism (98%) > 3 Hinduism (87%) > 4 Liberal Quakers (87%) > 5 Theravada Buddhism (86%) I am beginning to think that the test was made up by a group of Unitarians. Everyone seems to be getting high scores in that category. My lovely wife, a former Mahayana Buddhist nun, also got a 100% in Mahayana and 98% in Unitarian Universalism, with Theravada coming in third. She assures me almost daily that I'm not really a Buddhist at all and should give up trying to pretend I am. Maybe she's right. I think I'll turn buddha-l over to her. I think I lost some points in the Buddhism, Hinduism and Jainism categories because I secretly have some doubts about rebirth and karma. > 23 Orthodox Judaism (26%) > 24 Seventh Day Adventist (26%) > 25 Eastern Orthodox (15%) > 26 Islam (15%) > 27 Roman Catholic (15%) It's difficult to tell from early poll results, but a quickly formed impression is that Roman Catholicism and and Islam are not faring very well among buddha-l subscribers. I can only surmise this is the result of Lusthaus's daily bursts of prapanca about the imminent dangers of Islam. > Chuckle and best wishes, I prefer belly laughs, but chuckles are probably more dignified. -- Richard Hayes From rhayes at unm.edu Thu Oct 13 20:17:19 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Thu Oct 13 20:18:09 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Speaking of tests... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1129256240.7832.52.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Thu, 2005-10-13 at 15:21 +0000, bclough wrote: > By the way, I trust, Richard, that while on the belief.net site, you > ordered up a bunch of "angel bracelets," which apparently function to > "empower your intentions." Typically, I was on the fence about such a > purchase, but I'm sure a true spiritual seeker has a truckload of > these at the ready. Unfortunately, I don't like the feeling of things hanging on my wrists, so I reluctantly forewent the angel bracelets. I did, however, order a pair of exorcistic nose rings, one for each nostril, and a dozen neo- pagan earrings, six for each ear. Modesty prevents me from revealing where I am placing the iridescent halo that wards off infertility spells. -- Richard Hayes From rhayes at unm.edu Thu Oct 13 20:01:16 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Thu Oct 13 20:18:14 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Speaking of tests... In-Reply-To: <1f6326f1cf6c01b5a63fcbc4a7aece43@earthlink.net> References: <00a301c5d056$0b99c980$8f6f4e51@zen> <1f6326f1cf6c01b5a63fcbc4a7aece43@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <1129255276.7832.43.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Thu, 2005-10-13 at 17:51 -0700, Franz Metcalf wrote: > I liked the previous tests, but the "Belief-o-Matic" really knocked my > spiritual socks off. Indeed, I can't decide which freaks me out more: > that Mainline Protestantism outscored Theravada Buddhism, or all of > these and MORMONISM outscored Mahayana Buddhism. If it's any consolation to you, it was Mainline to Liberal Protestantism that scored above Theravada. That is not surprising to me at all, perhaps Liberal Protestantism eschews creeds and dogma, downplays the importance of salvation through the crucifixion of Jesus and stresses instead the example of Jesus as a human being, emphasizes social and economic justice and personal moral integrity, respects science and shows complete acceptance of other religions. It was against Liberal Protestantism that Fundamentalism began to define itself >From what I have seen of you, you have Liberal Protestant written all over you. And I'd guess that the orthodoxy and rigidity of Theravada puts you off a bit, as a result of which it's not surprising it comes in below Liberal Protestantism in your scale of values. It also does not surprise me at all that Mahayana comes out pretty low in your scale of priorities. As for Mormonism scoring as high as it did, I think you had better consider going to a psychoanalyst immediately. > 1. Unitarian Universalism (100%) > 2. Secular Humanism (86%) > 3. Liberal Quakers (85%) > 4. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (83%) > 5. Theravada Buddhism (74%) > ... > 10. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (48%) > 11. Mahayana Buddhism (46%) > ... > 25. Eastern Orthodox (15%) > 26. Islam (15%) > 27. Roman Catholic (15%) > > Or perhaps the scariest result of all: my top three and my placement > for Mahayana Buddhism are exactly the same as Richard Hayes's. That IS sobering. Maybe instead of seeing a psychoanalyst, suicide is in order. It's cheaper. -- Richard Hayes From dante at interport.net Thu Oct 13 23:41:16 2005 From: dante at interport.net (Dante Rosati) Date: Thu Oct 13 23:48:07 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Speaking of tests... In-Reply-To: <290923980510130401r26b18857pbe15e22f91356cec@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: This one seems more accurate: http://www.tk421.net/character/ Dante From c_castell at yahoo.com Thu Oct 13 23:57:12 2005 From: c_castell at yahoo.com (Catalina Castell-du Payrat) Date: Thu Oct 13 23:58:14 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: "So much for tsunami dana" In-Reply-To: <001e01c5d02e$68e6b3f0$2930cece@charlie> Message-ID: <20051014055712.9846.qmail@web60813.mail.yahoo.com> Hi Joanna, I was taking about mexicans in California to say that some parts of the USA economy depend on mexicans........... Cheers, catalina Catalina Castell - du Payrat c_castell@yahoo.com --------------------------------- Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20051013/ee45e25a/attachment.htm From skiltonat at Cardiff.ac.uk Fri Oct 14 05:12:47 2005 From: skiltonat at Cardiff.ac.uk (Andrew Skilton) Date: Fri Oct 14 05:18:16 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: "So much for tsunami dana" Message-ID: On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 Benito Carral wrote > I agree that we need new strategies for dealing with such circunstances. I would start suggesting to empower the UN and unempower the US, to make corporations internalize social and ecological expenses, to create a Fair Trade Federation for Disasters... Beni, what would a Fair Trade Federation for Disasters be? How would it work? Andrew *********************************** Andrew Skilton D. Phil. email: skiltonat@cardiff.ac.uk *********************************** From curt at cola.iges.org Fri Oct 14 06:52:13 2005 From: curt at cola.iges.org (curt) Date: Fri Oct 14 06:58:15 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddhist pacifism In-Reply-To: <4d1669b22c7b5409ae909bbf7ad731ab@earthlink.net> References: <00a801c5ceb1$0c557eb0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <020801c5cf2c$84bc70e0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <434D2A04.5090803@nerim.net> <434D33CB.9050603@cola.iges.org> <434D5216.2000405@nerim.net> <434D6684.9020608@cola.iges.org> <434E0441.1060706@nerim.net> <1129188650.5150.18.camel@spinoza> <4d1669b22c7b5409ae909bbf7ad731ab@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <434FA9FD.5080407@cola.iges.org> Thanks very much for this informative post - I'm going to read this stuff and "pray on it". - Curt Franz Metcalf wrote: > Gang, > (in my town, we have plenty of women gang members) > > From joy.vriens at nerim.net Fri Oct 14 07:04:08 2005 From: joy.vriens at nerim.net (Joy Vriens) Date: Fri Oct 14 07:10:34 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism In-Reply-To: <1129247666.5150.95.camel@spinoza> References: <00a801c5ceb1$0c557eb0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <020801c5cf2c$84bc70e0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <434D2A04.5090803@nerim.net> <434D33CB.9050603@cola.iges.org> <434D5216.2000405@nerim.net> <434D6684.9020608@cola.iges.org> <434E0441.1060706@nerim.net> <1129188650.5150.18.camel@spinoza> <434E52F5.5060106@cola.iges.org> <1129235781.5150.57.camel@spinoza> <742428727.20051014000232@kungzhi.org> <1129247666.5150.95.camel@spinoza> Message-ID: <434FACC8.90608@nerim.net> James A. Stroble wrote: > So Joy, ya got my back? (We really have to stop using these combative > terms to refer to our debate here!) You have been of a perfect clarity and don't need any help. Dan can relax. :-) When I read passages from Zen at war or similar texts, and reports about Lama Zhang from the Tibetan tradition, I am very much reminded of the desinterested action (also in a war context...) of the Bhagavad gita or even of the notion of spontaneous Buddha activity. Is there any link? "This is Zen bushido in action: Killing as high art. The soldiers are being taught the perfect etiquette in beheading - the exact way to cleanse the sword, the proper way to swing the weapon, the strong virile shout. With this image in mind, consider the following passage that D. T. Suzuki wrote at the same time as the Nanking massacre: "... the art of swordsmanship distinguishes between the sword that kills and the sword that gives life. The one that is used by a technician cannot go any further than killing.... The case is altogether different with the one who is compelled to lift the sword. For it is really not he but the sword itself that does the killing. He had no desire to harm anybody, but the enemy appears and makes himself a victim. It is though the sword automatically performs its function of justice, which is the function of mercy?. the swordsman turns into an artist of the first grade, engaged in producing a work of genuine originality." No thinking = No-mind = No-self = No karma or acting which is free of the three circles (subject, object and action) and which is therefore non-action. So either one totally effaces one's self, dissolves it, so that one becomes a selfless actor or rather actorless activity, a totally obedient (because not opposing any resistance) link in a chain, becoming one with whatever programme needs to be carried out, or one retains a bit of Tom's "personal ontological purity", a bit of personal judgement about what it is right or wrong and the possibility to resist that programme or the "general interest". Making choices creates anxiety and responsibility. One can be much more in peace when no choices need to made. One's own purity doesn't need to be a selfish concern and is therefore not necessarily a comfortable thing. Joy From s-sarbacker at northwestern.edu Thu Oct 13 20:29:40 2005 From: s-sarbacker at northwestern.edu (Stuart Ray Sarbacker) Date: Fri Oct 14 09:02:21 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] yoga(TM) In-Reply-To: <200510100920.j9A9KpNV018018@ns1.swcp.com> References: <200510100920.j9A9KpNV018018@ns1.swcp.com> Message-ID: >--------------------------------------------------- > >Message: 1 >Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 09:48:36 +0200 >From: Erik Hoogcarspel >Subject: [Buddha-l] yoga(TM) >To: Buddhist discussion forum >Message-ID: <434A1CD4.3040405@xs4all.nl> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed > >The madness of capitalism: shortly people will have to buy the right to >do a form of meditation or a sadhana to patentholders. > >http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level.php?cat=Trends&loid=8.0.215680098&par=0 > >-- > >Erik > >www.xs4all.nl/~jehms Erik, I apologize if someone has already addressed this, but I have also read that this is being interpreted as an attempt to prevent particular teachers (esp. Bikram Choudhury, "hot yoga") from patenting postures/sequences. There have been a number of articles about Bikram's approach to his form as "intellectual property" and the ramifications that it would have for that industry. There is so much to be said about this and yoga and meditation as cultural/economic capital, I don't know where to begin! "Intellectual Property" in and of itself is a fascinating and complex concept itself, arguably present in myriad forms throughout cultural and religious histories (Buddhism of course not excluded). One aspect of this is the replication of "initiatory" schema, which requires in some cases significant economic expense, see, for example, contemporary "yoga teacher trainings" and the various "empowerments" in contemporary Tibetan traditions. There are interesting parallels with the past, but also a phenomenon that is thoroughly novel in other ways. In any case, thanks for passing this along. Best Wishes, Stuart -- Dr. Stuart Sarbacker Lecturer in Religion Director of Undergraduate Studies Department of Religion Northwestern University http://www.religion.northwestern.edu/faculty/sarbacker.html From stephen.hopkins at ukonline.co.uk Fri Oct 14 10:46:41 2005 From: stephen.hopkins at ukonline.co.uk (Stephen Hopkins) Date: Fri Oct 14 09:58:18 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Lin-chi Lu/Rinzai-roku Message-ID: I'd be grateful if any Buddha-l subscriber could help me with information that might locate copies of an English translation of the Lin-chi Lu begun by Sokei-an and Ruth Sasaki, and subsequently worked on by Professor's Iriya and Yanagida, and, later still, by the poet Gary Snyder and Professor Hisao Kanaseki. A version was reportedly published by the Institute for Zen Studies in 1975. I'd also be interested to learn which, if any, of the other English translations of the Lin-chi Lu / Rinzai-roku list members recommend. With thanks, Steve Hopkins From rbzeuschner at adelphia.net Fri Oct 14 10:35:02 2005 From: rbzeuschner at adelphia.net (Bob Zeuschner) Date: Fri Oct 14 10:38:16 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Lin-chi Lu/Rinzai-roku In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <434FDE36.2020503@adelphia.net> Stephen Hopkins wrote: > I'd be grateful if any Buddha-l subscriber could help me with information > that might locate copies of an English translation of the Lin-chi Lu begun > by Sokei-an and Ruth Sasaki, and subsequently worked on by Professor's Iriya > and Yanagida, and, later still, by the poet Gary Snyder and Professor Hisao > Kanaseki. A version was reportedly published by the Institute for Zen > Studies in 1975. > > I'd also be interested to learn which, if any, of the other English > translations of the Lin-chi Lu / Rinzai-roku list members recommend. "The Record of Lin-chi" by Ruth F. Sasaki, Institute for Zen Studies, Kyoto, 1975. "The Zen Teaching of Rinzai," by Irmgard Schloegl, Berkeley, Shambhala, 1976. "Entretiens de Lin-tsi" traduit par Paul Demieville, Paris, Fayard, 1972. "Critical Sermons of the Zen Tradition: Hisamatsu's Talks on Linji" ed. by Christopher Ives and Tokiwa Gishin, Univ. of Hawaii, 2002. There is also a translation by Burton Watson but my copy is not here so I can't provide details. Finally, you can put together another translation from fragments from D. T. Suzuki, Training of the Zen Buddhist Monk, Essentials of Zen Buddhism, Essays in Zen 1st, 2nd & 3rd, Living by Zen, Zen & Psychoanalysis, Studies in Zen. Add to that Charles Luk, Ch'an and Zen Teaching. Chang Chung-yuan, Original Teachings of Ch'an Buddhism. Chang, The Practice of Zen R. H. Blyth, Zen & Zen Classics, vol. 5 I hope that helps. Bob Zeuschner Dept. of Philosophy From curt at cola.iges.org Fri Oct 14 11:14:13 2005 From: curt at cola.iges.org (curt) Date: Fri Oct 14 11:18:17 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Lin-chi Lu/Rinzai-roku In-Reply-To: <434FDE36.2020503@adelphia.net> References: <434FDE36.2020503@adelphia.net> Message-ID: <434FE765.5060706@cola.iges.org> Bob Zeuschner wrote: > There is also a translation by Burton Watson but my copy is not here > so I can't provide details. "The Zen Teachings of Master Lin Chi" translated by Burton Wasson, Columbia University Press, 1999. Are there supposed to be significant differences between the Wasson translation and this other one? - Curt From parisjm2004 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 14 11:55:54 2005 From: parisjm2004 at yahoo.com (Michael Paris) Date: Fri Oct 14 11:58:16 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Unitarian-Universalist Buddhism In-Reply-To: <1129253058.7832.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20051014175554.56485.qmail@web32605.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- "Richard P. Hayes" wrote: > On Thu, 2005-10-13 at 15:06 -0700, Michael Paris wrote: > > > UUBF-L > > http://lists.uua.org/mailman/listinfo/uubf-l > > Thanks for the information, Michael. [snip] Glad to be of service. Maybe you could get things going there. It's a very quiet list, with only occasional bursts of activity. I've never met a UU Buddhist. Met quite a few UU others -- atheists, agnostics, humanists, Christians, pagans, Wiccans, and who knows what else. But "white" Buddhists in my area are scarce. There are ethnic Buddhists, though -- a Chinese Pure Land temple number in Dallas, a Vietnamese Zen nunnery south of Fort Worth, and a Lao temple just northest of FW near Keller. I'm not sure if Ruben Habito's zendo qualifies as Buddhist. (Maria Kannon Zen Center is in Dallas -- http://www.mkzc.org .) I've never quite "gotten" Sanbo Kyodan anyway, nor do I find Habito's books at all readable. (Perhaps that's partly because of the Catholicism ramrodded down my throat as a child.) [snip] > Maybe we should just ask the owner of UUBF-L to mass subscribe > everyone on buddha-l. That would put the alleged tolerance of UUA > folks to the test, eh? I've mixed experience with UU's tolerance. In fact, I've seen as much or greater tolerance among some of the nicer Christians I've known, including ministers. UUs don't hold any monopoly on tolerance or inclusiveness; quite the opposite, in many cases. One UU congregation pretty much described itself as a place where Christians that couldn't find a church could go. Not very liberal Christians, it turned out. My wife and I didn't stay there very long. Oh well... Do pardon a rambling post. As I age, my mind seems to wander and digress more from the subject. Have a nice weekend, y'all. Michael __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From rhayes at unm.edu Fri Oct 14 13:31:23 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Fri Oct 14 13:38:20 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Unitarian-Universalist Buddhism In-Reply-To: <20051014175554.56485.qmail@web32605.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20051014175554.56485.qmail@web32605.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1129318283.4368.29.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Fri, 2005-10-14 at 10:55 -0700, Michael Paris wrote: > I've never met a UU Buddhist. Met quite a few UU others -- atheists, > agnostics, humanists, Christians, pagans, Wiccans, and who knows what > else. The minister of the UU church my wife and I attend mentions the Buddha more often than she mentions Jesus in her sermons. She has regular vipassana meditation sessions, and there is a weekly reading group that pours over the works of Thich Nhat Hanh. And, yes, there are plenty of atheists, agnostics, humanists, pagans and Wiccans. There also seem to be quite a few Catholics, Southern Baptists and Jews in various stages of recovery from the traumas of their religious upbringing. > I'm not sure if Ruben Habito's zendo qualifies as Buddhist. God only knows. He implies in one of his books that he has attained enlightenment. His overall framework, however, strikes me as much more Christian than Buddhist. > I've mixed experience with UU's tolerance. In fact, I've seen as much > or greater tolerance among some of the nicer Christians I've known, > including ministers. UUs don't hold any monopoly on tolerance or > inclusiveness; quite the opposite, in many cases. Indeed. It is wise to be wary of people who wear their tolerance on their sleeves. There is usually quite a lot of shadowy intolerance lurking just barely below the surface. It recently came to light that quite a few political conservatives have left the local UU church during the past year, many of them saying that they just do not feel welcome. It's not hard to see why, given how many members of the UU congregation gleefully ridicule neo-conservative Republicans. Even the ministers occasionally let anti-Republican jokes fly out of their mouths during sermons. Mind you, this is a kind of intolerance I can easily tolerate, but it is intolerance all the same, and as such is a definite contradiction of the principles stated on the billboard outside the church that proclaims "We are a welcoming congregation." That is code talk, I have learned, for "Gays are welcome. Republicans and Conservative Evangelical Christians, keep your distance." A few years ago I was subscribed to a Quaker Buddhist e-mail discussion group. I liked it quite a bit. The people were very courteous but quite prepared to question and probe beneath the surface of things. There were some good minds on that forum. In some ways I think the Quakers have more in common with Buddhists than Unitarians do. Quakers are capable of sitting still and remaining silent and listening. Unitarians are mostly capable of talking incessantly. Some Quakers say they feel a much deeper affinity with the Buddha than with Jesus. The Buddha didn't run around throwing moneylenders out of temples and telling menstruating women not to touch him lest he lose his powers of healing. Jesus did have some pretty disturbing episodes of anger and righteous indignation that does not set well with pacifistic Quakers. Buddha-centic Quakers feel completely liberated from the Old Testament and all its accounts of the bloody and savage conquest of Israel by the Hebrews, and the blood-curdling vindictiveness found in some of the psalms, and the also feel liberated from the equally ghastly material in the Book of Revelations in the New Testament. -- Richard Hayes From stroble at hawaii.edu Fri Oct 14 21:27:24 2005 From: stroble at hawaii.edu (James A. Stroble) Date: Fri Oct 14 17:28:22 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism In-Reply-To: <434FACC8.90608@nerim.net> References: <00a801c5ceb1$0c557eb0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <020801c5cf2c$84bc70e0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <434D2A04.5090803@nerim.net> <434D33CB.9050603@cola.iges.org> <434D5216.2000405@nerim.net> <434D6684.9020608@cola.iges.org> <434E0441.1060706@nerim.net> <1129188650.5150.18.camel@spinoza> <434E52F5.5060106@cola.iges.org> <1129235781.5150.57.camel@spinoza> <742428727.20051014000232@kungzhi.org> <1129247666.5150.95.camel@spinoza> <434FACC8.90608@nerim.net> Message-ID: <1129346845.4706.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Fri, 2005-10-14 at 15:04 +0200, Joy Vriens wrote: > James A. Stroble wrote: > > > So Joy, ya got my back? (We really have to stop using these combative > > terms to refer to our debate here!) > > You have been of a perfect clarity and don't need any help. Dan can > relax. :-) > > When I read passages from Zen at war or similar texts, and reports about > Lama Zhang from the Tibetan tradition, I am very much reminded of the > desinterested action (also in a war context...) of the Bhagavad gita or > even of the notion of spontaneous Buddha activity. Is there any link? One of my teachers was of the opinion that the Bhagavad Gita was composed as a rebuttal of Buddhist (and Jain) pacifism, holding up the idea of dharma yoga and the renunciation of fruits, while keeping the military. > No thinking = No-mind = No-self = No karma or acting which is free of > the three circles (subject, object and action) and which is therefore > non-action. > > So either one totally effaces one's self, dissolves it, so that one > becomes a selfless actor or rather actorless activity, a totally > obedient (because not opposing any resistance) link in a chain, becoming > one with whatever programme needs to be carried out, or one retains a > bit of Tom's "personal ontological purity", a bit of personal judgement > about what it is right or wrong and the possibility to resist that > programme or the "general interest". Making choices creates anxiety and > responsibility. One can be much more in peace when no choices need to > made. One's own purity doesn't need to be a selfish concern and is > therefore not necessarily a comfortable thing. > > Joy This is the notion of Upaya, skillful action that does not generate karma, the non-violent violence of Mahayana. I suspect there is no such thing, it probably is the result of westernization. It might be paired with the western notion of "bloody hands," the tragedy of the absolute moral necessity of doing something that is absolutely wrong. I tend to think of Buddhism as not being tragic. And I have always wondered about the guardians one always sees in Sinic Buddhism, squishing demons and what not. Does the Buddha need protecting? Thanks to Franz for the summary of the earlier discussion. It did seem like deja vu all over again. Is this a sign that the buddhist pacifism thread is about to be extinguished again? From parisjm2004 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 14 19:23:20 2005 From: parisjm2004 at yahoo.com (Michael Paris) Date: Fri Oct 14 19:28:23 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: ribbing ( Gender on Buddha-l) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051015012320.94159.qmail@web32601.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Give him time. I'm doing my best to prod him into another anti-Texas tirade. Hard nut, he. Being a native Texan, my skin's thicker than cowhide, my skull softer than lead (did that come out right?). So I'm well-prepared by nature to weather his wit. Speaking of weather, I see that the conditions in NM are uniformly wussy. Cool and rainy they are now, whilst we are in the end of summer in a years-long drought. How can real men live in such a land? And I doubt Richard even knows what it's like to fry an egg on asphalt in August. Michael --- Mike Austin wrote: > In message <1129128558.4552.11.camel@localhost.localdomain>, Richard P. Hayes writes > > >I apologize, Mike, for agreeing with you about something. > > Aw. You're no fun anymore. > > -- > Metta > Mike Austin __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From parisjm2004 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 14 19:42:58 2005 From: parisjm2004 at yahoo.com (Michael Paris) Date: Fri Oct 14 19:48:28 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Speaking of tests... In-Reply-To: <1129176534.4708.6.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20051015014258.76282.qmail@web32606.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Just did. 41. Excellent idea. Texans should have even more stringent requirements, of course. Michael --- "Richard P. Hayes" wrote: > Have any of you taken the test called "What's your spiritual type?" > on www.beliefnet.com? It doesn't take much time, and it's sort of fun. I > got a score of 40 out of 100 (which, by the way, is considered a > perfect score). > > I am thinking of requiring this test of everyone who seeks admission > to buddha-l. No one who gets a score over under 25 or over 45 will be > allowed to subscribe. __________________________________ Yahoo! Music Unlimited Access over 1 million songs. Try it free. http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/ From bcarral at kungzhi.org Fri Oct 14 19:45:38 2005 From: bcarral at kungzhi.org (Benito Carral) Date: Fri Oct 14 19:48:38 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: "So much for tsunami dana" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1165464891.20051015034538@kungzhi.org> On Friday, October 14, 2005, Andrew Skilton wrote: > Beni, what would a Fair Trade Federation for > Disasters be? How would it work? It would be an organization formed by small fair trade companies that would provide greed-free basic goods and services and infrastructures. It would help to redistrube humanitarian help (money) among needed (unempowered) people and not among corporations and their agents. It would be necessary to develop an organization to manage such infrastructures. A powerful UN would also help to corporations and their agents don't get involved. Best wishes, Beni From bcarral at kungzhi.org Fri Oct 14 19:49:40 2005 From: bcarral at kungzhi.org (Benito Carral) Date: Fri Oct 14 19:48:42 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism In-Reply-To: <434EA1EA.30109@cola.iges.org> References: <00a801c5ceb1$0c557eb0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <020801c5cf2c$84bc70e0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <434D2A04.5090803@nerim.net> <434D33CB.9050603@cola.iges.org> <434D5216.2000405@nerim.net> <434D6684.9020608@cola.iges.org> <294991653.20051013194841@kungzhi.org> <434EA1EA.30109@cola.iges.org> Message-ID: <14138687.20051015034940@kungzhi.org> On Thursday, October 13, 2005, Curt wrote: > As an anarcho-communist I'm inclined to say that > spontaneously and volutarily organized communities > can exist in a way that not only doesn't tred on > individuals - but that offer human beings the only > real chance we have to fully realize our > individuality. I understand you. The problem, for me, is that I don't believe in individuality. It's a social construction that I would like to see disappear. I think that the individuality myth (and the individuals it has created) is one of the worst human inventions. I tend to think that "individuals" are "society members," so I'm going to try to reflect that in my discourse. Best wishes, Beni From parisjm2004 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 14 19:58:20 2005 From: parisjm2004 at yahoo.com (Michael Paris) Date: Fri Oct 14 20:08:28 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Speaking of tests In-Reply-To: <1129231157.5900.32.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20051015015820.71387.qmail@web32605.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Belief-O-Matic scores: 1. Unitarian Universalism (100%) 2. Secular Humanism (98%) 3. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (91%) 4. Nontheist (87%) 5. Liberal Quakers (83%) 6. Theravada Buddhism (63%) Now how did I get #3? and #6? Me - Theravada? Mahayana was #20 (27%). Darn. Michael __________________________________ Yahoo! Music Unlimited Access over 1 million songs. Try it free. http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/ From bcarral at kungzhi.org Fri Oct 14 20:01:21 2005 From: bcarral at kungzhi.org (Benito Carral) Date: Fri Oct 14 20:08:34 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Devadatta the Renegade: The Thrue History of Buddhism In-Reply-To: <434D5AFA.2020405@nerim.net> References: <1127942930.6308.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> <433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net><617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org> <4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net><1359619694.20051004213630@kungzhi.org> <43441B56.7080303@nerim.net> <1479321719.20051006043947@kungzhi.org><003c01c5ca43$01172200$c8369c04@Dan> <4344DBFE.8030202@nerim.net> <00c701c5ca62$e5c7f5e0$c8369c04@Dan> <4345220A.5040309@nerim.net> <1667485633.20051007043716@kungzhi.org> <43462606.40507@nerim.net> <1591830279.20051010043322@kungzhi.org> <434A29F1.7080700@nerim.net> <18010600083.20051010172344@kungzhi.org> <434A9578.5040205@nerim.net> <91000758.20051011160943@kungzhi.org> <434BE971.6020008@nerim.net> <215877815.20051011192514@kungzhi.org> <434C31E6.3030108@nerim.net> <195697600.20051012010828@kungzhi.org> <434CE876.2020505@nerim.net> <1145551373.20051012185457@kungzhi.org> <434D5AFA.2020405@nerim.net> Message-ID: <79202899.20051015040121@kungzhi.org> On Wednesday, October 12, 2005, Joy Vriens wrote: > We define ourselves against the world, against > others. That's a way of doing (and seeing) it. > Don't underestimated those who play second roles or > baddies. I think that I don't tend to do it. But in the case of the Devadattian rigorists, I think that they were the ones who decided to define themselves against the mainstrean sangha. >> I would not say that such a Mahayana sutra [_The >> Lotus Sutra_] is part of the canon of the >> traditional Buddhist history. > Ok point taken. No Mahayana sutras either. So when > does the traditional Buddhist history stop? I think that we could accept the texts where Theravadins and Sarvastivadins agree (deliberately leaving aside the Mahasangikas for convenience). Best wishes, Beni From parisjm2004 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 14 20:11:53 2005 From: parisjm2004 at yahoo.com (Michael Paris) Date: Fri Oct 14 20:18:24 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: An experiment (Gender on Buddha-l) In-Reply-To: <1129240287.6888.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20051015021154.13870.qmail@web32609.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Dahr Rechard Hayz Sahr, Yew uns iz tew kahnd tuh uh ignerunt feller hoo ubviiuhslee kaynt speyul. Muzt be cuz yoo is perfezzer uf Boodyhizm et Noo Messiko versiunity. Ah tiyups mah hayut tew yew. Michael --- "Richard P. Hayes" wrote: > On Thu, 2005-10-13 at 14:10 -0700, Michael Paris wrote: > > > Good conversations on the Internet are as scares as liberals in Texas. (Go ahead, Richard -- I dare you!) > > Being a liberal New Mexican, I believe everyone should be allowed to > spell words however they like. I myself may prefer the spelling > "scarce," but I fully respect a Texan's right to spell it "scares". __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From skiltonat at Cardiff.ac.uk Sat Oct 15 05:41:56 2005 From: skiltonat at Cardiff.ac.uk (Andrew Skilton) Date: Sat Oct 15 05:48:35 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: "So much for tsunami dana" Message-ID: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 Benito Carral wrote: >> Beni, what would a Fair Trade Federation for >> Disasters be? How would it work? > It would be an organization formed by small fair trade companies that would provide greed-free basic goods and services and infrastructures. It would help to redistrube humanitarian help (money) among needed (unempowered) people and not among corporations and their agents. It would be necessary to develop an organization to manage such infrastructures. A powerful UN would also help to corporations and their agents don't get involved. Thanks. Two questions come to mind: 1. Is this happening anywhere? My knowledge of the fairtrade 'movement' is minimal (coffee and bananas, basically) so forgive my ignorance if I should know. A brief internet search did not seem to uncover any thing like this - just a mountain of organic bananas and coffee beans. 2. I'm not sure about your last two sentences - I am wary of bureaucracy in any context (other than in my bureau). Would not a 'ground up' approach be more suitable and in keeping with the fairtrade ethos? (And, in my view, with Buddhist principals, insofar as it could support a greater degree of personal or individual engagement/responsibility. I note that the FairTrade Foundation attempted to link FairTrade consumers with partners in Asia who could offer direct assistance to tsunami survivors.) Andrew From jehms at xs4all.nl Sat Oct 15 06:36:17 2005 From: jehms at xs4all.nl (Erik Hoogcarspel) Date: Sat Oct 15 06:38:38 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] yoga(TM) In-Reply-To: References: <200510100920.j9A9KpNV018018@ns1.swcp.com> Message-ID: <4350F7C1.8020600@xs4all.nl> Stuart Ray Sarbacker schreef: >> --------------------------------------------------- >> >> Message: 1 >> Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 09:48:36 +0200 >> From: Erik Hoogcarspel >> Subject: [Buddha-l] yoga(TM) >> To: Buddhist discussion forum >> Message-ID: <434A1CD4.3040405@xs4all.nl> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed >> >> The madness of capitalism: shortly people will have to buy the right to >> do a form of meditation or a sadhana to patentholders. >> >> http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level.php?cat=Trends&loid=8.0.215680098&par=0 >> >> >> -- >> >> Erik >> >> www.xs4all.nl/~jehms > > > Erik, > I apologize if someone has already addressed this, but I have also > read that this is being interpreted as an attempt to prevent > particular teachers (esp. Bikram Choudhury, "hot yoga") from patenting > postures/sequences. There have been a number of articles about > Bikram's approach to his form as "intellectual property" and the > ramifications that it would have for that industry. There is so much > to be said about this and yoga and meditation as cultural/economic > capital, I don't know where to begin! "Intellectual Property" in and > of itself is a fascinating and complex concept itself, arguably > present in myriad forms throughout cultural and religious histories > (Buddhism of course not excluded). One aspect of this is the > replication of "initiatory" schema, which requires in some cases > significant economic expense, see, for example, contemporary "yoga > teacher trainings" and the various "empowerments" in contemporary > Tibetan traditions. There are interesting parallels with the past, but > also a phenomenon that is thoroughly novel in other ways. In any case, > thanks for passing this along. > Best Wishes, > Stuart > Stuart, thank you for your comment, however I wonder what's so fascinating about this modernist bourgeois concept of intellectual property. (I hope you'll not charge me for your email ;-) !) It's just an attempt to import the structure of the financial field into the cultural and religious fields. Since the beginnings of time ideas and methods have been spread. Buddhists took meditations, asanas, vidyas, kriyas and sadhanas from Hindus and Taoists and vice versa. Later Sufi's came and took what they liked. In the West Plotin borrowed from Plato and Augustine from Plotin, all for free. Everybody was happy and thriving, because there was no selling or buying. Then came Maharishi with his mantratrick and now initiations in Tibetan Buddhism have become a substantial source of income. I liked the game in the times when you were supposed to offer some cakes or fruit to the deity, now I think it is totally degenerated. I think anyone who's claiming intellectual propery is a fraud because this person is not an intellectual but a mean salesman. For an intellectual ideas and methodes to get inspired or elevate your mind are principally open source. -- Erik www.xs4all.nl/~jehms From joy.vriens at nerim.net Sat Oct 15 06:47:14 2005 From: joy.vriens at nerim.net (Joy Vriens) Date: Sat Oct 15 06:48:33 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Devadatta the Renegade: The Thrue History of Buddhism In-Reply-To: <79202899.20051015040121@kungzhi.org> References: <433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net><617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org> <4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net><1359619694.20051004213630@kungzhi.org> <43441B56.7080303@nerim.net> <1479321719.20051006043947@kungzhi.org><003c01c5ca43$01172200$c8369c04@Dan> <4344DBFE.8030202@nerim.net> <00c701c5ca62$e5c7f5e0$c8369c04@Dan> <4345220A.5040309@nerim.net> <1667485633.20051007043716@kungzhi.org> <43462606.40507@nerim.net> <1591830279.20051010043322@kungzhi.org> <434A29F1.7080700@nerim.net> <18010600083.20051010172344@kungzhi.org> <434A9578.5040205@nerim.net> <91000758.20051011160943@kungzhi.org> <434BE971.6020008@nerim.net> <215877815.20051011192514@kungzhi.org> <434C31E6.3030108@nerim.net> <195697600.20051012010828@kungzhi.org> <434CE876.2020505@nerim.net> <1145551373.20051012185457@kungzhi.org> <434D5AFA.2020405@nerim.net> <79202899.20051015040121@kungzhi.org> Message-ID: <4350FA52.3070905@nerim.net> Hi Beni, >>We define ourselves against the world, against >>others. >>Don't underestimate those who play second roles or >>baddies. > I think that I don't tend to do it. But in the case > of the Devadattian rigorists, I think that they were > the ones who decided to define themselves against the > mainstrean sangha. I am not so sure. The rigorism came first (Jainism, the Buddha's unsuccessful practice of ascetism). Perhaps Devadatta cum suis were simply more traditionalist and thought Buddhism went too far in its redefinition. Joy From joy.vriens at nerim.net Sat Oct 15 07:44:52 2005 From: joy.vriens at nerim.net (Joy Vriens) Date: Sat Oct 15 07:48:32 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism In-Reply-To: <1129346845.4706.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <00a801c5ceb1$0c557eb0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <020801c5cf2c$84bc70e0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <434D2A04.5090803@nerim.net> <434D33CB.9050603@cola.iges.org> <434D5216.2000405@nerim.net> <434D6684.9020608@cola.iges.org> <434E0441.1060706@nerim.net> <1129188650.5150.18.camel@spinoza> <434E52F5.5060106@cola.iges.org> <1129235781.5150.57.camel@spinoza> <742428727.20051014000232@kungzhi.org> <1129247666.5150.95.camel@spinoza> <434FACC8.90608@nerim.net> <1129346845.4706.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <435107D4.3000506@nerim.net> James A. Stroble wrote: > One of my teachers was of the opinion that the Bhagavad Gita was > composed as a rebuttal of Buddhist (and Jain) pacifism, holding up the > idea of dharma yoga and the renunciation of fruits, while keeping the > military. The military or any other form of sacrifice (XVIII,5). "The renunciation of prescribed action is not proper" (XVIII, 7), which is not without reminding one of a universally spread precept of the need to conform with nature (Stoicism, Taoism). Bergson even included human made laws in "nature" (stoicism already taught to not control that over which one doesn't have any control). And with Buddhism shifting from a more individual approach (which already focussed on anatta) to more social values, any individual needs became suspect or superfluous. The notion of Buddha activity is one of spontaneous activity which is merely the result of previous aspiration prayers (pranidhana), which aren't even one's individual aspiration prayers put a preset programme, the general consensus, that one simply complies with. So the equation "No (individualist) thinking = No-mind = No-self = No karma" had been in the make for a while. > This is the notion of Upaya, skillful action that does not generate > karma, the non-violent violence of Mahayana. I suspect there is no > such thing, it probably is the result of westernization. It might be > paired with the western notion of "bloody hands," the tragedy of the > absolute moral necessity of doing something that is absolutely wrong. I > tend to think of Buddhism as not being tragic. Your remark about tragedy reminded me of Kundera's last essay book "le rideau" (of which I have only read excerpts). http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/2003/05/KUNDERA/10169 read under "ET SI LE TRAGIQUE NOUS AVAIT ABANDONN?S ?" http://mondediplo.com/2003/05/14kundera The French article with excerpts is freely available, the English translation of it isn't unfortunately. Anyway, I could recommend le Monde Diplomatique, it's an excellent, though mainly leftish, magazine. The interesting idea in it is the exemple of Creon versus Antigone, the interests of society versus those of the individual (Beni's discussion with Curt), both defending a relative partial truth that can be justified, but which can only prevail through the total ruin of the other. This makes the antagonists both right and guilty and without this notion of guilt no future reconciliation is possible. > And I have always wondered about the guardians one always sees in Sinic > Buddhism, squishing demons and what not. Does the Buddha need > protecting? I always tend to interpret that sort of violent representations on the symbolic level of an inner sacred war (and presume everybody does), but perhaps I shouldn't let them get away with it that easily. One could wonder whether an even an internal battle is desirable at all? Wouldn't that be violence too? Joy Vriens From joy.vriens at nerim.net Sat Oct 15 07:51:11 2005 From: joy.vriens at nerim.net (Joy Vriens) Date: Sat Oct 15 07:58:33 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism In-Reply-To: <14138687.20051015034940@kungzhi.org> References: <00a801c5ceb1$0c557eb0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <020801c5cf2c$84bc70e0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <434D2A04.5090803@nerim.net> <434D33CB.9050603@cola.iges.org> <434D5216.2000405@nerim.net> <434D6684.9020608@cola.iges.org> <294991653.20051013194841@kungzhi.org> <434EA1EA.30109@cola.iges.org> <14138687.20051015034940@kungzhi.org> Message-ID: <4351094F.5020309@nerim.net> Beni wrote: > I understand you. The problem, for me, is that I > don't believe in individuality. It's a social > construction that I would like to see disappear. I > think that the individuality myth (and the individuals > it has created) is one of the worst human inventions. I > tend to think that "individuals" are "society members," > so I'm going to try to reflect that in my discourse. An individual is only the sum of various coexisting physical experiences, impulses and ideas at a given moment, like a society is. An individual is a society (or maybe I am totally schizophrenic) on a lower level if you like. What is good about society and what is bad about an individual? Joy From parisjm2004 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 15 08:17:14 2005 From: parisjm2004 at yahoo.com (Michael Paris) Date: Sat Oct 15 08:18:38 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Speaking of tests... In-Reply-To: <1129254296.7832.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20051015141715.16912.qmail@web32612.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Roman Catholicism, at least the old, pre-Vatican II style (Latin Mass, incense, and all, in which I was raised) is a wonderful religion IF AND ONLY IF you take away the male-dominated hierarchy, fixations on guilt, and the notions of sin. Sin, in the sense of "missing the mark," isn't such a bad concept. But using it as a rod, whip, and instrument of torture really isn't very nice. --Michael --- "Richard P. Hayes" wrote: > It's difficult to tell from early poll results, but a quickly formed > impression is that Roman Catholicism and and Islam are not faring > very well among buddha-l subscribers. __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From jwilson101 at gmail.com Fri Oct 14 14:09:59 2005 From: jwilson101 at gmail.com (Jeff Wilson) Date: Sat Oct 15 08:36:10 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Unitarian-Universalist Buddhism Message-ID: Dear Ricahrd, Michael, and other fellow Buddha-Lers, I'm the editor of the journal of the Unitarian-Universalist Buddhist Fellowship, and of the UUBF website. I'm also a long-time Buddha-L subscriber, although I rarely comment (I use H-BUDDHISM when I have a query). And I'm a PhD student in Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; my primary research area is Buddhism in North America. I've been reading the recent exchanges about Unitarian-Universalism and Buddhism. If anyone has any questions about UUBF or the historical relationship between these two religions, I can to try and lend a hand or suggest resources. I'm happy to converse off-list if preferred. Sincerely, Jeff Wilson Dept. of Religious Studies UNC-Chapel Hill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20051014/e394e78a/attachment-0001.html From rhayes at unm.edu Sat Oct 15 10:17:51 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Sat Oct 15 10:18:37 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Quakerly Buddhism (was: Speaking of tests...) In-Reply-To: <20051015141715.16912.qmail@web32612.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20051015141715.16912.qmail@web32612.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1129393071.4495.30.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Sat, 2005-10-15 at 07:17 -0700, Michael Paris wrote: > Roman Catholicism, at least the old, pre-Vatican II style (Latin Mass, > incense, and all, in which I was raised) is a wonderful religion IF AND > ONLY IF you take away the male-dominated hierarchy, fixations on guilt, > and the notions of sin. In other words, Roman Catholicism would be just fine if it were Liberal Protestantism or Unitarian Universalism. Similarly, Theravada Buddhism would be just fine if it weren't for the exclusively male sangha, the inequality of monks and the laity, the fixation on nirvana and the dogmas of karma and rebirth. Let's face it, Michael. We don't belong on buddha-l. We such just pack our Buddy Holly records up and leave these nice folks alone. By the way, yesterday I looked through my past files to see where the list on Quaker Buddhism was. My research showed that I was suffering from yet another bout of false memory syndrome. (I have about five major attacks a day.) The list I used to subscribe to was QUAKER-L. There were a few discussions of Buddhism there once upon a time, but the list is mostly for and about liberal Quakerism (not to be confused with the fundamentalist type of bible-thumping Quakerism that foisted Richard M. Nixon onto us.) It was a great list, and I may go back to it some day if I get fed up with the fawning admiration of Unitarian Buddhists for Thich Nhat Hanh. (I like Thich Nhat Hanh, too, but I don't have much of a stomach for any kind of fawning.) In my search for the mythical Buddhist Quaker list, I did turn up an interesting essay by one Rhoda Gilman. She writes in an essay called "Thoughts from a Quaker-Buddhist" that she has found the profound silence and tranquility of a vipassana retreat far more satisfying than a Quaker meeting of silent worship. (I never found Vipassana very tranquil, but that could be because I took my mind with me. Still, I think I know what she means.) She observes that the greatest gift that Buddhism has to give Quakers is the deep recognition of emptiness and impermanence, and the equanimity that results from confronting them. What I found most interesting about Rhoda Gilman's essay was a part in which she asks what Quakers have to offer Buddhism. Her answers surprised me a bit, but made a lot of sense when I thought about them for a while. The first thing she thinks Quakers have to offer Buddhism is compassion! Buddhist compassion, she observes, is almost entirely theoretical and mythical and too rarely boils over into the kind of hands-on activism of Quakerism. (This reminds me of the nearly universal criticism of traditional Buddhism in the many so-called New Religions in Korea and Japan.) The second thing Rhoda thinks Quakers have to offer Buddhism is the model of a genuinely wholesome sangha. Her notion of a wholesome sangha is one in which there is complete gender equality, equality of students and teacher, and equality of social classes. Without this kind of equality, she says, there can be no true community. Rhoda also observes that without equality there can be no true pacifism. She observes that Sri Lankan Quakers have done a lot of work in helping Sinhalese Buddhists arrive at more peaceful relations with both Tamil Hindus and with Muslims.The Buddhists on their own have failed pretty miserably in this area. -- Richard Hayes From horowitz at chass.utoronto.ca Sat Oct 15 14:16:33 2005 From: horowitz at chass.utoronto.ca (Gad Horowitz) Date: Sat Oct 15 11:08:35 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism References: <00a801c5ceb1$0c557eb0$2c1b9c04@Dan><020801c5cf2c$84bc70e0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <434D2A04.5090803@nerim.net><434D33CB.9050603@cola.iges.org> <434D5216.2000405@nerim.net><434D6684.9020608@cola.iges.org> <294991653.20051013194841@kungzhi.org><434EA1EA.30109@cola.iges.org> <14138687.20051015034940@kungzhi.org> Message-ID: <00a901c5d1c5$58511b00$7dee6480@chass> the question is whether individuals are MERELY members.does membership not presuppose some degree of individuality (self-organization) (integrity)? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Benito Carral" To: "Buddhist discussion forum" Sent: Friday, October 14, 2005 6:49 PM Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism > On Thursday, October 13, 2005, Curt wrote: > > > As an anarcho-communist I'm inclined to say that > > spontaneously and volutarily organized communities > > can exist in a way that not only doesn't tred on > > individuals - but that offer human beings the only > > real chance we have to fully realize our > > individuality. > > I understand you. The problem, for me, is that I > don't believe in individuality. It's a social > construction that I would like to see disappear. I > think that the individuality myth (and the individuals > it has created) is one of the worst human inventions. I > tend to think that "individuals" are "society members," > so I'm going to try to reflect that in my discourse. > > Best wishes, > > Beni > > > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From horowitz at chass.utoronto.ca Sat Oct 15 14:13:39 2005 From: horowitz at chass.utoronto.ca (Gad Horowitz) Date: Sat Oct 15 11:08:47 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism References: <00a801c5ceb1$0c557eb0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <020801c5cf2c$84bc70e0$2c1b9c04@Dan><434D2A04.5090803@nerim.net> <434D33CB.9050603@cola.iges.org><434D5216.2000405@nerim.net> <434D6684.9020608@cola.iges.org><434E0441.1060706@nerim.net> <1129188650.5150.18.camel@spinoza><434E52F5.5060106@cola.iges.org> <1129235781.5150.57.camel@spinoza> <742428727.20051014000232@kungzhi.org><1129247666.5150.95.camel@spinoza> <434FACC8.90608@nerim.net> Message-ID: <00a101c5d1c4$f0b33a00$7dee6480@chass> any link in a chain, especially if it is a living being, offers resistance. if there were no resistance, there would be no "links". link implies separation, not mere conduction of previous events. resistance is not eliminable from chaining. or to put this in more familiar language, you can't not decide. nondecision is decision. for us buddhists etc. the question would be what decision is conducive tothe enlightenment of the last blade of grass, etc. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joy Vriens" To: "Buddhist discussion forum" Sent: Friday, October 14, 2005 6:04 AM Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism > James A. Stroble wrote: > > > So Joy, ya got my back? (We really have to stop using these combative > > terms to refer to our debate here!) > > You have been of a perfect clarity and don't need any help. Dan can > relax. :-) > > When I read passages from Zen at war or similar texts, and reports about > Lama Zhang from the Tibetan tradition, I am very much reminded of the > desinterested action (also in a war context...) of the Bhagavad gita or > even of the notion of spontaneous Buddha activity. Is there any link? > > "This is Zen bushido in action: Killing as high art. The soldiers are > being taught the perfect etiquette in beheading - the exact way to > cleanse the sword, the proper way to swing the weapon, the strong virile > shout. With this image in mind, consider the following passage that D. > T. Suzuki wrote at the same time as the Nanking massacre: "... the art > of swordsmanship distinguishes between the sword that kills and the > sword that gives life. The one that is used by a technician cannot go > any further than killing.... The case is altogether different with the > one who is compelled to lift the sword. For it is really not he but the > sword itself that does the killing. He had no desire to harm anybody, > but the enemy appears and makes himself a victim. It is though the sword > automatically performs its function of justice, which is the function of > mercy?. the swordsman turns into an artist of the first grade, engaged > in producing a work of genuine originality." > > No thinking = No-mind = No-self = No karma or acting which is free of > the three circles (subject, object and action) and which is therefore > non-action. > > So either one totally effaces one's self, dissolves it, so that one > becomes a selfless actor or rather actorless activity, a totally > obedient (because not opposing any resistance) link in a chain, becoming > one with whatever programme needs to be carried out, or one retains a > bit of Tom's "personal ontological purity", a bit of personal judgement > about what it is right or wrong and the possibility to resist that > programme or the "general interest". Making choices creates anxiety and > responsibility. One can be much more in peace when no choices need to > made. One's own purity doesn't need to be a selfish concern and is > therefore not necessarily a comfortable thing. > > Joy > > > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From rhayes at unm.edu Sat Oct 15 12:20:54 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Sat Oct 15 12:28:35 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Speaking of tests... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1129400454.5873.2.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Fri, 2005-10-14 at 01:41 -0400, Dante Rosati wrote: > This one seems more accurate: > > http://www.tk421.net/character/ This one suggested that the character closest to my personality is Samwise Gamgee. Alas, I am much too tall to be a hobbit. -- Richard Hayes From parisjm2004 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 15 13:06:29 2005 From: parisjm2004 at yahoo.com (Michael Paris) Date: Sat Oct 15 13:08:36 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Speaking of tests... In-Reply-To: <1129400454.5873.2.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20051015190629.91037.qmail@web32614.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I'd rather be a Ring Wraith. The bad guys have the best costumes, the cheesiest lines, the best horses and weapons, and a h--- of a lot of fun. Nor do they suffer existential angst. Or upset stomachs. Besides, don't the girls always fall for the baddies? Michael --- "Richard P. Hayes" wrote: > On Fri, 2005-10-14 at 01:41 -0400, Dante Rosati wrote: > > > This one seems more accurate: > > > > http://www.tk421.net/character/ > > This one suggested that the character closest to my personality is > Samwise Gamgee. Alas, I am much too tall to be a hobbit. > > -- > Richard Hayes __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From rhayes at unm.edu Sat Oct 15 13:45:56 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Sat Oct 15 13:48:36 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] RE: Speaking of tests... In-Reply-To: <20051015190629.91037.qmail@web32614.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20051015190629.91037.qmail@web32614.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1129405557.5873.84.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Sat, 2005-10-15 at 12:06 -0700, Michael Paris wrote: > Besides, don't the girls always fall for the baddies? Yes, but they usually end up with scabs on their knees. -- Richard Hayes From bclough at aucegypt.edu Sat Oct 15 14:15:04 2005 From: bclough at aucegypt.edu (bclough) Date: Sat Oct 15 14:18:39 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Quakerly Buddhism (was: Speaking of tests...) Message-ID: Richard Hayes wrote: > Similarly, Theravada Buddhism would be just fine if it weren't for the exclusively male sangha... Agreed, Theravada in South and SE Asia has been largely patriarchal, but it's worth noting that that the Bhikkhuni-sangha was restored in Sri Lankan Buddhism in 1997 (via a Taiwanese lineage, as I recall). Not all Sri Lankan mahatheras have accepted this, but many (most?) have, and that's a step in the right direction... And prior to this, many women renunciants in Theravada societies had ignored the supposed need for male approval and lived the full-fledged monastic life as "ten-precept mothers"... And I'm not so sure the situation is that much better for bhikshunis in Mahayana societies. Typically, their status is decidely second- class. Brad From marshallarts at bigpond.com Sat Oct 15 16:59:34 2005 From: marshallarts at bigpond.com (Kate) Date: Sat Oct 15 17:08:43 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism References: <00a801c5ceb1$0c557eb0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <020801c5cf2c$84bc70e0$2c1b9c04@Dan><434D2A04.5090803@nerim.net> <434D33CB.9050603@cola.iges.org><434D5216.2000405@nerim.net> <434D6684.9020608@cola.iges.org><434E0441.1060706@nerim.net> <1129188650.5150.18.camel@spinoza><434E52F5.5060106@cola.iges.org> <1129235781.5150.57.camel@spinoza> <742428727.20051014000232@kungzhi.org><1129247666.5150.95.camel@spinoza> <434FACC8.90608@nerim.net> Message-ID: <003a01c5d1dc$1ca1c020$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> Hi Everyone, I am new to the study of Buddhism. I have limited access to my teachers so a lot of my knowledge has come from my interpretation of what I've read and personal insights. However I don't know if these interpretations and insights are correct. Would someone please look over the following statements regarding karma and tell me if I've missed something basic. Firstly, I was under the impression that it is the intent behind an act that counts, not so much the act itself. Secondly, any act has to be done out of compassion and wisdom, that they are two sides of the same coin. In other words, it might be compassionate to let one's home be overrun by a plague of mice, spiders, etc but it wouldn't be very wise. Likewise, while it would be wise to call in the pest exterminator, this doesn't mean that one takes pleasure in the prospect of all the creatures dying. This is the same with defending oneself or another. On one level, it might be compassionate to standby while an attacker acts but it wouldn't be very wise. Wisdom dictates the need for action but compassion dictates what that action should be. A defence shouldn't be made out of fear, hate, anger, revenge etc and should be as non-violent as possible. Thirdly, a lot of writers on Buddhism (and Hinduism) seem to use "karma" as the term for the result of action. I've been taught that karma was "action". It is the term for the act, the doing, and not the term for the result of the action. The result is "karma vipaka", the fruits of karma. Also that in Buddhism (though not Hinduism), "karma" refers to acts of the mind instead of physical as any physical act first occurs in the mind. This is why Right Thought is so important as a deed is considered done even if the perpetrator has only thought it. I can't remember any members here using the term karma vipaka. Is anyone familiar with it? Thanks for your help Kate From marshallarts at bigpond.com Sat Oct 15 17:08:19 2005 From: marshallarts at bigpond.com (Kate) Date: Sat Oct 15 17:18:39 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Theravada & Sarvastivada References: <00a801c5ceb1$0c557eb0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <020801c5cf2c$84bc70e0$2c1b9c04@Dan><434D2A04.5090803@nerim.net> <434D33CB.9050603@cola.iges.org><434D5216.2000405@nerim.net> <434D6684.9020608@cola.iges.org><434E0441.1060706@nerim.net> <1129188650.5150.18.camel@spinoza><434E52F5.5060106@cola.iges.org> <1129235781.5150.57.camel@spinoza> <742428727.20051014000232@kungzhi.org> <1129247666.5150.95.camel@spinoza><434FACC8.90608@nerim.net><1129346845.4706.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> <435107D4.3000506@nerim.net> Message-ID: <001801c5d1dd$558b5760$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> Hi Everyone, I was wondering if someone could help with another question, please. Is Theravada an offshoot of Sarvastivada (or vice versa) or are they two unrelated non-Mahayana schools? I've tried looking this up in various places but keep getting conflicting info. Many thanks! Kate From parisjm2004 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 15 18:49:33 2005 From: parisjm2004 at yahoo.com (Michael Paris) Date: Sat Oct 15 18:58:43 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: An experiment (Gender on Buddha-l) In-Reply-To: <6f2f8d6da24936d28ad474792e94b5e5@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <20051016004933.73769.qmail@web32613.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Franz, I've enjoyed the interchange. Must be my Libra Sun coming out . Differences are good. I value the exchanges between the various list members. Informed discussion are a pleasure. Indeed, to engage is to learn and benefit. It's not always good to be shy. Michael --- Franz Metcalf wrote: > Michael, > > I'm sorry I don't have time to adequately respond to you. I'll just > say that I generally agree with what you write. Any "need" for buddha-l > to be more inclusive is merely my perceived need, not a constitutionally > or religiously mandated need (since buddha-l never was "Buddhist," > and is no longer "academic"). I simply "feel" (yes, a highly subjective > word) that there is more to difference than difference of opinion, > and that the list would benefit from such difference. > > But, hey, it's already good, and, I think, more than an "amusement." > To really engage others in conversation on the dharma (broadly > defined) is not a diversion, it is awakened activity. It better be, or I am > really blowing this priceless human birth. > > Franz __________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page! http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From curt at cola.iges.org Sat Oct 15 18:49:00 2005 From: curt at cola.iges.org (curt) Date: Sat Oct 15 18:59:53 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism In-Reply-To: <003a01c5d1dc$1ca1c020$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> References: <00a801c5ceb1$0c557eb0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <020801c5cf2c$84bc70e0$2c1b9c04@Dan><434D2A04.5090803@nerim.net> <434D33CB.9050603@cola.iges.org><434D5216.2000405@nerim.net> <434D6684.9020608@cola.iges.org><434E0441.1060706@nerim.net> <1129188650.5150.18.camel@spinoza><434E52F5.5060106@cola.iges.org> <1129235781.5150.57.camel@spinoza> <742428727.20051014000232@kungzhi.org><1129247666.5150.95.camel@spinoza> <434FACC8.90608@nerim.net> <003a01c5d1dc$1ca1c020$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> Message-ID: <4351A37C.2090309@cola.iges.org> Kate wrote: >Hi Everyone, > >I am new to the study of Buddhism. I have limited access to my teachers so >a lot of my knowledge has come from my interpretation of what I've read and >personal insights. However I don't know if these interpretations and >insights are correct. Would someone please look over the following >statements regarding karma and tell me if I've missed something basic. > >Firstly, I was under the impression that it is the intent behind an act that >counts, not so much the act itself. > You should seriously consider getting Rupert Gethin's "Foundations of Buddhism". Its probably just what you need. I am tempted to say its what everyone needs, but maybe that's going too far. If you look up "karma" in the index (I highly recommend reading the whole thing straight through before just looking things up in the index, though) you'll find lots of insightful things. Like on page 120 Gethin quotes from the Anguttara Nikaaya: "It is intention that I call karma; having formed the intention one performs acts (karma) by body speech and mind." But not only does not answer your question - it obviously makes things even worse. First the Buddha says that intention is karma, but then he says that karma is precisely the actions that are performed once the intention is formed. But of course Gethin provides the reference, so you can find the whole passage on the internet (at http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/anguttara/an06-063.html - scroll down to the section labeled [5]): "'Kamma should be known. The cause by which kamma comes into play should be known. The diversity in kamma should be known. The result of kamma should be known. The cessation of kamma should be known. The path of practice for the cessation of kamma should be known.' Thus it has been said. In reference to what was it said? "Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect. "And what is the cause by which kamma comes into play? Contact is the cause by which kamma comes into play. "And what is the diversity in kamma? There is kamma to be experienced in hell, kamma to be experienced in the realm of common animals, kamma to be experienced in the realm of the hungry shades, kamma to be experienced in the human world, kamma to be experienced in the world of the devas. This is called the diversity in kamma. "And what is the result of kamma? The result of kamma is of three sorts, I tell you: that which arises right here & now, that which arises later [in this lifetime], and that which arises following that. This is called the result of kamma. "And what is the cessation of kamma? From the cessation of contact is the cessation of kamma; and just this noble eightfold path -- right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration -- is the path of practice leading to the cessation of kamma. "Now when a disciple of the noble ones discerns kamma in this way, the cause by which kamma comes into play in this way, the diversity of kamma in this way, the result of kamma in this way, the cessation of kamma in this way, & the path of practice leading to the cessation of kamma in this way, then he discerns this penetrative holy life as the cessation of kamma. "'Kamma should be known. The cause by which kamma comes into play... The diversity in kamma... The result of kamma... The cessation of kamma... The path of practice for the cessation of kamma should be known.' Thus it has been said, and in reference to this was it said." - Curt From rhayes at unm.edu Sat Oct 15 19:33:26 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Sat Oct 15 19:38:43 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Theravada & Sarvastivada In-Reply-To: <001801c5d1dd$558b5760$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> References: <00a801c5ceb1$0c557eb0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <020801c5cf2c$84bc70e0$2c1b9c04@Dan><434D2A04.5090803@nerim.net> <434D33CB.9050603@cola.iges.org><434D5216.2000405@nerim.net> <434D6684.9020608@cola.iges.org><434E0441.1060706@nerim.net> <1129188650.5150.18.camel@spinoza><434E52F5.5060106@cola.iges.org> <1129235781.5150.57.camel@spinoza> <742428727.20051014000232@kungzhi.org> <1129247666.5150.95.camel@spinoza><434FACC8.90608@nerim.net> <1129346845.4706.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> <435107D4.3000506@nerim.net> <001801c5d1dd$558b5760$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> Message-ID: <1129426407.8400.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Sun, 2005-10-16 at 09:08 +1000, Kate wrote: > I was wondering if someone could help with another question, please. Is > Theravada an offshoot of Sarvastivada (or vice versa) or are they two > unrelated non-Mahayana schools? They are both non-Mahayana canonical schools, but they had somewhat different canons. It seems most likely that neither is an offshoot of the other, but both are offshoots of what some scholars call primitive Buddhism. -- Richard Hayes From rhayes at unm.edu Sat Oct 15 19:30:50 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Sat Oct 15 19:38:52 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism In-Reply-To: <003a01c5d1dc$1ca1c020$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> References: <00a801c5ceb1$0c557eb0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <020801c5cf2c$84bc70e0$2c1b9c04@Dan><434D2A04.5090803@nerim.net> <434D33CB.9050603@cola.iges.org><434D5216.2000405@nerim.net> <434D6684.9020608@cola.iges.org><434E0441.1060706@nerim.net> <1129188650.5150.18.camel@spinoza><434E52F5.5060106@cola.iges.org> <1129235781.5150.57.camel@spinoza> <742428727.20051014000232@kungzhi.org> <1129247666.5150.95.camel@spinoza> <434FACC8.90608@nerim.net> <003a01c5d1dc$1ca1c020$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> Message-ID: <1129426250.8400.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Sun, 2005-10-16 at 08:59 +1000, Kate wrote: > I am new to the study of Buddhism. I have limited access to my teachers so > a lot of my knowledge has come from my interpretation of what I've read and > personal insights. I'm sure you've already done so, but I think one of the best sites for basic information on the kinds of questions your are asking is www.accesstoinsight.org. > Firstly, I was under the impression that it is the intent behind an act that > counts, not so much the act itself. Both intention and the act itself are important. But you are right that the more important factor is intention. > Thirdly, a lot of writers on Buddhism (and Hinduism) seem to use "karma" as > the term for the result of action. I've been taught that karma was > "action". It is the term for the act, the doing, and not the term for the > result of the action. The result is "karma vipaka", the fruits of karma. Yes, that is correct. > Also that in Buddhism (though not Hinduism), "karma" refers to acts of the > mind instead of physical as any physical act first occurs in the mind. In both Hinduism and Buddhism, karma refers to mental actions (including intentions) and the bodily and verbal conduct that results. > I can't remember any members here using the term karma vipaka. For twelve years I have been nagging people to use that term (or its translation, ripening of karma) when it is appropriate. Thank you for yet another gentle reminder. As for you analysis of self-defense or exterminating termites, the intention to get rid of pests is a kind of aversion and is therefore potentially unwholesome. More wholesome is the intention to get rid of greed, hatred and delusion, wherever it occurs. Termites are not greedy. They are just making a living, the same as you. As for an assailant (or a terrorist), there is nothing unwholesome in neutralizing his hatred and other harmful states. It is much less wholesome to harm him. -- Richard Hayes From marshallarts at bigpond.com Sat Oct 15 21:35:09 2005 From: marshallarts at bigpond.com (Kate) Date: Sat Oct 15 21:38:43 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism References: <00a801c5ceb1$0c557eb0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <020801c5cf2c$84bc70e0$2c1b9c04@Dan><434D2A04.5090803@nerim.net> <434D33CB.9050603@cola.iges.org><434D5216.2000405@nerim.net> <434D6684.9020608@cola.iges.org><434E0441.1060706@nerim.net> <1129188650.5150.18.camel@spinoza><434E52F5.5060106@cola.iges.org> <1129235781.5150.57.camel@spinoza> <742428727.20051014000232@kungzhi.org><1129247666.5150.95.camel@spinoza> <434FACC8.90608@nerim.net><003a01c5d1dc$1ca1c020$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> <4351A37C.2090309@cola.iges.org> Message-ID: <000701c5d202$9c1f6d40$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> Hi Curt, Thank you for your response. Taking the quotes in your post individually to see if I've understood them correctly: "It is intention that I call kamma?..". As ?karma? means ?action?, this is saying ?It is intention that I call action? This seems to be the same as my comment in my last para - "'karma' refers to acts of the mind". Intention/action/karma occurs in the mind, whether or not it is given physical expression. "??having formed the intention one performs acts (kamma) by body speech and mind". Here if, in keeping with the first quote above, we replace "intention" with "karma", this part of the statement would read "having formed the karma one performs karma by body speech and mind". To me, this isn?t saying that acts of body and speech are karma in themselves, only that body and speech are physical vehicles which enable karma/intention/mental acts to be carried out in the physical. (It would seem that "mind" in the phrase "body speech and mind" is referring here to the mental processes necessary to carry out the acts of body and speech.) "'Kamma should be known? = intention/action should be known. ?The cause by which kamma comes into play should be known. And what is the cause by which kamma comes into play? Contact is the cause by which kamma comes into play" = the six senses (5 physical, 1 mental) ?The result of kamma should be known. The cessation of kamma should be known. The path of practice for the cessation of kamma should be known.? - These are referring to grasping and suffering, the Four NobleTruths and the Noble 8 Fold Path. Any corrections to the above are welcomed. Thanks for the link, Curt, and book recommendation. I?ll follow these up. Kate From marshallarts at bigpond.com Sat Oct 15 21:42:42 2005 From: marshallarts at bigpond.com (Kate) Date: Sat Oct 15 21:48:43 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Theravada & Sarvastivada References: <00a801c5ceb1$0c557eb0$2c1b9c04@Dan><020801c5cf2c$84bc70e0$2c1b9c04@Dan><434D2A04.5090803@nerim.net><434D33CB.9050603@cola.iges.org><434D5216.2000405@nerim.net><434D6684.9020608@cola.iges.org><434E0441.1060706@nerim.net><1129188650.5150.18.camel@spinoza><434E52F5.5060106@cola.iges.org><1129235781.5150.57.camel@spinoza> <742428727.20051014000232@kungzhi.org><1129247666.5150.95.camel@spinoza><434FACC8.90608@nerim.net><1129346845.4706.14.camel@localhost.localdomain><435107D4.3000506@nerim.net><001801c5d1dd$558b5760$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> <1129426407.8400.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <000d01c5d203$a9c93d80$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> Thanks for this info, Richard. Taking this further, my notes say that Sautrantika is a development of Sarvastivada, and that Sautrantika in turn gave rise to Yogacara. However I also have it that Yogacara is Mahayana. Is this correct? I'm having trouble putting all this together. Thank you. Kate From dylan at tweney.com Sat Oct 15 21:44:08 2005 From: dylan at tweney.com (d f tweney) Date: Sat Oct 15 21:58:44 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Vipassana? Message-ID: Can someone give me (or point me to) a good description of what makes "vipassana" meditation unique -- or what differentiates it from, say, Zen meditation? I have read descriptions of vipassana meditation, which is sometimes called "insight meditation," but the descriptions/prescriptions seem to differ very little from what I've read (and experienced) of the Zen approach. Is there a difference of focus, or emphasis? thanks! -- Dylan Tweney writer / editor dylan@tweney.com / AIM: dtweney blog: http://dylan.tweney.com haiku: http://tinywords.com From marshallarts at bigpond.com Sat Oct 15 22:24:49 2005 From: marshallarts at bigpond.com (Kate) Date: Sat Oct 15 22:28:46 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism References: <00a801c5ceb1$0c557eb0$2c1b9c04@Dan><020801c5cf2c$84bc70e0$2c1b9c04@Dan><434D2A04.5090803@nerim.net><434D33CB.9050603@cola.iges.org><434D5216.2000405@nerim.net><434D6684.9020608@cola.iges.org><434E0441.1060706@nerim.net><1129188650.5150.18.camel@spinoza><434E52F5.5060106@cola.iges.org><1129235781.5150.57.camel@spinoza> <742428727.20051014000232@kungzhi.org><1129247666.5150.95.camel@spinoza> <434FACC8.90608@nerim.net><003a01c5d1dc$1ca1c020$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> <1129426250.8400.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <001901c5d209$8c12ad20$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> Hi Richard, > I'm sure you've already done so, but I think one of the best sites for > basic information on the kinds of questions your are asking is > www.accesstoinsight.org. Thanks for this link. I hadn't joined this already as I didn't know of its existence. I'm not doing any sort of Buddhist course as such so I don't know the various sources available. > As for you analysis of self-defense or exterminating termites, the > intention to get rid of pests is a kind of aversion and is therefore > potentially unwholesome. More wholesome is the intention to get rid of > greed, hatred and delusion, wherever it occurs. Termites are not greedy. > They are just making a living, the same as you. As for an assailant (or > a terrorist), there is nothing unwholesome in neutralizing his hatred > and other harmful states. It is much less wholesome to harm him. Sorry for the lame example. It was the best I could come up with on a Sunday morning. Why do you consider getting rid of pests a kind of aversion rather than prudent or wise? I agree that termites are just doing what termites do but wouldn't it be considered wise to stop them from doing so. The act is done to save the house, not to kill the termites. I agree it is unwholesome to harm an assailant which is why any reaction should be as non-violent as possible. I can't remember the details but I recall reading a Buddhist tale in which a murderer was terrorising a town. Everyone agreed that something should be done about him yet everyone was too worried about burning in hell if they killed the murderer. Finally one man came forward and said that for the sake of the others he would do the deed and risk the consequences. As it turned out, his act didn't attract karma vipaka after all. His willingness to kill and go to hell to protect others negated his having to go to hell. Wouldn't this apply to anyone who is forced to act in defence? I thought this tale was illustrating the Buddhist take on such matters. Kate From parisjm2004 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 15 22:33:30 2005 From: parisjm2004 at yahoo.com (Michael Paris) Date: Sat Oct 15 22:38:47 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism In-Reply-To: <4351A37C.2090309@cola.iges.org> Message-ID: <20051016043330.45126.qmail@web32602.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Curt, What do you think of Peter Harvey's An Introduction to Buddhism : Teachings, History and Practices ? That's recommended by amazon-dot for those who purchase Gethin's book. Michael --- curt wrote: [snip] > You should seriously consider getting Rupert Gethin's "Foundations of > Buddhism". [snip] __________________________________ Yahoo! Music Unlimited Access over 1 million songs. Try it free. http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/ From StormyTet at aol.com Sat Oct 15 22:48:55 2005 From: StormyTet at aol.com (StormyTet@aol.com) Date: Sat Oct 15 22:58:44 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Speaking of tests... Message-ID: <19e.3e422398.308335b7@aol.com> In a message dated 10/15/2005 1:31:54 P.M. Central Daylight Time, rhayes@unm.edu writes: > This one seems more accurate: > > http://www.tk421.net/character/ I was like Yoda. I dig that. I agree, this test is much more accurate. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20051016/37d9ed2b/attachment.htm From joy.vriens at nerim.net Sun Oct 16 02:25:36 2005 From: joy.vriens at nerim.net (Joy Vriens) Date: Sun Oct 16 02:28:52 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism In-Reply-To: <00a101c5d1c4$f0b33a00$7dee6480@chass> References: <00a801c5ceb1$0c557eb0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <020801c5cf2c$84bc70e0$2c1b9c04@Dan><434D2A04.5090803@nerim.net> <434D33CB.9050603@cola.iges.org><434D5216.2000405@nerim.net> <434D6684.9020608@cola.iges.org><434E0441.1060706@nerim.net> <1129188650.5150.18.camel@spinoza><434E52F5.5060106@cola.iges.org> <1129235781.5150.57.camel@spinoza> <742428727.20051014000232@kungzhi.org><1129247666.5150.95.camel@spinoza> <434FACC8.90608@nerim.net> <00a101c5d1c4$f0b33a00$7dee6480@chass> Message-ID: <43520E80.3000806@nerim.net> Gad Horowitz wrote: > any link in a chain, especially if it is a living being, offers resistance. > if there were no resistance, there would be no "links". link implies > separation, not mere conduction of previous events. resistance is not > eliminable from chaining. or to put this in more familiar language, you > can't not decide. nondecision is decision. Yes this makes sense to me. Rather than resistance we should perhaps call it individual input, your "decision". I used resistance because in the back of my mind I had Hannah Ahrend's Eichmann in Jerusalem. Because the chains are not always projects for the greatest good of all. If the projects of a society were always good for all there would be no inclination for individual resistance, but this isn't the case and do we ever agree on what is the greatest good? In many cases individual resistance, "false egos", have been a safeguard against collective folly. "One who is not motivated by false ego, whose intelligence is not entangled, though he kills men in this world, is not the slayer. Nor is he bound by his actions." (Bhagavad G. 18,17) yasya nahankrto bhavo buddhir yasya na lipyate hatvapi sa imal lokan na hanti na nibadhyate From ghoti at consultron.ca Sun Oct 16 03:49:59 2005 From: ghoti at consultron.ca (Tom Troughton) Date: Sun Oct 16 03:58:51 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism In-Reply-To: <1129426250.8400.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <200510160949.j9G9nvWW027928@mail4.magma.ca> On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 19:30:50 -0600, Richard P. Hayes wrote: >> Thirdly, a lot of writers on Buddhism (and Hinduism) seem to use "karma" as >> the term for the result of action. I've been taught that karma was >> "action". It is the term for the act, the doing, and not the term for the >> result of the action. The result is "karma vipaka", the fruits of karma. > >Yes, that is correct. I think there is a distinction between the karma, which is accumulated through action, and the ripening of karma, which occurs later when that 'seed' encounters the proper conditions to 'ripen'. Thus karma is not simply intention, nor simply act, but a link in an ongoing chain of causal consequences that necessarly includes intention, grasping, name-and-form, etc. Check for the 12 Dependently Related Links. Some [? later ?] thinkers also interpret this chain in other ways than a strictly causal explanation of the arising of various experiences - interdependence and so forth. The ripening of karma consists of the end of a particular causal chain, and thus it is an opportunity for liberation. However karma does not simply mean 'action'. Rather it seems to be the particular power of an intentional action to generate 'experience'. Generally speaking, this experience always has a component of suffering associated with it, so karma is always associated with suffering. 'Good' karma produces only a temporary state of affairs, and generally 'temporary' is synonymous (sp?) with 'suffering'. Best wishes, Tom From marshallarts at bigpond.com Sun Oct 16 04:26:18 2005 From: marshallarts at bigpond.com (Kate) Date: Sun Oct 16 04:28:53 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism References: <200510160949.j9G9nvWW027928@mail4.magma.ca> Message-ID: <000501c5d23c$0bad3aa0$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> Thanks, Tom! I've been doing a bit more reading since my previous comments and found similar references. Perhaps my initial thoughts on this were far too limited. Regards Kate From jehms at xs4all.nl Sun Oct 16 04:33:21 2005 From: jehms at xs4all.nl (Erik Hoogcarspel) Date: Sun Oct 16 04:38:50 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Vipassana? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43522C71.1050304@xs4all.nl> d f tweney schreef: > Can someone give me (or point me to) a good description of what makes > "vipassana" meditation unique -- or what differentiates it from, say, > Zen meditation? I have read descriptions of vipassana meditation, > which is sometimes called "insight meditation," but the > descriptions/prescriptions seem to differ very little from what I've > read (and experienced) of the Zen approach. Is there a difference of > focus, or emphasis? > > thanks! > Let me just try to describe what it feels like to me. When doing vipassana I let my thoughts calm down, fix my attention on the coming and going of the air through my nostrils (some like the rising and falling of the abdomen). I become aware of thoughts coming up and I realise they are just thoughts. I can have special attention for aspects like emotions, concepts, etc. but basically I am aware of the arising and subsiding of mental events. If I find this difficult I can just try to name and label the mental I become aware of. Zen is basically abiding in buddhanature. I sit without moving my body, let my thoughts calm down and try to forget past and future. I don't use any method, because that would keep the future present. If I'm to agitated I can try to use a method like counting my breaths, but I should return to the pure present when possible. If I'm lucky I experience moments of calmness and clearness of mind. Erik www.xs4all.nl/~jehms From mike at lamrim.org.uk Sun Oct 16 04:36:18 2005 From: mike at lamrim.org.uk (Mike Austin) Date: Sun Oct 16 04:38:55 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism In-Reply-To: <001901c5d209$8c12ad20$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> References: <00a801c5ceb1$0c557eb0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <020801c5cf2c$84bc70e0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <434D2A04.5090803@nerim.net> <434D33CB.9050603@cola.iges.org> <434D5216.2000405@nerim.net> <434D6684.9020608@cola.iges.org> <434E0441.1060706@nerim.net> <1129188650.5150.18.camel@spinoza> <434E52F5.5060106@cola.iges.org> <1129235781.5150.57.camel@spinoza> <742428727.20051014000232@kungzhi.org> <1129247666.5150.95.camel@spinoza> <434FACC8.90608@nerim.net> <003a01c5d1dc$1ca1c020$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> <1129426250.8400.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> <001901c5d209$8c12ad20$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> Message-ID: In message <001901c5d209$8c12ad20$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au>, Kate writes >Why do you consider getting rid of pests a kind of aversion >rather than prudent or wise? I agree that termites are just doing what >termites do but wouldn't it be considered wise to stop them from doing so. >The act is done to save the house, not to kill the termites. From what I have heard, karma occurs on the basis of one of the three afflictions - ignorance, attachment and aversion. Were you to kill the termites because you thought it was good, that would be ignorance. If you were to kill them to eat, that would be attachment. If you were to kill them because you disliked them, that would be aversion. The affliction that takes the termites as an object is the deciding factor. In the example you quote, it seems to be both the afflictions of ignorance and aversion. Aversion alone would motivate one to kill the termites wherever they are, and ignorance alone would probably mean that the question would not be asked at all. I had a similar situation many years ago when I had some major roof work done. The builders discovered a wasps nest and could not safely continue their work. Reluctantly, I had to call in pest control. In the meantime. I tried shifting the wasps myself by smoking them out with incense. I had no aversion to the wasps, and I was not entirely ignorant. However, turning a blind eye to things probably constituted ignorance. -- Metta Mike Austin From curt at cola.iges.org Sun Oct 16 08:18:35 2005 From: curt at cola.iges.org (curt) Date: Sun Oct 16 08:18:53 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism In-Reply-To: <20051016043330.45126.qmail@web32602.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20051016043330.45126.qmail@web32602.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4352613B.7010300@cola.iges.org> I really should have mentioned Harvey's book as well - and also Paul Williams excellent book. To be honest, the real reason that I got so much out of Gethin's books is almost certainly the fact that I read Harvey and Williams and then Gethin. Those are the "big three". They do have the disadvantage of all being by westerners - and they definitely betray a western sensibility with respect to Buddhism, in my opinion. There is a Japanese scholar who has published some books in English that are pretty good - his name is Kogen Mizuno. I read Kogen Mizuno's "Basic Buddhist Concepts" over 10 years ago - but I remember enjoying it a great deal. It is shorter, cheaper and more accessible than Gethin or Harvey or Williams - and its by someone who is from a "Buddhist culture", but not as "meaty". - Curt Michael Paris wrote: >Curt, > >What do you think of Peter Harvey's An Introduction to Buddhism : >Teachings, History and Practices ? That's recommended by amazon-dot for >those who purchase Gethin's book. > > >Michael > >--- curt wrote: > >[snip] > > > >>You should seriously consider getting Rupert Gethin's "Foundations of >>Buddhism". >> >> > >[snip] > > > > >__________________________________ >Yahoo! Music Unlimited >Access over 1 million songs. Try it free. >http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/ >_______________________________________________ >buddha-l mailing list >buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com >http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l > > > > From rhayes at unm.edu Sun Oct 16 09:48:12 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Sun Oct 16 09:48:55 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Theravada & Sarvastivada In-Reply-To: <000d01c5d203$a9c93d80$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> References: <00a801c5ceb1$0c557eb0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <020801c5cf2c$84bc70e0$2c1b9c04@Dan><434D2A04.5090803@nerim.net> <434D33CB.9050603@cola.iges.org><434D5216.2000405@nerim.net> <434D6684.9020608@cola.iges.org><434E0441.1060706@nerim.net> <1129188650.5150.18.camel@spinoza><434E52F5.5060106@cola.iges.org> <1129235781.5150.57.camel@spinoza> <742428727.20051014000232@kungzhi.org> <1129247666.5150.95.camel@spinoza><434FACC8.90608@nerim.net> <1129346845.4706.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> <435107D4.3000506@nerim.net> <001801c5d1dd$558b5760$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> <1129426407.8400.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> <000d01c5d203$a9c93d80$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> Message-ID: <1129477692.4378.6.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Sun, 2005-10-16 at 13:42 +1000, Kate wrote: > Taking this further, my notes say that Sautrantika is a development of > Sarvastivada, and that Sautrantika in turn gave rise to Yogacara. Sautrantika was a reaction to, and rejection of, scholasticism in general, one of the types of scholasticism being Sarvastivada. So you could say that Sautrantika was a development of Sarvastivada only in the sense that Christian Fundamentalism develops out of liberal Protestantism. There is no sense in which Yogacara grew out of Sautrantika. It was a different movement altogether. There was a bit of doctrinal overlap, enough that much later scholastics classified some individual philosophers as both Sautrantika and Yogacara. > However I also have it that Yogacara is Mahayana. Is this correct? I'm having > trouble putting all this together. Quite honestly, it's not worth the bother. The attempt to place people into schools is artificial in the extreme. The very idea of schools may have made some sense one thousand years ago in India, but now it really has no relevance at all, because none of those schools still exists. -- Richard Hayes From curt at cola.iges.org Sun Oct 16 10:58:12 2005 From: curt at cola.iges.org (curt) Date: Sun Oct 16 10:58:57 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Vipassana? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <435286A4.9030905@cola.iges.org> In Zen you can consider yourself lucky if you can find anyone who will provide you with any kind of "meditation instructions" at all. In Vipassana you can consider yourself lucky if you can remember half of all the stuff you were told to do during meditation. However, as zen has caught on in the west, there has been a tendency to elaborate a little more - or even a lot more. The same has happened with vipassana - but in the opposite direction - there has been a tendency to simplify a little, or even a lot. Perhaps this process of accommodating to western sensibilities has managed to make zen and vipassana sound the same or very similar. One can argue that that is a good thing - but one can also pretty easily see the potential dangers inherent in modifying meditation instructions in order to suit your audience. There is an underlying theoretical difference between Vipassana and Zen that helps to explain their different "meditations". In both Vipassana and Zen one could say that meditation is a tool for "investigating the dharmas", and in Vipassana there are lots of "dharmas", but in Zen there is, at most, only one. What "dharma" means here is "a thing that has inherent existence". These are the things that are "real", or "really real" - the things that everything else is made out of - but which themselves are not made from anything else. If you took the Universe completely apart until you couldn't take it apart any more - all you would have left is "dharmas". Vipassana meditation tends to be somewhat complicated precisely because it assume that there are actually lots of these things ("dharmas") to investigate. Zen on the other hand reflects either a Madhyamaka approach - in which there is "nothing" or "no thing" to investigate (as in "all dharmas are marked with emptiness"), or a Yogacara approach - in which there is just "one thing" to investigate (note: what you call the "one thing" hardly matters - so calling it "mind" is probably just a ruse to throw off the easily thrown-off.) But things are more complicated than that - because "vipassana" is not limited to schools or traditions that do not embrace Madhyamaka or Yogacara (and its far from clear who really embraces those "philosophical" schools anyway). Many "Mahayanists" adopt a developmental model to teaching, by positing multiple "turnings" of the "wheel of Dharma". In this approach the "Hinayana" is always the first turning of the wheel - and so that's where people are supposed to start. The meditation associated with "Hinayana" is usually very much like Vipassana, and can actually be called that or possibly something like "samatha-vipassana". The way in which meditation is taught and practiced and written about in Mahayana Buddhism is actually incredibly complex - and probably involves the importation of lots of non-Buddhist influences, including Central Asian Shamanism as well as stuff from "Hinduism" (like, for instance, Gods and Goddesses and Mantras and Dharanis). The above is a crude oversimplification that very likely violates "Einsteins rule of simplification": make everything as simple as possible, but no simpler. Paul Williams explains this business of "dharmas" a whole lot better in his "Buddhist Thought", but I don't think he explicitly draws out the implications for meditation. However, in my opinion, his ontological orientation in that book reflects an underlying assumption that Buddhism is fundamentally nihilistic. As far as I know I am the only person who has ever detected this bias - so it possibly isn't "really" there - but that begs the question: what is? - Curt d f tweney wrote: > Can someone give me (or point me to) a good description of what makes > "vipassana" meditation unique -- or what differentiates it from, say, > Zen meditation? I have read descriptions of vipassana meditation, > which is sometimes called "insight meditation," but the > descriptions/prescriptions seem to differ very little from what I've > read (and experienced) of the Zen approach. Is there a difference of > focus, or emphasis? > > thanks! > From s.hodge at padmacholing.freeserve.co.uk Sun Oct 16 12:17:16 2005 From: s.hodge at padmacholing.freeserve.co.uk (Stephen Hodge) Date: Sun Oct 16 12:20:06 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: +AFs-Buddha-l+AF0- Re: Theravada +ACY- Sarvastivada References: +ADw-00a801c5ceb1+ACQ-0c557eb0+ACQ-2c1b9c04+AEA-Dan+AD4APA-020801c5cf2c+ACQ-84bc70e0+ACQ-2c1b9c04+AEA-Dan+AD4APA-434D2A04.5090803+AEA-nerim.net+AD4APA-434D33CB.9050603+AEA-cola.iges.org+AD4APA-434D5216.2000405+AEA-nerim.net+AD4APA-434D6684.9020608+AEA-cola.iges.org+AD4APA-434E0441.1060706+AEA-nerim.net+AD4APA-1129188650.5150.18.camel+AEA-spinoza+AD4APA-434E52F5.5060106+AEA-cola.iges.org+AD4APA-1129235781.5150.57.camel+AEA-spinoza+AD4- +ADw-742428727.20051014000232+AEA-kungzhi.org+AD4APA-1129247666.5150.95.camel+AEA-spinoza+AD4APA-434FACC8.90608+AEA-nerim.net+AD4APA-1129346845.4706.14.camel+AEA-localhost.localdomain+AD4APA-435107D4.3000506+AEA-nerim.net+AD4APA-001801c5d1dd+ACQ-558b5760+ACQ-6900a8c0+AEA-vic.bigpond.net.au+AD4APA-1129426407.8400.14.camel+AEA-localhost.localdomain+AD4APA-000d01c5d203+ACQ-a9c93d80+ACQ-6900a8c0+AEA-vic.bigpond.net.au+AD4- +ADw-1129477692.4378.6.camel+AEA-localhost.localdomain+AD4- Message-ID: <001c01c5d27d$e971a010$22424e51@zen> Dear Richard & Kate, >> Taking this further, my notes say that Sautrantika is a development of >> Sarvastivada, and that Sautrantika in turn gave rise to Yogacara. > Sautrantika was a reaction to, and rejection of, scholasticism in > general, one of the types of scholasticism being Sarvastivada. There are other alternative explanations for the relationship between Sv and Sau. To my mind the most likely hypothesis is that at an early stage the Sv split into two branches, due in part to their separate geographical centres -- Kashmir and Mathura. The Kashmiri branch was the one which introduced doctrinal developments through their extensive commentorial literature culiminating in the Maha-vibhasa. In contrast, it seems that the Sv branch centred on Mathura rejected this doctrinal overlay derived from commentaries. At a certain stage of their history, the latter also called themselves the Mula-sarvastivada -- the "original" Sarvastivada. In their rejection of the Kashmiri commentorial innovations, it would have been quite natural for them, or some of them, to also call themselves "sautrantika" with respect to their stance on doctrinal matters. > There is no sense in which Yogacara grew out of Sautrantika. Au contraire, Richard. There is considerable evidence that there is a stronge connection between the two -- though, of course, other factors and influences were at work. Take another look at Schmidthausen's several papers on the subject, as well as Robert Kritzer's recent book, "Vasubandhu and the Yog?c?rabh?mi" (IIBS 2005). Another telling factor is the Agama (sutra )set used by the Yogacarins: the Mula-sarvastivadin version, which can also be linked to the Sautrantikas as the Abhidharmakosa sutra quotes illustrate. > Quite honestly, it's not worth the bother. The attempt to place people > into schools is artificial in the extreme. This is good advice -- also note that the Tibetan doxological tradition is especially unhelpful in this respect. Best wishes, Stephen Hodge From s-sarbacker at northwestern.edu Sun Oct 16 09:29:08 2005 From: s-sarbacker at northwestern.edu (Stuart Ray Sarbacker) Date: Sun Oct 16 12:23:38 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] yoga (TM) In-Reply-To: <200510151438.j9FEcunS016645@ns1.swcp.com> References: <200510151438.j9FEcunS016645@ns1.swcp.com> Message-ID: Erik Hoogcarspel wrote: >Stuart, thank you for your comment, however I wonder what's so >fascinating about this modernist bourgeois concept of intellectual >property. (I hope you'll not charge me for your email ;-) !) It's just >an attempt to import the structure of the financial field into the >cultural and religious fields. Since the beginnings of time ideas and >methods have been spread. Buddhists took meditations, asanas, vidyas, >kriyas and sadhanas from Hindus and Taoists and vice versa. Later Sufi's >came and took what they liked. In the West Plotin borrowed from Plato >and Augustine from Plotin, all for free. Everybody was happy and >thriving, because there was no selling or buying. Then came Maharishi >with his mantratrick and now initiations in Tibetan Buddhism have become >a substantial source of income. I liked the game in the times when you >were supposed to offer some cakes or fruit to the deity, now I think it >is totally degenerated. I think anyone who's claiming intellectual >propery is a fraud because this person is not an intellectual but a >mean salesman. For an intellectual ideas and methodes to get inspired or >elevate your mind are principally open source. Erik, I would largely agree with your evaluation here, that the patenting of these methods and making them "intellectual property" is in some contexts antithetical to the practices themselves. I suggested IP was fascinating in that it makes clear the connection to the 'materialization' of culture as 'property,' a process that may well be quite questionable in intent. On the other hand, my point about the resonance of initiatory schema with older models is that philosophical literature and ascetic/tantric techniques have often been the provenance of the materially well-off in the Indo-Tibetan context. With respect to yoga and tantra, I think David Gordon White's works and Ronald Davidson's present rather compelling arguments in this regard. I also would argue that yoga and meditation have long been utilized for worldly gain (if not material, then spiritual in the form of siddhis), and that some of the more 'material' forms of yoga today continue to operate on that logic (ascetic discipline leading to worldly power/prowess). I would agree in principle with the value of 'open source'--and in fact Buddha-L might be a good example of just such a thing. Best Wishes, Stuart -- Dr. Stuart Sarbacker Lecturer in Religion Director of Undergraduate Studies Department of Religion Northwestern University http://www.religion.northwestern.edu/faculty/sarbacker.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20051016/9dc76778/attachment.htm From rhayes at unm.edu Sun Oct 16 12:24:22 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Sun Oct 16 12:28:55 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism In-Reply-To: <20051016043330.45126.qmail@web32602.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20051016043330.45126.qmail@web32602.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1129487062.6353.1.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Sat, 2005-10-15 at 21:33 -0700, Michael Paris wrote: > What do you think of Peter Harvey's An Introduction to Buddhism : > Teachings, History and Practices ? That's recommended by amazon-dot for > those who purchase Gethin's book. Excellent book. I have used both Harvey and Gethin in courses on Buddhism. Students like them both, and so do I. -- Richard Hayes From rhayes at unm.edu Sun Oct 16 12:31:20 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Sun Oct 16 12:39:01 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Theravada & Sarvastivada In-Reply-To: <001c01c5d27d$e971a010$22424e51@zen> References: +ADw-00a801c5ceb1+ACQ-0c557eb0+ACQ-2c1b9c04+AEA-Dan+AD4APA-020801c5cf2c+ACQ-84bc70e0+ACQ-2c1b9c04+AEA-Dan+AD4APA-434D2A04.5090803+AEA-nerim.net+AD4APA-434D33CB.9050603+AEA-cola.iges.org+AD4APA-434D5216.2000405+AEA-nerim.net+AD4APA-434D6684.9020608+AEA-cola.iges.org+AD4APA-434E0441.1060706+AEA-nerim.net+AD4APA-1129188650.5150.18.camel+AEA-spinoza+AD4APA-434E52F5.5060106+AEA-cola.iges.org+AD4APA-1129235781.5150.57.camel+AEA-spinoza+AD4- +ADw-742428727.20051014000232+AEA-kungzhi.org+AD4APA-1129247666.5150.95.camel+AEA-spinoza+AD4APA-434FACC8.90608+AEA-nerim.net+AD4APA-1129346845.4706.14.camel+AEA-localhost.localdomain+AD4APA-435107D4.3000506+AEA-nerim.net+AD4APA-001801c5d1dd+ACQ-558b5760+ACQ-6900a8c0+AEA-vic.bigpond.net.au+AD4APA-1129426407.8400.14.camel+AEA-localhost.localdomain+AD4APA-000d01c5d203+ACQ-a9c93d80+ACQ-6900a8c0+AEA-vic.bigpond.net.au+AD4- +ADw-1129477692.4378.6.camel+AEA-localhost.localdomain+AD4- <001c01c5d27d$e971a010$22424e51@zen> Message-ID: <1129487480.6353.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Sun, 2005-10-16 at 19:17 +0100, Stephen Hodge wrote: > Take another look at Schmidthausen's several > papers on the subject, as well as Robert Kritzer's recent book, "Vasubandhu > and the Yog?c?rabh?mi" (IIBS 2005). I can't take another look at something I've not looked at even once. But thanks for the tip. In the unlikely event that I ever decide to learn something about Yogacara, I will surely take a look at Lambert Schmithausen's work and will make a note of Kritzer's work. -- Richard Hayes From rhayes at unm.edu Sun Oct 16 12:36:47 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Sun Oct 16 12:40:14 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] New AAR Group Message-ID: <1129487807.6353.12.camel@localhost.localdomain> Although it is usually considered very bad manners to forward a posting from one group to another, I thought this announcement on h-buddhism might be of interest to some folks on buddha-l, so I sought and obtained their permission to forward it here. -------- Forwarded Message -------- From: H-Buddhism Reply-To: h-buddhism@H-NET.MSU.EDU To: H-BUDDHISM@H-NET.MSU.EDU Subject: [H-BUDDHISM] ANNOUNCEMENT> New AAR Group (Jackson) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 18:06:08 +0900 From: Roger Jackson Subject: New AAR Group Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 10:10:09 -0500 Dear Colleagues, I'm pleased to announce that the American Academy of Religion has approved a new group, starting in 2006, "Buddhist Critical-Constructive Reflection." A description of the rationale for the group, a list of the initial steering committee, and the text of our proposed call for papers is found below. We hope many of you will be interested in submitting papers to and attending sessions of our group. For the steering committee, Roger Jackson Department of Religion Carleton College Northfield, MN 55057 O: 507-646-4226 H: 507-645-4780 Fax: 507-646-4223 email: rjackson@carleton.edu ********** New AAR Group: "Buddhist Critical-Constructive Reflection" Rationale: Contemporary Buddhist critical-constructive reflection is still very much emerging, but as part of an initial working definition, we could say it has the following purposes: (1) to critically analyze and make normative and other arguments regarding Buddhist thought and practice in light of contemporary disciplines and systematic understanding, (2) to suggest the relevance of the academic study of Buddhism to living Buddhist traditions and social and contemplative communities as they adapt to the modern world, and (3) to draw on the historical and systematic study of Buddhism to help inform applications of Buddhist knowledge to a variety of needs and problems of contemporary societies, such as in philosophy, psychology, ethics, therapy, social service, contemplative studies, the arts, education, medicine, care for the dying. Such work is of potential importance to three broad groups: scholars of religion and theology, Buddhist communities East and West, and contemporary societies that take increasing interest in applying Buddhist knowledge and practice to meet contemporary problems. Benefits: We envision a number of specific benefits, inside and beyond the academy, entailed by the establishment of the group on Buddhist Critical-Constructive Reflection. 1) One major problem in the study of Buddhism has been the lack of communication between the type of education and scholarship that takes place in modern Western secular universities and traditional Buddhist studies found in monasteries, Buddhist universities and dharma centers East and West. One of the mandates of the Buddhist Critical-Constructive Reflection group is to serve as a bridge between these various communities for mutual learning. As regards scholarship, modern Buddhist studies has shied away from exploring the relevance of its scholarly findings to Buddhist traditions as these struggle to adapt to the modern world. How, for example, can the academic study of religion serve as a resource for Buddhist communities East and West as they continue to change and adapt to the modern world? This type of question, which has hitherto been largely unexplored in an academic setting, is one that we see as central to the group. 2) Conversely, the group will encourage new forms of research into the contributions that Buddhist texts/thinkers/practices might make toward addressing contemporary problems in religion, culture and social issues (including ethical ones). Here the goal is to encourage a view of the Buddhist tradition as something that one can "not only think of, but also think with," as Bernard Faure has recently put it. 3) One of our goals is to lay the groundwork for dialogue with the scholarly theological communities of other religious traditions: Christian, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim, Confucian, and others. Following is a list of steering committee members. Steering Committee: Jos? Cabez?n (University of California at Santa Barbara) Roger Jackson (co-chair; Carleton College) Anne Klein (Rice University) John Makransky (co-chair; Boston College) Richard Payne (Institute of Buddhist Studies) Judith Simmer-Brown (Naropa University) This new group will sponsor one panel of papers to be presented annually at the AAR national meeting (two if co-sponsoring). Our 'call for papers' for 2006 will come with the AAR 'call for papers' following the 2005 November meeting in Philadelphia. The content will be as follows: Call for Papers for November 2006 AAR annual meeting: The Buddhist Critical-Constructive Reflection Group seeks proposals for papers or panels from scholars doing critical-constructive work grounded in any Buddhist tradition. Papers may, for example, critically examine classical doctrinal issues to make a normative argument (how some aspect of Buddhism should be understood or practiced in our time). Or they may utilize Buddhist thought to critically illumine contemporary social, educational, or ethical concerns. Or they may use contemporary critical methods to shine new light upon some aspect of Buddhist thought or practice. Or they may analyze the thought of a major figure in contemporary Buddhist critical-constructive reflection. Potential presenters are invited to submit paper proposals under the following rubrics, or others of their own choosing: (1) Ways in which modern knowledge about or perspectives upon Buddhist thought, history, or culture can beneficially inform Buddhist understanding or practice in its ongoing adaptation to the modern world, (2) Ways in which Buddhist knowledge is being or may be applied to a modern intellectual or social problem or issue, e.g., in contemporary philosophy, psychology, ethics, healing, contemplative studies, care for the dying, therapy, social service, the arts, education, etc., (3) Issues in the development of a Buddhist systematic theology, (4) The problem of delimiting and establishing authority: Who properly speaks for a tradition? (5) Forms of Buddhist community, and their doctrinal and social justifications, (6) Buddhist reflection on Buddhist education: classical and contemporary, (7) Buddhism, race and ethnicity. From Jackhat1 at aol.com Sun Oct 16 13:06:40 2005 From: Jackhat1 at aol.com (Jackhat1@aol.com) Date: Sun Oct 16 13:08:56 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Vipassana? Message-ID: <221.244d11.3083fec0@aol.com> In a message dated 10/16/2005 12:01:50 P.M. Central Standard Time, curt@cola.iges.org writes: > Can someone give me (or point me to) a good description of what makes > "vipassana" meditation unique === Vipassana meditation seeks to prove (realize) that all phenomena is transient, not self and unsatisfactory. No other meditation technique has this as its goal. Jack -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20051016/7b89bd6f/attachment.html From rhayes at unm.edu Sun Oct 16 13:01:35 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Sun Oct 16 13:10:08 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism In-Reply-To: <001901c5d209$8c12ad20$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> References: <00a801c5ceb1$0c557eb0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <020801c5cf2c$84bc70e0$2c1b9c04@Dan><434D2A04.5090803@nerim.net> <434D33CB.9050603@cola.iges.org><434D5216.2000405@nerim.net> <434D6684.9020608@cola.iges.org><434E0441.1060706@nerim.net> <1129188650.5150.18.camel@spinoza><434E52F5.5060106@cola.iges.org> <1129235781.5150.57.camel@spinoza> <742428727.20051014000232@kungzhi.org> <1129247666.5150.95.camel@spinoza> <434FACC8.90608@nerim.net> <003a01c5d1dc$1ca1c020$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> <1129426250.8400.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> <001901c5d209$8c12ad20$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> Message-ID: <1129489295.6353.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Sun, 2005-10-16 at 14:24 +1000, Kate wrote: > Sorry for the lame example. It was the best I could come up with on a > Sunday morning. Why do you consider getting rid of pests a kind of aversion > rather than prudent or wise? I agree that termites are just doing what > termites do but wouldn't it be considered wise to stop them from doing > so. It all hinges on what kind of wisdom you are talking about. If you are talking about a banker's wisdom, then protecting your investment is wise. If you are talking about the Buddha's wisdom of renunciation, then protecting your house is a form of attachment. > The act is done to save the house, not to kill the termites. If the act is done to save the house, that is attachment. If the method of saving the house is to kill termites, then your intention is to kill the termites, and that is aversion. > I agree it is unwholesome to harm an assailant which is why any reaction > should be as non-violent as possible. I can't remember the details but I > recall reading a Buddhist tale in which a murderer was terrorising a town. > As it turned out, his act didn't attract karma > vipaka after all. His willingness to kill and go to hell to protect others > negated his having to go to hell. The only version of this story I have heard says that the person who saved the town did go to hell. Why? Because he killed someone. The point of the story is that every action has a consequence. Killing someone has the consequence of that person's death. If someone is willing to go to hell in order to save others, then let the killing begin. > Wouldn't this apply to anyone who is forced to act in defence? No one is forced to do anything. If you choose to act in self defense, and if so doing entails killing someone, then you are choosing to kill someone. That person is no less dead because you killed her in self- defense. And the reason you chose to kill the person does not in any way alter the act that your intention was to kill her. I am afraid there is no getting off the hook. Any attempt to do so is nothing but rationalization, and that is ignorance. So you save your life (which manifests your attachment) by killing another (which manifests aversion), and then you rationalize it (which manifests delusion). You just drew the card that says "Go directly to dukkha. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200." -- Richard Hayes From junger at samsara.law.cwru.edu Sun Oct 16 12:22:16 2005 From: junger at samsara.law.cwru.edu (Peter D. Junger) Date: Sun Oct 16 13:18:59 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Vipassana? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 16 Oct 2005 15:06:40 EDT." <221.244d11.3083fec0@aol.com> Message-ID: <200510161822.j9GIMGZG029826@samsara.law.cwru.edu> Jackhat1@aol.com writes: : In a message dated 10/16/2005 12:01:50 P.M. Central Standard Time, : curt@cola.iges.org writes: : : > Can someone give me (or point me to) a good description of what makes : > "vipassana" meditation unique : : === : Vipassana meditation seeks to prove (realize) that all phenomena is : transient, not self and unsatisfactory. No other meditation technique has thi : s as its : goal. Oh dear, do you mean to say that I am practicing Vipassana meditation when I do zazen with the Zen Shin Sangha at a Shin temple. Somehow I find that realization unsatisfactory. -- Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH EMAIL: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu URL: http://samsara.law.cwru.edu From junger at samsara.law.cwru.edu Sun Oct 16 12:15:31 2005 From: junger at samsara.law.cwru.edu (Peter D. Junger) Date: Sun Oct 16 13:20:11 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] yoga (TM) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 16 Oct 2005 10:29:08 CDT." Message-ID: <200510161815.j9GIFVn0029742@samsara.law.cwru.edu> Stuart Ray Sarbacker writes: : Erik, : I would largely agree with your evaluation here, that the patenting : of these methods and making them "intellectual property" is in some : contexts antithetical to the practices themselves. I suggested IP was : fascinating in that it makes clear the connection to the : 'materialization' of culture as 'property,' a process that may well : be quite questionable in intent. On the other hand, my point about : the resonance of initiatory schema with older models is that : philosophical literature and ascetic/tantric techniques have often : been the provenance of the materially well-off in the Indo-Tibetan : context. With respect to yoga and tantra, I think David Gordon : White's works and Ronald Davidson's present rather compelling : arguments in this regard. I also would argue that yoga and meditation : have long been utilized for worldly gain (if not material, then : spiritual in the form of siddhis), and that some of the more : 'material' forms of yoga today continue to operate on that logic : (ascetic discipline leading to worldly power/prowess). I would agree : in principle with the value of 'open source'--and in fact Buddha-L : might be a good example of just such a thing. As one who has taught quite a few courses involving "intellectual property" I feel that I should add something to this thread. But most of what I have to say about that subject has nothing to do with Buddhism, except perhaps for the fact that the concept or skanda or label of "intellectual property" is the karmic consequence of greedy efforts to cling to that which by its nature cannot be grasped or clung to. The term "intellectual property" is a recent invention and hardly existed---if it did exist at all---in the mid-fifties of the last century when I went to law school. It is a rhetorical device to lump together various legal tools that allow one person to control what others may think or may do with their thoughts and then to say that if someone avoids those controls he is a thief stealing the "property" of the person who claims the legal right to control the "thief's" thoughts. The oldest and, even today, often the most effective way of protecting ideas from others is to keep them secret. Now the practice of keeping "trade secrets" secret is, so I understand, frequently indulged in by shamans, faith healers, and other spiritual entrepreneurs. The most striking example in the United States today is "Scientology" which is highly litigious and makes extensive use of trade-secret, copyright, and patent law to keep others from exposing how ridiculous its claims are or from allowing the true believers from getting hold of its teachings without paying through the nose for them. I find the comment about "open source" especially interesting since the "open source movement" developed among those who write computer software and as Arthur C. Clarke stated in his Third Law: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." -- Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH EMAIL: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu URL: http://samsara.law.cwru.edu From rhayes at unm.edu Sun Oct 16 13:21:27 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Sun Oct 16 13:28:58 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Vipassana? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1129490487.6353.42.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Sat, 2005-10-15 at 20:44 -0700, d f tweney wrote: > Can someone give me (or point me to) a good description of what makes > "vipassana" meditation unique -- or what differentiates it from, say, > Zen meditation? The best source I have found is Henepola Gunaratana's books. A simple one is called Mindfulness in Plain English. A more extensive book is his Path of Serenity and Insight. Vipassana is not a meditative technique. Rather, it is a goal, namely, the goal of clearly seeing the marks of all phenomena, namely, unsatisfactoriness, impermanence, and non-self. If you do a meditative exercise, such as following the breath, for the sake of seeing these marks, then it is vipassana meditation. If you follow the breath for the sake of calming the mind, then it is serenity meditation. The meditative exercise is the same in each case, but the purpose for doing it differs. Meditating in order to experience calm brings temporary relief from dukkha, while vipassana works at eliminating the root causes of dukkha. > I have read descriptions of vipassana meditation, which > is sometimes called "insight meditation," but the > descriptions/prescriptions seem to differ very little from what I've > read (and experienced) of the Zen approach. Is there a difference of > focus, or emphasis? Not really. There is just more mumbo jumbo about enlightenment in Zen, in addition to which you have to put up with a totalitarian master who abuses you and tells you it is good for you. If the goal is to become liberated form dukkha, vipassana is the method of choice. If your goal is to become an obedient robot, go for Zen. -- Richard Hayes From jinavamsa at yahoo.com Sun Oct 16 13:56:59 2005 From: jinavamsa at yahoo.com (Mitchell Ginsberg) Date: Sun Oct 16 14:18:56 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Vipassana and Zen In-Reply-To: <200510161800.j9GI0VsT014122@ns1.swcp.com> Message-ID: <20051016195659.82038.qmail@web60020.mail.yahoo.com> d f tweney wrote: Can someone give me (or point me to) a good description of what makes "vipassana" meditation unique -- or what differentiates it from, say, Zen meditation? I have read descriptions of vipassana meditation, which is sometimes called "insight meditation," but the descriptions/ prescriptions seem to differ very little from what I've read (and experienced) of the Zen approach. Is there a difference of focus, or emphasis? thanks! ======= There is a practice that has various names, such as mindfulness practice, insight meditation, or vipassana meditation. It also called samatha-vipassana-bhavana. Vipassana btw could be and is translated as insight. In the practice, there is often a base or initial calming of the mind. That is the samatha (calmness) part. This can be done by following the breathing passively (that is, not trying to regulate or control or modify it, but simply to experience its sensations). Then there is an attentiveness to each moment of consciousness. This is sometimes called sati (mindfulness). It is an open mindfulness, meaning that there is no predefined something that should be noticed. That way, nothing can count as a distraction from what is to be noticed. (It is simply the next thing to pay attention to.) If there were a rule here, it would be simply, Notice what is most obvious at this moment, or Notice what is calling our attention to it most strongly. And repeat. I once thought that that rule was expressed in Buddhaghosa Visuddhimagga, but can not track it down now. Would anyone know of some passages there for me (or others) to check out? This rule is rather similar to some of the suggestions of Krishnamurti, and to the Soto Zen practice of shikantaza. Think "Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind" here, which is from that tradition (Soto Zen). There is also another school of Zen, Rinzai Zen. That is where there are koans and usually a shorter period of seated meditation, with eyes partially open. There is of course no koan in vipassana practice and is sometimes quite central in some Rinzai practices. It seems to be designed to create an inner tension, perhaps with the idea that this will crack the mind open! (Shazaam and Bodhi in a flash!) There's a bit more on this in the little book of mine, The Far Shore: Vipassana, The Practice of Insight. (In part the answer to your question depends on which Zen tradition you are concerned with.) Mitchell G. ==================== http://www.geocities.com/jinavamsa/mentalhealth.html with links to my home page, info on The Inner Palace (3rd ed.) and The Far Shore (3rd ed.), further links to psychotherapy, to my current teaching, to the Insight Practice (Vipassana), Chishtiyya (Sufi), Creative Solutions for Peace, and Nasrudin discussion groups, and to the Collective Dharma Insight project. __________________________________ Yahoo! Music Unlimited Access over 1 million songs. Try it free. http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/ From selwyn at ntlworld.com Sun Oct 16 14:27:17 2005 From: selwyn at ntlworld.com (L.S. Cousins) Date: Sun Oct 16 14:29:07 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: +AFs-Buddha-l+AF0- Re: Theravada +ACY- Sarvastivada In-Reply-To: <001c01c5d27d$e971a010$22424e51@zen> References: +ADw-00a801c5ceb1+ACQ-0c557eb0+ACQ-2c1b9c04+AEA-Dan+AD4APA-020801c5cf2c+AC Q-84bc70e0+ACQ-2c1b9c04+AEA-Dan+AD4APA-434D2A04.5090803+AEA-nerim.net+AD4A PA-434D33CB.9050603+AEA-cola.iges.org+AD4APA-434D5216.2000405+AEA-nerim.ne t+AD4APA-434D6684.9020608+AEA-cola.iges.org+AD4APA-434E0441.1060706+AEA-ne rim.net+AD4APA-1129188650.5150.18.camel+AEA-spinoza+AD4APA-434E52F5.506010 6+AEA-cola.iges.org+AD4APA-1129235781.5150.57.camel+AEA-spinoza+AD4- +ADw-742428727.20051014000232+AEA-kungzhi.org+AD4APA-1129247666.5150.95.ca mel+AEA-spinoza+AD4APA-434FACC8.90608+AEA-nerim.net+AD4APA-1129346845.4706 .14.camel+AEA-localhost.localdomain+AD4APA-435107D4.3000506+AEA-nerim.net+ AD4APA-001801c5d1dd+ACQ-558b5760+ACQ-6900a8c0+AEA-vic.bigpond.net.au+AD4AP A-1129426407.8400.14.camel+AEA-localhost.localdomain+AD4APA-000d01c5d203+A CQ-a9c93d80+ACQ-6900a8c0+AEA-vic.bigpond.net.au+AD4- +ADw-1129477692.4378.6.camel+AEA-localhost.localdomain+AD4- <001c01c5d27d$e971a010$22424e51@zen> Message-ID: Stephen, I know these are not your ideas, but cannot forbear to disagree. >There are other alternative explanations for the relationship >between Sv and Sau. To my mind the most likely hypothesis is that >at an early stage the Sv split into two branches, due in part to >their separate geographical centres -- Kashmir and Mathura. This is based upon a single mention of a separate Vinaya recension in those two areas. There is no reason to connect that with doctrinal differences. > The Kashmiri branch was the one which introduced doctrinal >developments through their extensive commentorial literature >culiminating in the Maha-vibhasa. In contrast, it seems that the Sv >branch centred on Mathura rejected this doctrinal overlay derived >from commentaries. This is all a theory based on almost no evidence. Those who accepted abhidharma certainly continued to develop that type of theory (surely much older in essence). THose who partially rejected the authority of abhidharma developments did so because they were influenced by Madhyamaka and similar teachings and made there own series of innovations. > At a certain stage of their history, the latter also called >themselves the Mula-sarvastivada -- the "original" Sarvastivada. There is no evidence that there were ever any Sarvaastivaadins who did not call themselves Muulasarvaastivaadins. In other words there was certainly never any Mulasarvaastivaadin school or sect as such. > In their rejection of the Kashmiri commentorial innovations, it >would have been quite natural for them, or some of them, to also >call themselves "sautrantika" with respect to their stance on >doctrinal matters. This term is used sometimes by Vasubandhu, but it is not clear that anybody called themselves that previously. > > There is no sense in which Yogacara grew out of Sautrantika. >Au contraire, Richard. There is considerable evidence that there is >a stronge connection between the two -- though, of course, other >factors and influences were at work. Take another look at >Schmidthausen's several papers on the subject, as well as Robert >Kritzer's recent book, "Vasubandhu and the Yog?c?rabh?mi" (IIBS >2005). I would say rather that in those Sarvaastivaadin monasteries which accepted Mahaayaana suutras there eventually developed a tradition of abhidharma study which ultimately culminated after centuries in the creation of the Yogaacaara which can be seen in part as a type of Mahaayaana abhidharma. > Another telling factor is the Agama (sutra )set used by the >Yogacarins: the Mula-sarvastivadin version, which can also be >linked to the Sautrantikas as the Abhidharmakosa sutra quotes >illustrate. We have no idea who used that particular recension, nor when it first came into use, nor even where in India it was used. We have only isolated examples. For example, in order to show that this recension (which was certainly used in the Gilgit region) has special links with such schools it would be necessary to show that it is not used in the Abhidharmadiipa. That doesn't seem to be the case. Lance Cousins -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20051016/f11c9256/attachment.htm From parisjm2004 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 16 14:36:16 2005 From: parisjm2004 at yahoo.com (Michael Paris) Date: Sun Oct 16 14:39:02 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] General books on Buddhism (was: Buddhist pacifism) In-Reply-To: <4352613B.7010300@cola.iges.org> Message-ID: <20051016203616.9780.qmail@web32615.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Thank you. All the books you mention are available from amazon-dot-usa, most at at least a 20% discount off list. Now if that were only true of books on Shin Buddhism. Most are *not* available from amazon (e.g., Tanaka's _Ocean_). Speaking of Shin, anyone here reasonably well-versed in Pure Land on Jodo Shinshu? Michael --- curt wrote: > I really should have mentioned Harvey's book as well - and also Paul > Williams excellent book. To be honest, the real reason that I got so > much out of Gethin's books is almost certainly the fact that I read > Harvey and Williams and then Gethin. Those are the "big three". They > do have the disadvantage of all being by westerners - and they > definitely betray a western sensibility with respect to Buddhism, in my > opinion. > > There is a Japanese scholar who has published some books in English > that are pretty good - his name is Kogen Mizuno. I read Kogen >Mizuno's "Basic Buddhist Concepts" over 10 years ago - but I > remember enjoying it a great deal. It is shorter, cheaper and more > accessible than Gethin or Harvey or Williams - and its by someone who > is from a "Buddhist culture", but not as "meaty". > > - Curt __________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page! http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From curt at cola.iges.org Sun Oct 16 14:32:10 2005 From: curt at cola.iges.org (curt) Date: Sun Oct 16 14:39:13 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism In-Reply-To: <1129487062.6353.1.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <20051016043330.45126.qmail@web32602.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1129487062.6353.1.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <4352B8CA.9000709@cola.iges.org> Korea and Vietnam might be useful places to look at for people who are interested in Buddhist views of violence - and, in particular how these views pan out in practice. Looking at what Buddhists actually do is more important than is ever acknowledged by the people who insist that "Buddhism is inherently pacifist". As Richard Hayes pointed out very pointedly in a recent post "Nobody regards belief as important but Christians. Belief is not at all important in most forms of Hinduism or Buddhism." But the "Buddhism is inherently pacifist" argument largely consists of quotations intended to convince to us that Buddhists were always supposed to "believe" that all violence is wrong (and please pay no attention to all those piles of dead bodies over there.) That argument, by the way, has the, hopefully unintended, side-effect of promoting a view of Buddhists as the most hypocritical people in the history of hypocrisy. Even more embarrassingly, it puts its proponents in the position of being the ones who are going to explain what Buddhism is really supposed to be - to people who have been practicing it for 2500 years. Sorry - I really meant to say something more about Nguen Cao Ky's little book "Buddha's Child" (after purchasing it for $3 I discovered that it was actually a signed copy!!!) as well as something, a little further down, about Korean Buddhism. Ky devotes many pages of his book to the "Buddhist Struggle Movement", as well as giving a bird's eye view of Vietnamese Buddhism in general, and its involvement with politics and war in particular. I won't go into great detail, but for anyone whose knowledge of Vietnamese Buddhism is limited to Thich Nhat Hanh - well, this will provide a somewhat different viewpoint. Ky makes it clear that in his view the self-immolations in 1963 were a very effective technique for dramatizing the suppression of Buddhist political and social movement that was in opposition to the Government of Diem (a Christian). According to Ky this movement was led by Thich Tri Quang, who "aspired to become a kind of Buddhist pope." The self-immolations were part of an broader picture that included massive Buddhist demonstrations, violent police repression and a growing militancy among Buddhists. The movement was led by monks, and as things heated up "younger more militant monks took over the protest movement." Soon it was apparent that "there could be no doubt that the monks were trying to bring down the government." Eventually the army staged a coup - leaving the Buddhists out in the cold because they lacked the organization and power to do much more than just create social instability. All of that is pretty early on in the book, from pages 85-90. I think the interesting thing is that this book is written by a Vietnamese Buddhist - and Vietnamese Buddhists are obviously a significant part of its target audience. If Vietnamese Buddhism ever promoted pacifism, you wouldn't know it from reading what Ky has to say. He promotes himself as a both a Buddhist and a Nationalist, and one does not get the impression that there is anything to be explained or "justified". Proponents of "Buddhism is inherently pacifist" like to focus on what they call Buddhist "justifications" of violence, and to focus their critique on showing how these "justifications" don't hold up, and, voila, Buddhism must be inherently pacifist. Maybe they should consider the possibility that many Buddhists have never bothered with the "justification" of violence approach. It certainly never occurs to Nguen Cao Ky that he, as a Buddhist, needs to tell us what his "justification" of violence is. And one can look in vain through the pages of the Jogye Order of Korean Buddhism for any "justification" of violence (http://eng.buddhism.or.kr/ - if its down you can go to the cached website via google). Nevertheless one can easily find the biography of Hyoo Jurng Sunim (aka Sursan Daesah, aka Sosan Taesa), which reads, in part: "He is a central figure in Buddhism in the Joh Surn dynasty due to his patriotic contribution to the defence of his native land in his role as a leader of the monks' militia during the Japanese invasion of Korea in 1592." (It should be noted that Hyoo Jurng is one of only nine "Great Masters" featured on the website.) In 1592 Hyoo Jurng was no "young militant" monk, like those described by Ky. Nor was he a politically ambitious man seeking to become a "Buddhist pope." He was a 72 year old Zen master living in seclusion. When he heard the news that Korea had been invaded he immediately sent word to the Emperor (a Confucianist) asking permission to raise an army of Buddhist monks - which permission was granted. He left behind many writings in which he promoted, among other things, harmonizing Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism because "all teach the truth of mind." But I have found no evidence that he ever bothered to present a "justification for violence." Most western Buddhists have less invested in Korean and Vietnamese Buddhism (than in Buddhisms coming from Tibet, Sri Lanka, Japan, etc), so there might be a better chance of approaching those countries Buddhisms more objectively. There is an overwhelming tendency among western Buddhist pacifists to start with the assumption that Buddhism must be inherently pacifist, and anytime anything seems to contradict that view they want to find out "what went wrong". James Stroble articulates this approach quite unabashedly in the opening sentences of his talk on Buddhism and War: "There is something rather unsettling when one reads of Buddhist justifications of violence. We can not but help thinking that the central ethical precepts of Buddhism, ahimsa, karuna, and metta (non-harm, compassion and loving-kindness) have somehow been lost....We propose here to consider the possibility of Buddhist justifications of war, and to investigate not how they came about, for that is all too obvious and not specific to Buddhism, but rather why they should not have...." You don't need a Buddhist to tell you what you will find when you already know exactly what you are looking for. - Curt From rhayes at unm.edu Sun Oct 16 14:47:46 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Sun Oct 16 14:48:56 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: yoga (TM) In-Reply-To: <200510161815.j9GIFVn0029742@samsara.law.cwru.edu> References: <200510161815.j9GIFVn0029742@samsara.law.cwru.edu> Message-ID: <1129495666.7117.16.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Sun, 2005-10-16 at 14:15 -0400, Peter D. Junger wrote: > The term "intellectual property" is a recent invention and hardly > existed---if it did exist at all---in the mid-fifties of the last > century when I went to law school. It is a rhetorical device to > lump together various legal tools that allow one person to control > what others may think or may do with their thoughts and then to > say that if someone avoids those controls he is a thief stealing > the "property" of the person who claims the legal right to control > the "thief's" thoughts. Thanks for the summary, Peter. It is good to hear about this from an expert in law. My own experience with the concept of "intellectual property" comes from sitting on the university senate computer policy committee (a hell realm for some undisclosed sin I must have committed in a past life). We spent a great deal of time listening to the university's lawyers explaining why any potentially lucrative work professors did while being paid by the university was owned by the university, while any crime committed while doing lucrative work was the professor's responsibility. The message, in short, was: The Company Wins Every Time. > The oldest and, even today, often the most effective way of protecting > ideas from others is to keep them secret. It is not at all clear whether the prevailing ethos of the modern academy is "Publish or perish" or "Be secretive or be screwed." Speaking of all this stuff, some years ago I heard a rumor that Goenka Inc were trying to get a trademark for the term Vipassana. I hope that rumor was false, since trying to own any aspect of the path of renunciation would surely result in at least a billion aeons in a hell in which the only software was open source. -- Richard Hayes From marshallarts at bigpond.com Sun Oct 16 15:16:19 2005 From: marshallarts at bigpond.com (Kate) Date: Sun Oct 16 15:19:00 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: +AFs-Buddha-l+AF0- Re: +AFs-Buddha-l+AF0- Re: Theravada +ACY- Sarvastivada References: +ADw-00a801c5ceb1+ACQ-0c557eb0+ACQ-2c1b9c04+AEA-Dan+AD4APA-020801c5cf2c+ACQ-84bc70e0+ACQ-2c1b9c04+AEA-Dan+AD4APA-434D2A04.5090803+AEA-nerim.net+AD4APA-434D33CB.9050603+AEA-cola.iges.org+AD4APA-434D5216.2000405+AEA-nerim.net+AD4APA-434D6684.9020608+AEA-cola.iges.org+AD4APA-434E0441.1060706+AEA-nerim.net+AD4APA-1129188650.5150.18.camel+AEA-spinoza+AD4APA-434E52F5.5060106+AEA-cola.iges.org+AD4APA-1129235781.5150.57.camel+AEA-spinoza+AD4- +ADw-742428727.20051014000232+AEA-kungzhi.org+AD4APA-1129247666.5150.95.camel+AEA-spinoza+AD4APA-434FACC8.90608+AEA-nerim.net+AD4APA-1129346845.4706.14.camel+AEA-localhost.localdomain+AD4APA-435107D4.3000506+AEA-nerim.net+AD4APA-001801c5d1dd+ACQ-558b5760+ACQ-6900a8c0+AEA-vic.bigpond.net.au+AD4APA-1129426407.8400.14.camel+AEA-localhost.localdomain+AD4APA-000d01c5d203+ACQ-a9c93d80+ACQ-6900a8c0+AEA-vic.bigpond.net.au+AD4APA-1129477692.4378.6.camel+AEA-localhost.localdomain+AD4- +ADw-001c01c5d27d+ACQ-e971a010+ACQ-22424e51+AEA-zen+AD4- Message-ID: <001f01c5d296$da836a20$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> Thank you, Richard and Stephen, for your replies. Both Sarvastivada and Sautrantika may be extinct but this was not an idle question on my part. Thanks again Kate From rhayes at unm.edu Sun Oct 16 15:11:24 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Sun Oct 16 15:19:04 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism In-Reply-To: <4352B8CA.9000709@cola.iges.org> References: <20051016043330.45126.qmail@web32602.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1129487062.6353.1.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4352B8CA.9000709@cola.iges.org> Message-ID: <1129497085.7117.35.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Sun, 2005-10-16 at 16:32 -0400, curt wrote: > Looking at what Buddhists actually do is more important than is ever > acknowledged by the people who insist that "Buddhism is inherently > pacifist". Looking at what any group of people actually does is the worst place to look for what they ought to do. If one looked. for example, at what Americans do, one would have to conclude that the Constitution requires invading foreign countries for no defensible reason, detaining suspected enemies of the government indefinitely without trial, and passing laws that place no obstacles at all in the way of major corporations while making it almost impossible for the poor to make a legal living. > But the "Buddhism is inherently pacifist" argument largely > consists of quotations intended to convince to us that Buddhists were > always supposed to "believe" that all violence is wrong (and please pay > no attention to all those piles of dead bodies over there.) You misconstrue the argument made for pacifism. This argument is rather simple and has nothing at all to do with belief. It has everything to do with practice based on the observation that harming others causes dukkha. And since the objective of Buddhist practice is to avoid dukkha, harming others is inconsistent with positively effective Buddhist practice. That is not a creed. It is a sample of applying elementary logic. > That argument, by the way, has the, hopefully unintended, side-effect of > promoting a view of Buddhists as the most hypocritical people in the > history of hypocrisy. Not really. It simply makes it obvious that Buddhists have not been much better than anyone else at following the practices recommended for them. > Even more embarrassingly, it puts its proponents in the position of > being the ones who are going to explain what Buddhism is really > supposed to be - to people who have been practicing it for 2500 years. Not at all. Rather, it puts people who understand the practice and follow it in the position of offering help to those who have failed to understand the practice and to follow it. > You don't need a Buddhist to tell you what you will find when you > already know exactly what you are looking for. Quite true. If one does not look for a non-violent way of being in the world, one will never find it. Buddhists have no monopoly on that insight, nor have they claimed to have one. -- Richard Hayes From marshallarts at bigpond.com Sun Oct 16 15:21:35 2005 From: marshallarts at bigpond.com (Kate) Date: Sun Oct 16 15:28:59 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism References: <00a801c5ceb1$0c557eb0$2c1b9c04@Dan><020801c5cf2c$84bc70e0$2c1b9c04@Dan><434D2A04.5090803@nerim.net><434D33CB.9050603@cola.iges.org><434D5216.2000405@nerim.net><434D6684.9020608@cola.iges.org><434E0441.1060706@nerim.net><1129188650.5150.18.camel@spinoza><434E52F5.5060106@cola.iges.org><1129235781.5150.57.camel@spinoza> <742428727.20051014000232@kungzhi.org><1129247666.5150.95.camel@spinoza> <434FACC8.90608@nerim.net><003a01c5d1dc$1ca1c020$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au><1129426250.8400.10.camel@localhost.localdomain><001901c5d209$8c12ad20$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> <1129489295.6353.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <003501c5d297$967e9560$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> > > So you save your life (which manifests your attachment) by killing > another (which manifests aversion), and then you rationalize it (which > manifests delusion). You just drew the card that says "Go directly to > dukkha. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200." Bummer........... From marshallarts at bigpond.com Sun Oct 16 15:51:26 2005 From: marshallarts at bigpond.com (Kate) Date: Sun Oct 16 15:58:58 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism References: <20051016043330.45126.qmail@web32602.mail.mud.yahoo.com><1129487062.6353.1.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4352B8CA.9000709@cola.iges.org> Message-ID: <004d01c5d29b$c23f0140$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> Hi Curt, Thanks for posting all this info. I was reading the other day about the eighth century Great Debate in Tibet between Chinese teachers of Chaan Na and an Indian-based group (Santiraksita's pupils). Proponents of both sides were alarmed at the other's teachings and after the debate, students of both parties are recorded as having committed suicide in protest at the verdicts reached. One named Nan sa mi cut his flesh into pieces and two Tibetans crushed their genitals. One of the Chinese teachers, Mem go, set his head alight and died. It is said that some of the Chinese party decided to assassinate members of the Indian. Chinese members claimed the Indians had already made a similar plan. It is recorded in the dPao gtsug p'ren ba manuscript that the Chinese Chaan teacher hid some of his school's texts in a rock lest they all be killed and the teachings forgotten. There are also reports of some Chinese sects who went in for bodily mortifications, such as burning the skull or other parts of the body with incense. Regards Kate From marshallarts at bigpond.com Sun Oct 16 16:25:44 2005 From: marshallarts at bigpond.com (Kate) Date: Sun Oct 16 16:28:58 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism References: <00a801c5ceb1$0c557eb0$2c1b9c04@Dan><020801c5cf2c$84bc70e0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <434D2A04.5090803@nerim.net><434D33CB.9050603@cola.iges.org> <434D5216.2000405@nerim.net><434D6684.9020608@cola.iges.org> <434E0441.1060706@nerim.net><1129188650.5150.18.camel@spinoza> <434E52F5.5060106@cola.iges.org><1129235781.5150.57.camel@spinoza><742428727.20051014000232@kungzhi.org><1129247666.5150.95.camel@spinoza> <434FACC8.90608@nerim.net><003a01c5d1dc$1ca1c020$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au><1129426250.8400.10.camel@localhost.localdomain><001901c5d209$8c12ad20$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> Message-ID: <002b01c5d2a0$8cea68e0$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> Hi Mike, > From what I have heard, karma occurs on the basis of one of the three > afflictions - ignorance, attachment and aversion. Were you to kill the > termites because you thought it was good, that would be ignorance. Ok. I understand that one. >If you were to kill them to eat, that would be attachment. We aren't supposed to eat?! I thought the Buddha warned against such austerities. How can eating be considered an attachment considering the Buddha recommended it? > If you were to kill them because you disliked them, that would be aversion. Ok. I understand this one too. > The affliction that takes the termites as an object is the deciding > factor. In this example the termites aren't the object. It is their action of destroying the house that is. > I had a similar situation many years ago when I had some major roof work > done. The builders discovered a wasps nest and could not safely continue > their work. Reluctantly, I had to call in pest control. In the meantime. > I tried shifting the wasps myself by smoking them out with incense. I > had no aversion to the wasps, and I was not entirely ignorant. However, > turning a blind eye to things probably constituted ignorance. But what are the workable alternatives? Replacing a house isn't usually a financial possibility, especially if the first one isn't fully paid for. Regards Kate From jinavamsa at yahoo.com Sun Oct 16 17:24:11 2005 From: jinavamsa at yahoo.com (Mitchell Ginsberg) Date: Sun Oct 16 17:28:59 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism (copyrighting 'vipassana') In-Reply-To: <200510162231.j9GMVm2a019284@ns1.swcp.com> Message-ID: <20051016232411.87160.qmail@web60017.mail.yahoo.com> hello all, Richard writes, in part: Speaking of all this stuff, some years ago I heard a rumor that Goenka Inc were trying to get a trademark for the term Vipassana. I hope that rumor was false, since trying to own any aspect of the path of renunciation would surely result in at least a billion aeons in a hell in which the only software was open source. -- Richard Hayes =========== I heard that there were recently proceedings in which the term 'yoga' was also laid claim to by one group of yogis (or a "yoga school"). It was thrown out of court. (This was "Vikram" or "Bikram" yoga....) Now, as it might be harder to prove that the word 'vipassana' has been taken into the English language (as has the word 'yoga'), who knows! Maybe it will be 'vipassana [copyright rights held worldwide by Goenka Meditation Services, Inc.]' one day .... Mitchell ==================== http://www.geocities.com/jinavamsa/mentalhealth.html with links to my home page, info on The Inner Palace (3rd ed.) and The Far Shore (3rd ed.), further links to psychotherapy, to my current teaching, to the Insight Practice (Vipassana), Chishtiyya (Sufi), Creative Solutions for Peace, and Nasrudin discussion groups, and to the Collective Dharma Insight project. __________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page! http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From jinavamsa at yahoo.com Sun Oct 16 17:19:31 2005 From: jinavamsa at yahoo.com (Mitchell Ginsberg) Date: Sun Oct 16 17:29:03 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism In-Reply-To: <200510162231.j9GMVm2a019284@ns1.swcp.com> Message-ID: <20051016231931.86627.qmail@web60017.mail.yahoo.com> > Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 16:32:10 -0400 > From: curt > Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism > To: Buddhist discussion forum > Sorry - I really meant to say something more about > Nguen Cao Ky's little > book "Buddha's Child" (after purchasing it for $3 I > discovered that it > was actually a signed copy!!!) > I won't go into great detail, but > for anyone whose > knowledge of Vietnamese Buddhism is limited to Thich > Nhat Hanh - well, > this will provide a somewhat different viewpoint. > I think the interesting thing is that this book is > written by a > Vietnamese Buddhist - and Vietnamese Buddhists are ======== I found the book listed with title (not with author) searches at amazon.com and ebay.com. The face of the author on the book's cover was rather familiar. He looks so much like one of the leaders put up by South Vietnam back in those days (as premier, I think the title was) when Iraq was something hard to spell in the USA. But maybe looks are deceiving. I did not know he was a Buddhist. Thank you. Mitchell ==================== http://www.geocities.com/jinavamsa/mentalhealth.html with links to my home page, info on The Inner Palace (3rd ed.) and The Far Shore (3rd ed.), further links to psychotherapy, to my current teaching, to the Insight Practice (Vipassana), Chishtiyya (Sufi), Creative Solutions for Peace, and Nasrudin discussion groups, and to the Collective Dharma Insight project. __________________________________ Yahoo! Music Unlimited Access over 1 million songs. Try it free. http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/ From mike at lamrim.org.uk Sun Oct 16 17:23:51 2005 From: mike at lamrim.org.uk (Mike Austin) Date: Sun Oct 16 17:29:07 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism In-Reply-To: <002b01c5d2a0$8cea68e0$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> References: <00a801c5ceb1$0c557eb0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <020801c5cf2c$84bc70e0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <434D2A04.5090803@nerim.net> <434D33CB.9050603@cola.iges.org> <434D5216.2000405@nerim.net> <434D6684.9020608@cola.iges.org> <434E0441.1060706@nerim.net> <1129188650.5150.18.camel@spinoza> <434E52F5.5060106@cola.iges.org> <1129235781.5150.57.camel@spinoza> <742428727.20051014000232@kungzhi.org> <1129247666.5150.95.camel@spinoza> <434FACC8.90608@nerim.net> <003a01c5d1dc$1ca1c020$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> <1129426250.8400.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> <001901c5d209$8c12ad20$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> <002b01c5d2a0$8cea68e0$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> Message-ID: In message <002b01c5d2a0$8cea68e0$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au>, Kate writes >>If you were to kill them to eat, that would be attachment. > >We aren't supposed to eat?! I thought the Buddha warned against such >austerities. How can eating be considered an attachment considering the >Buddha recommended it? Hi Kate, The Buddha recommended eating but warned against killing. Eating meat is not bad karma - because there is no harmful mind, no harmful word and no harmful action. Killing to eat or ordering others to kill to eat, is bad karma. >> The affliction that takes the termites as an object is the deciding >> factor. > >In this example the termites aren't the object. It is their action of >destroying the house that is. But the action of killing the termites has the termites as an object. > > I had a similar situation many years ago when I had some major roof work >> done. The builders discovered a wasps nest and could not safely continue >> their work. Reluctantly, I had to call in pest control. >But what are the workable alternatives? Replacing a house isn't usually a >financial possibility, especially if the first one isn't fully paid for. I could have waited until winter when the wasps would have been gone. It would have cost me - financially. What the cost will be in karma-vipaka, Buddha only knows. -- Metta Mike Austin From marshallarts at bigpond.com Sun Oct 16 18:06:26 2005 From: marshallarts at bigpond.com (Kate) Date: Sun Oct 16 18:08:59 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism References: <00a801c5ceb1$0c557eb0$2c1b9c04@Dan><020801c5cf2c$84bc70e0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <434D2A04.5090803@nerim.net><434D33CB.9050603@cola.iges.org> <434D5216.2000405@nerim.net><434D6684.9020608@cola.iges.org> <434E0441.1060706@nerim.net><1129188650.5150.18.camel@spinoza> <434E52F5.5060106@cola.iges.org><1129235781.5150.57.camel@spinoza><742428727.20051014000232@kungzhi.org><1129247666.5150.95.camel@spinoza> <434FACC8.90608@nerim.net><003a01c5d1dc$1ca1c020$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au><1129426250.8400.10.camel@localhost.localdomain><001901c5d209$8c12ad20$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au><002b01c5d2a0$8cea68e0$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> Message-ID: <000b01c5d2ae$9de992c0$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> > The Buddha recommended eating but warned against killing. Eating meat is > not bad karma - because there is no harmful mind, no harmful word and no > harmful action. Killing to eat or ordering others to kill to eat, is bad > karma. I remember hearing this, Mike. It's ok to eat meat if the animal died of an accident, or you didn't see it killed and you don't know or suspect it was killed especially for you. At first I thought you were saying that eating is an attachment. My mistake! > But the action of killing the termites has the termites as an object. I'll have to think about this one for awhile. > >But what are the workable alternatives? Replacing a house isn't usually a > >financial possibility, especially if the first one isn't fully paid for. > > I could have waited until winter when the wasps would have been gone. It > would have cost me - financially. What the cost will be in karma-vipaka, > Buddha only knows. Must admit, I was still thinking about termites when I asked this question. Waiting doesn't help with those. This brings up another question - do animals attract karma-vipaka? If a human can be reborn as an animal, wouldn't s/he have to accumulate enough 'positive' karma-vipaka to be able to leave that realm? Thanks Kate From rhayes at unm.edu Sun Oct 16 19:08:51 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Sun Oct 16 19:09:00 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism In-Reply-To: References: <00a801c5ceb1$0c557eb0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <020801c5cf2c$84bc70e0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <434D2A04.5090803@nerim.net> <434D33CB.9050603@cola.iges.org> <434D5216.2000405@nerim.net> <434D6684.9020608@cola.iges.org> <434E0441.1060706@nerim.net> <1129188650.5150.18.camel@spinoza> <434E52F5.5060106@cola.iges.org> <1129235781.5150.57.camel@spinoza> <742428727.20051014000232@kungzhi.org> <1129247666.5150.95.camel@spinoza> <434FACC8.90608@nerim.net> <003a01c5d1dc$1ca1c020$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> <1129426250.8400.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> <001901c5d209$8c12ad20$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> <002b01c5d2a0$8cea68e0$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> Message-ID: <1129511331.7820.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Mon, 2005-10-17 at 00:23 +0100, Mike Austin wrote: > The Buddha recommended eating but warned against killing. Eating meat is > not bad karma - because there is no harmful mind, no harmful word and no > harmful action. Killing to eat or ordering others to kill to eat, is bad > karma. Of course if someone gives you some meat, eat it. Or if a rabbit jumps into your cooking pot and offers himself as a gift, eat it. But buying meat is a way of ordering others to kill animals, unless you're naive enough to think people would go around killing animals if there were no market for the meat. And stealing it isn't much to be commended. -- Richard Hayes From stroble at hawaii.edu Sun Oct 16 22:34:44 2005 From: stroble at hawaii.edu (James A. Stroble) Date: Sun Oct 16 19:09:09 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism In-Reply-To: <4352B8CA.9000709@cola.iges.org> References: <20051016043330.45126.qmail@web32602.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1129487062.6353.1.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4352B8CA.9000709@cola.iges.org> Message-ID: <1129523684.4824.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Sun, 2005-10-16 at 16:32 -0400, curt wrote: > There is an overwhelming tendency among > western Buddhist pacifists to start with the assumption that Buddhism > must be inherently pacifist, and anytime anything seems to contradict > that view they want to find out "what went wrong". James Stroble > articulates this approach quite unabashedly in the opening sentences of > his talk on Buddhism and War: "There is something rather unsettling when > one reads of Buddhist justifications of violence. ...." > > You don't need a Buddhist to tell you what you will find when you > already know exactly what you are looking for. Ah, Curt, it is far worse than that. I am (supposedly) a philosopher, not an anthropologist nor a political scientist, nor even a western buddhist. I hold that Buddhism is pacifist based on the logic of Buddhist teachings. Practice does not always correspond, but I think that it does so more in Buddhism than in other religions. I even go so far as to think that Christianity is pacifist, but then if we look at history, something has seriously gone wrong! Pax vobiscum, -- James A. Stroble From rhayes at unm.edu Sun Oct 16 19:11:16 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Sun Oct 16 19:19:01 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism In-Reply-To: <000b01c5d2ae$9de992c0$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> References: <00a801c5ceb1$0c557eb0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <020801c5cf2c$84bc70e0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <434D2A04.5090803@nerim.net> <434D33CB.9050603@cola.iges.org> <434D5216.2000405@nerim.net> <434D6684.9020608@cola.iges.org> <434E0441.1060706@nerim.net> <1129188650.5150.18.camel@spinoza> <434E52F5.5060106@cola.iges.org> <1129235781.5150.57.camel@spinoza><742428727.20051014000232@kungzhi.org> <1129247666.5150.95.camel@spinoza> <434FACC8.90608@nerim.net> <003a01c5d1dc$1ca1c020$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> <1129426250.8400.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> <001901c5d209$8c12ad20$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> <002b01c5d2a0$8cea68e0$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> <000b01c5d2ae$9de992c0$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> Message-ID: <1129511476.7820.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Mon, 2005-10-17 at 10:06 +1000, Kate wrote: > This brings up another question - do animals attract karma-vipaka? Everything does. > If a human can be reborn as an animal, wouldn't s/he have to > accumulate enough > 'positive' karma-vipaka to be able to leave that realm? Do your best not to have to learn the answer to that by personal experience. -- Richard Hayes From mike at lamrim.org.uk Sun Oct 16 19:11:50 2005 From: mike at lamrim.org.uk (Mike Austin) Date: Sun Oct 16 19:19:10 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism In-Reply-To: <000b01c5d2ae$9de992c0$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> References: <00a801c5ceb1$0c557eb0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <020801c5cf2c$84bc70e0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <434D2A04.5090803@nerim.net> <434D33CB.9050603@cola.iges.org> <434D5216.2000405@nerim.net> <434D6684.9020608@cola.iges.org> <434E0441.1060706@nerim.net> <1129188650.5150.18.camel@spinoza> <434E52F5.5060106@cola.iges.org> <1129235781.5150.57.camel@spinoza> <742428727.20051014000232@kungzhi.org> <1129247666.5150.95.camel@spinoza> <434FACC8.90608@nerim.net> <003a01c5d1dc$1ca1c020$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> <1129426250.8400.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> <001901c5d209$8c12ad20$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> <002b01c5d2a0$8cea68e0$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> <000b01c5d2ae$9de992c0$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> Message-ID: In message <000b01c5d2ae$9de992c0$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au>, Kate writes > >This brings up another question - do animals attract karma-vipaka? If a >human can be reborn as an animal, wouldn't s/he have to accumulate enough >'positive' karma-vipaka to be able to leave that realm? > I guess they must do - due to their low realm. I mean, if you had a gang of humans chewing away at your floor beams, would you risk having a bash at them? From what I understand, it is not the seeds of karma that one has for a rebirth in another realm that takes one out of this realm. The karma one has accumulated for this realm has to be expended in order to leave this realm. Only then do other karmas kick in. -- Metta Mike Austin From mike at lamrim.org.uk Sun Oct 16 19:41:41 2005 From: mike at lamrim.org.uk (Mike Austin) Date: Sun Oct 16 19:51:27 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism In-Reply-To: <1129511331.7820.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <00a801c5ceb1$0c557eb0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <020801c5cf2c$84bc70e0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <434D2A04.5090803@nerim.net> <434D33CB.9050603@cola.iges.org> <434D5216.2000405@nerim.net> <434D6684.9020608@cola.iges.org> <434E0441.1060706@nerim.net> <1129188650.5150.18.camel@spinoza> <434E52F5.5060106@cola.iges.org> <1129235781.5150.57.camel@spinoza> <742428727.20051014000232@kungzhi.org> <1129247666.5150.95.camel@spinoza> <434FACC8.90608@nerim.net> <003a01c5d1dc$1ca1c020$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> <1129426250.8400.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> <001901c5d209$8c12ad20$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> <002b01c5d2a0$8cea68e0$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> <1129511331.7820.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1K30yQEVFwUDFwxh@clara.net> In message <1129511331.7820.4.camel@localhost.localdomain>, Richard P. Hayes writes >On Mon, 2005-10-17 at 00:23 +0100, Mike Austin wrote: > >> The Buddha recommended eating but warned against killing. Eating meat is >> not bad karma - because there is no harmful mind, no harmful word and no >> harmful action. Killing to eat or ordering others to kill to eat, is bad >> karma. > >Of course if someone gives you some meat, eat it. Or if a rabbit jumps >into your cooking pot and offers himself as a gift, eat it. But buying >meat is a way of ordering others to kill animals, unless you're naive >enough to think people would go around killing animals if there were no >market for the meat. And stealing it isn't much to be commended. Of course, any actions that one undertakes in an interdependent society must form part of the causative process of anything that happens in that society. Whether this is the same as saying all these actions are karma, in the sense that they will ripen on individuals, I don't know. It seems rather unlikely to me. If one buys meat, it is the intention and action of the butcher etc. that determines if he kills. No order is given. Such an order would be just an imputation from the butcher's side. Many years ago, before I encountered Buddhism, I used to live in a small hotel where I was working in south Germany. The hotel had a fish tank. One could select a fish to eat. I couldn't do that, but I felt OK about ordering fish or meat on the menu that did not have to be killed for me. This was my instinct at the time, and it still is. Reading that karma is occasioned by actions through one's three doors - body, speech, mind - I think it is a reasonable approach. -- Metta Mike Austin From jpeavler at mindspring.com Sun Oct 16 21:36:47 2005 From: jpeavler at mindspring.com (Jim Peavler) Date: Sun Oct 16 21:39:03 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Vipassana? In-Reply-To: <1129490487.6353.42.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1129490487.6353.42.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <709c64b85fab9e902c192e82cb2dbf1d@mindspring.com> On Oct 16, 2005, at 1:21 PM, Richard P. Hayes wrote: > Not really. There is just more mumbo jumbo about enlightenment in Zen, > in addition to which you have to put up with a totalitarian master who > abuses you and tells you it is good for you. If the goal is to become > liberated form dukkha, vipassana is the method of choice. If your goal > is to become an obedient robot, go for Zen. Well damn. I have been a damned fool for well over 20 years. I have been fairly serious about studying and practicing Zen for that time and never once realized that I had a totalitarian master, nor am I aware that I have become an obedient robot. I even supposed, foolishly enough, that I was working toward being liberated from dukkha (with some success I had imagined), and had never heard (from any of my teachers/totalitarian masters) that "enlightenment" was a necessary goal (or even possible). Where did I go wrong? And where should I start over (I only have a short time to get it right.) Jim Peavler "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -- Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), reply of the Pennsylvania Assembly to the Governor, November 11, 1755 From dylan at tweney.com Sun Oct 16 22:01:27 2005 From: dylan at tweney.com (d f tweney) Date: Sun Oct 16 22:09:06 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Vipassana? In-Reply-To: <1129490487.6353.42.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1129490487.6353.42.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <0cd60e407b9a451dacb31b0950d3bf5a@tweney.com> On Oct 16, 2005, at 12:21 PM, Richard P. Hayes wrote: > The best source I have found is Henepola Gunaratana's books. A simple > one is called Mindfulness in Plain English. A more extensive book is > his > Path of Serenity and Insight. > Mindfulness in Plain English is available online: http://www.enabling.org/ia/vipassana/Archive/G/Gunaratana/ MindfulnessIPE/ It was reading this text that made me think about the similarity with Zen -- since both begin with focusing on the breath, observing thoughts as they arise but not fixating on them, just letting the thoughts rise and fall away while returning the attention to the breath. > If the goal is to become > liberated form dukkha, vipassana is the method of choice. If your goal > is to become an obedient robot, go for Zen. > Well! Vipassana it is then! From marshallarts at bigpond.com Sun Oct 16 23:43:17 2005 From: marshallarts at bigpond.com (Kate) Date: Sun Oct 16 23:49:04 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism References: <00a801c5ceb1$0c557eb0$2c1b9c04@Dan><020801c5cf2c$84bc70e0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <434D2A04.5090803@nerim.net><434D33CB.9050603@cola.iges.org> <434D5216.2000405@nerim.net><434D6684.9020608@cola.iges.org> <434E0441.1060706@nerim.net><1129188650.5150.18.camel@spinoza> <434E52F5.5060106@cola.iges.org><1129235781.5150.57.camel@spinoza><742428727.20051014000232@kungzhi.org><1129247666.5150.95.camel@spinoza> <434FACC8.90608@nerim.net><003a01c5d1dc$1ca1c020$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au><1129426250.8400.10.camel@localhost.localdomain><001901c5d209$8c12ad20$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au><002b01c5d2a0$8cea68e0$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au><000b01c5d2ae$9de992c0$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> Message-ID: <000c01c5d2dd$ace4ac40$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> > > I guess they must do - due to their low realm. I mean, if you had a gang > of humans chewing away at your floor beams, would you risk having a bash > at them? LOL...... Sounds like something out of the Twilight Zone. Have a bash at them? No way! And this decision has nothing to do with karma-vipaka. > From what I understand, it is not the seeds of karma that one has for a > rebirth in another realm that takes one out of this realm. The karma one > has accumulated for this realm has to be expended in order to leave this > realm. Only then do other karmas kick in. Thanks, Mike. I'll add this to my growing list of subjects to look up. Kate From wongwf at comp.nus.edu.sg Sun Oct 16 23:56:01 2005 From: wongwf at comp.nus.edu.sg (Wong Weng Fai) Date: Sun Oct 16 23:59:06 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Vipassana? In-Reply-To: <0cd60e407b9a451dacb31b0950d3bf5a@tweney.com> References: <1129490487.6353.42.camel@localhost.localdomain> <0cd60e407b9a451dacb31b0950d3bf5a@tweney.com> Message-ID: On Sun, 16 Oct 2005, d f tweney wrote: > It was reading this text that made me think about the similarity with > Zen -- since both begin with focusing on the breath, observing thoughts > as they arise but not fixating on them, just letting the thoughts rise > and fall away while returning the attention to the breath. I was taught by someone from Seung Sahn Sulim's tradition of Kuan Yim Zen that on in-breadth, one is to think "WHO AM I?" and on out-breadth, think "DON'T KNOW!" No other object of meditation and each sitting should not be too long. Hope I didn't misrepresent them... W.F. Wong From parisjm2004 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 17 08:40:22 2005 From: parisjm2004 at yahoo.com (Michael Paris) Date: Mon Oct 17 08:49:14 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] recommendations for books on Madhyamika In-Reply-To: <003501c5d297$967e9560$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> Message-ID: <20051017144023.40801.qmail@web32604.mail.mud.yahoo.com> So Zen is connected with Madhyamika philosophy? Any recommendations for books on Madhyamika, preferably suitable for one without much background? (Is there a Madhyamika For Dummies, or an Idiot's Guide to Madhyamika?) Michael __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From s.hodge at padmacholing.freeserve.co.uk Mon Oct 17 08:49:33 2005 From: s.hodge at padmacholing.freeserve.co.uk (Stephen Hodge) Date: Mon Oct 17 08:50:22 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism References: <00a801c5ceb1$0c557eb0$2c1b9c04@Dan><020801c5cf2c$84bc70e0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <434D2A04.5090803@nerim.net><434D33CB.9050603@cola.iges.org> <434D5216.2000405@nerim.net><434D6684.9020608@cola.iges.org> <434E0441.1060706@nerim.net><1129188650.5150.18.camel@spinoza> <434E52F5.5060106@cola.iges.org><1129235781.5150.57.camel@spinoza><742428727.20051014000232@kungzhi.org><1129247666.5150.95.camel@spinoza> <434FACC8.90608@nerim.net><003a01c5d1dc$1ca1c020$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au><1129426250.8400.10.camel@localhost.localdomain><001901c5d209$8c12ad20$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au><002b01c5d2a0$8cea68e0$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au><1129511331.7820.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1K30yQEVFwUDFwxh@clara.net> Message-ID: <000601c5d32a$0f57d9f0$d0614e51@zen> Mike Austin wrote: > If one buys meat, it is the intention and action of the butcher etc. that > determines if he kills. No order is given. Such an order would be just an > imputation from the butcher's side. Mike, I think you need a reality check -- you obviously do not understand the dynamics of the modern meat trade or just don't want to know about it for some reason. Your stance is based on the Buddha's stipulations which applied to a totally different social situation. His advice was given to a small group of monks, the newly founded sangha, reliant upon alms from the general population, at a time when meat production was small-scale and involved considerably less suffering, numerically and qualitatively. Find out about present-day meat production and then ask yourself if you think the Buddha would have permitted any meat-eating if he were alive today. The situation now is totally different. Meat production is geared to the consumer -- without the demand would so many animals be slaughtered ? An animal might not be killed for you as "Mike Austin" but it is killed for you "the consumer". As a consumer you are causing others to kill for you. It's that simple. Do you even know how many animals are murdered each year for human consumption ? In the US alone, over 9.4 billion animals per annun (2.5 million per day) ! The numbers in Europe are proportionately similiar. How does that sit with your professed Mahayana belief in compassion ? This is even before we recognize that many animals are not even stunned properly before they are butchered -- at times they are skinned, gutted and butchered while fully conscious due to the pressures of production. Remember also that these animals have been bred and raised solely for one purpose -- to be killed and eaten by humans. You the consumer creates this demand, therefore you are responsible in part. When you buy meat, do you look at the price and buy "value for money" ? If so, you are causing animals even more suffering because cost saving comes at a heavy price to them. I suggest you do a couple of things quickly. Get the book that Joanna mentioned recently by Charles Patterson, "Eternal Treblinka", or similar, and also have a look at some of the videos of slaughter-houses in action -- have a bucket close to hand because you will probably want to vomit. If you can't get hold of any of these videos, I might possibly be able to arrange for somebody to send something to you. Have a video evening and invite your local friendly lamas around to watch, since they need educating too. I'll even send you my copy of Patterson's book although it is inexpensive and easily available even here in the UK. This is also very relevent to the title of this thread -- read Patterson and you will understand. Best wishes, Stephen Hodge From curt at cola.iges.org Mon Oct 17 09:18:55 2005 From: curt at cola.iges.org (curt) Date: Mon Oct 17 09:19:12 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] recommendations for books on Madhyamika In-Reply-To: <20051017144023.40801.qmail@web32604.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20051017144023.40801.qmail@web32604.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4353C0DF.5000404@cola.iges.org> Either Gethin's or Williams introductory texts on Buddhism will give you a good starting point (but they aren't exactly for "idiots"). Peter Harvey's introductory book does not deal with Madhyamika in as much detail as those other two. Williams' probably does the best job on Madhyamika and Yogacara. Williams also has a separate book just on "Mahayana Buddhism" - but I have only read the first few chapters of that - I haven't gotten up to Madhyamika yet. As far as Zen goes, Zen has an annoying anti-intellectual streak in it - a bug up its arse, really. This anti-intellectualism is not "inherhent" in Zen at all. Bodhidharma brought the Lankavatara Sutra with him from India, and his personal copy of that sutra came to be considered, along with his robe and bowl, something like the "Excalibur" of Zen - whoever "possessed" it was top-dog. But they all - robe, bowl and book, eventually fade out of the "transmission stories". Anyway - the Lankavatara is considered a "Yogacara" influenced Sutra. My point is: don't bother going around saying to Zen folks, "so Zen is connected with Madhamika?" - you'll either get blank stares or you'll be criticized for "thinking" too much. - Curt Michael Paris wrote: >So Zen is connected with Madhyamika philosophy? > >Any recommendations for books on Madhyamika, preferably suitable for >one without much background? > >(Is there a Madhyamika For Dummies, or an Idiot's Guide to Madhyamika?) > > >Michael > > > > > >__________________________________ >Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 >http://mail.yahoo.com >_______________________________________________ >buddha-l mailing list >buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com >http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l > > > > From richard.nance at gmail.com Mon Oct 17 09:46:57 2005 From: richard.nance at gmail.com (Richard Nance) Date: Mon Oct 17 09:49:12 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] recommendations for books on Madhyamika In-Reply-To: <20051017144023.40801.qmail@web32604.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <003501c5d297$967e9560$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> <20051017144023.40801.qmail@web32604.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: > Any recommendations for books on Madhyamika, preferably suitable for > one without much background? Michael -- Jay Garfield's *The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way* is a good place to start. It's a translation (from a Tibetan translation) of Naagaarjuna's foundational work, the Muulamadhyamakakaarikaa. The book isn't easy, but Garfield's prose explanation of the verses is very clear, and he does a superb job of teasing out some of the philosophical complexities of the text. Best wishes, R. Nance Ann Arbor, MI From curt at cola.iges.org Mon Oct 17 09:51:26 2005 From: curt at cola.iges.org (curt) Date: Mon Oct 17 09:59:16 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism In-Reply-To: <20051016231931.86627.qmail@web60017.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20051016231931.86627.qmail@web60017.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4353C87E.6060801@cola.iges.org> Its the same "Ky". He is definitely a Buddhist - and his memoir is an attempt to portray his political career as part of a movement of Buddhists to save Vietnam from both Communism and foreign (ie, Chinese, French, Japanese, US....) domination. The book is co-authored by Marvin J. Wolf, who is something of an accomplished co-author. For instance, he also co-wrote a book with Russell Means: "Where White Men Feat to Tread". Here's the link to amazon page for the book (I think I misspelled his name before - its "Nguyen Cao Ky"): http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0312281153/qid=1129563885/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/103-5613842-3896616?v=glance&s=books&n=507846 - Curt Mitchell Ginsberg wrote: > > > > > > > > > >>I think the interesting thing is that this book is >>written by a >>Vietnamese Buddhist - and Vietnamese Buddhists are >> >> > >======== >I found the book listed with title (not with author) >searches at amazon.com and ebay.com. >The face of the author on the book's cover was rather >familiar. He looks so much like one of the leaders put >up by South Vietnam back in those days (as premier, I >think the title was) when Iraq was something hard to >spell in the USA. But maybe looks are deceiving. I did >not know he was a Buddhist. >Thank you. >Mitchell > > > > > > > >==================== >http://www.geocities.com/jinavamsa/mentalhealth.html with links to >my home page, info on The Inner Palace (3rd ed.) and The Far Shore >(3rd ed.), further links to psychotherapy, to my current teaching, >to the Insight Practice (Vipassana), Chishtiyya (Sufi), Creative >Solutions for Peace, and Nasrudin discussion groups, and to the >Collective Dharma Insight project. > > > >__________________________________ >Yahoo! Music Unlimited >Access over 1 million songs. Try it free. >http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/ >_______________________________________________ >buddha-l mailing list >buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com >http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l > > > > From rhayes at unm.edu Mon Oct 17 09:58:16 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Mon Oct 17 09:59:25 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism In-Reply-To: <1K30yQEVFwUDFwxh@clara.net> References: <00a801c5ceb1$0c557eb0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <020801c5cf2c$84bc70e0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <434D2A04.5090803@nerim.net> <434D33CB.9050603@cola.iges.org> <434D5216.2000405@nerim.net> <434D6684.9020608@cola.iges.org> <434E0441.1060706@nerim.net> <1129188650.5150.18.camel@spinoza> <434E52F5.5060106@cola.iges.org> <1129235781.5150.57.camel@spinoza> <742428727.20051014000232@kungzhi.org> <1129247666.5150.95.camel@spinoza> <434FACC8.90608@nerim.net> <003a01c5d1dc$1ca1c020$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> <1129426250.8400.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> <001901c5d209$8c12ad20$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> <002b01c5d2a0$8cea68e0$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> <1129511331.7820.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1K30yQEVFwUDFwxh@clara.net> Message-ID: <1129564697.4561.16.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Mon, 2005-10-17 at 02:41 +0100, Mike Austin wrote: > If one buys meat, it is the intention and action of the butcher etc. > that determines if he kills. No order is given. Such an order would be > just an imputation from the butcher's side. This sounds like the thinking of someone who wants to eat meat and doesn't want to acknowledge that the decision to do so results in the unnecessary killing of animals. What I would prefer to do is just to acknowledge responsibility for being a significant part of an unwholesome and harmful process and that my own attachments are a factor in my participating in it. Nothing wrong with being honest. > Many years ago, before I encountered Buddhism, I used to live in a small > hotel where I was working in south Germany. The hotel had a fish tank. > One could select a fish to eat. I couldn't do that, but I felt OK about > ordering fish or meat on the menu that did not have to be killed for me. I can't see any difference at all. That's the kind of rationalization that enables all manner of harmful conduct to go unchecked. This is approximately the kind of thinking of someone who says "I knew there was a concentration camp in my town, and I was happy to be rid of all the Jews and homosexuals and gypsies and communists who used to live in the town, but I myself had nothing to do with buying the poison gas or shoving people into the gas chambers or disposing of the bodies, so my hands are clean." > This was my instinct at the time, and it still is. Reading that karma is > occasioned by actions through one's three doors - body, speech, mind - I > think it is a reasonable approach. Well, that kind of thinking may have worked well enough a thousand years ago, but it is just not good enough for the world in which we live today. If you are going to think in terms of karma at all, you really must think in terms of interconnectedness, and that means taking at least some responsibility for every unwholesome act that you could prevent but choose not to prevent. -- Richard Hayes From eklektik at gmail.com Mon Oct 17 10:02:55 2005 From: eklektik at gmail.com (Hugo) Date: Mon Oct 17 10:09:13 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Vipassana? In-Reply-To: <435286A4.9030905@cola.iges.org> References: <435286A4.9030905@cola.iges.org> Message-ID: <7964f6db0510170902l11d5ba7evbca287f9ea7219cc@mail.gmail.com> Hello Curt, On 10/16/05, curt wrote: > There is an underlying theoretical difference between Vipassana and Zen > that helps to explain their different "meditations". In both Vipassana > and Zen one could say that meditation is a tool for "investigating the > dharmas", and in Vipassana there are lots of "dharmas", but in Zen there > is, at most, only one. What "dharma" means here is "a thing that has > inherent existence". According to Theravada, no thing has inherent existence. In Pali: Sabbe dhamma anatta Even Nibbana lacks inherent existence. > Vipassana meditation tends to be somewhat > complicated precisely because it assume that there are actually lots of > these things ("dharmas") to investigate. Zen on the other hand reflects > either a Madhyamaka approach - in which there is "nothing" or "no thing" > to investigate (as in "all dharmas are marked with emptiness"), "In Vipassana" all dhammas are empty too, empty of a self, empty of inherent existence. -- Hugo From rhayes at unm.edu Mon Oct 17 10:21:36 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Mon Oct 17 10:29:15 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism In-Reply-To: <000601c5d32a$0f57d9f0$d0614e51@zen> References: <00a801c5ceb1$0c557eb0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <020801c5cf2c$84bc70e0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <434D2A04.5090803@nerim.net> <434D33CB.9050603@cola.iges.org> <434D5216.2000405@nerim.net> <434D6684.9020608@cola.iges.org> <434E0441.1060706@nerim.net> <1129188650.5150.18.camel@spinoza> <434E52F5.5060106@cola.iges.org> <1129235781.5150.57.camel@spinoza><742428727.20051014000232@kungzhi.org> <1129247666.5150.95.camel@spinoza> <434FACC8.90608@nerim.net> <003a01c5d1dc$1ca1c020$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> <1129426250.8400.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> <001901c5d209$8c12ad20$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> <002b01c5d2a0$8cea68e0$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> <1129511331.7820.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1K30yQEVFwUDFwxh@clara.net> <000601c5d32a$0f57d9f0$d0614e51@zen> Message-ID: <1129566096.4561.34.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Mon, 2005-10-17 at 15:49 +0100, Stephen Hodge wrote: > Do you even know how many animals are murdered each year for human > consumption ? In the US alone, over 9.4 billion animals per annun (2.5 > million per day) ! Sometimes I find it useful to think of this in human equivalents. For example, the number of animals killed every day in America is about five times the human population of the city in which I now live. It's about the same as the human population of Montreal. My guess is that if a city the size of Montreal were destroyed every day, people might begin to think something was amiss. > I suggest you do a couple of things quickly. Get the book that Joanna > mentioned recently by Charles Patterson, "Eternal Treblinka", or similar Another older but still good book is John Robbins Diet for a New America: How Your Food Choices Affect Your Health, Happiness and the Future of Life on Earth (Despite the title, the logic of the book probably works outside the Americas.) It is not so sensational, but it gets the point across that the meat and dairy business is ruinous to the environment and that an animal-based diet is bad for everyone's health. He sites plenty of medical authorities who have done research linking meat and dairy products to heart disease, all kinds of cancer, diabetes, osteoporosis and various other degenerative diseases. It is thought- provoking without being overly preachy. (Even though I completely agree with them, preachy vegetarians usually have the effect of making me want to take up cannibalism.) -- Richard Hayes From curt at cola.iges.org Mon Oct 17 11:24:33 2005 From: curt at cola.iges.org (curt) Date: Mon Oct 17 11:29:18 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Vipassana? In-Reply-To: <7964f6db0510170902l11d5ba7evbca287f9ea7219cc@mail.gmail.com> References: <435286A4.9030905@cola.iges.org> <7964f6db0510170902l11d5ba7evbca287f9ea7219cc@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4353DE51.304@cola.iges.org> Sorry - if you thought I was saying that Theravada rejects the doctrine of "anatta" that must have been quite a shock. Obviously for any Buddhist to hold that something has "inherent existence" (which might be a lousy way of putting it) this must not mean that it has a "self". I will go back and check my sources and correct or clarify what I was trying to say. - Curt Hugo wrote: >Hello Curt, > >On 10/16/05, curt wrote: > > >>There is an underlying theoretical difference between Vipassana and Zen >>that helps to explain their different "meditations". In both Vipassana >>and Zen one could say that meditation is a tool for "investigating the >>dharmas", and in Vipassana there are lots of "dharmas", but in Zen there >>is, at most, only one. What "dharma" means here is "a thing that has >>inherent existence". >> >> > >According to Theravada, no thing has inherent existence. > >In Pali: Sabbe dhamma anatta > >Even Nibbana lacks inherent existence. > > > > >>Vipassana meditation tends to be somewhat >>complicated precisely because it assume that there are actually lots of >>these things ("dharmas") to investigate. Zen on the other hand reflects >>either a Madhyamaka approach - in which there is "nothing" or "no thing" >>to investigate (as in "all dharmas are marked with emptiness"), >> >> > >"In Vipassana" all dhammas are empty too, empty of a self, empty of >inherent existence. > > >-- >Hugo > >_______________________________________________ >buddha-l mailing list >buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com >http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l > > > > From curt at cola.iges.org Mon Oct 17 11:36:23 2005 From: curt at cola.iges.org (curt) Date: Mon Oct 17 11:39:20 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism In-Reply-To: <1129566096.4561.34.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <00a801c5ceb1$0c557eb0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <020801c5cf2c$84bc70e0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <434D2A04.5090803@nerim.net> <434D33CB.9050603@cola.iges.org> <434D5216.2000405@nerim.net> <434D6684.9020608@cola.iges.org> <434E0441.1060706@nerim.net> <1129188650.5150.18.camel@spinoza> <434E52F5.5060106@cola.iges.org> <1129235781.5150.57.camel@spinoza><742428727.20051014000232@kungzhi.org> <1129247666.5150.95.camel@spinoza> <434FACC8.90608@nerim.net> <003a01c5d1dc$1ca1c020$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> <1129426250.8400.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> <001901c5d209$8c12ad20$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> <002b01c5d2a0$8cea68e0$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> <1129511331.7820.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1K30yQEVFwUDFwxh@clara.net> <000601c5d32a$0f57d9f0$d0614e51@zen> <1129566096.4561.34.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <4353E117.5030505@cola.iges.org> Richard P. Hayes wrote: >(Even though I completely agree >with them, preachy vegetarians usually have the effect of making me want >to take up cannibalism.) > > Now you know how I feel about preachy pacifists. But back to that other controversy over "killing". Has anyone brought up anti-biotics yet this time around? If not, I will. If you take anti-biotics you are killing living organisms by the billions. What did you think "anti-biotic" means, anyway? Even medicines that simply "strengthen the immune" are designed with only one purpose: to kill kill kill. That's what your immune system is for: killing. We are each and every one of us killing machines. Right now you are hunting down and killing possibly millions of living beings at this very second!! Except for anyone who is unfortunate to have an immune system that no longer works. Obviously you have to decide where to draw the line, and no one has a monopoly on where the right place is to draw the line. Especially preachy vegetarians. Hmmm, are pacifists against the "violence" of anti-biotics? How about the "violence" of that mass murderer: the immune system? What is the "justification" for defending oneself against diseases? - Curt From brburl at mailbag.com Mon Oct 17 12:29:34 2005 From: brburl at mailbag.com (Bruce Burrill) Date: Mon Oct 17 12:40:31 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Vipassana? In-Reply-To: <435286A4.9030905@cola.iges.org> References: <435286A4.9030905@cola.iges.org> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20051017130545.01ebf6d8@mailbag.com> At 11:58 AM 10/16/2005, Curt wrote: >What "dharma" means here is "a thing that has inherent existence". Well, that is a tricky one. Nanamoli in a footnote in his PATH OF PURIFICATION, pages 317-8, states: "In the Pitakas the word _sabhaava_ seems to appear only once...," it appears several times in Milindapanha, and it is used quite a bit in the PoP and it commentaries. He states it often roughly corresponds to _dhaatu_, element and to _lakkhana_, characteristic. An interesting passage from the PoP reads: "On the contrary, before their rise [the bases, aayatana] they had no individual essence [sabhaava], and after their fall their individual essence are completely dissolved. And they occur without mastery [being exercisable over them] since they exist in dependence on conditions and in between the past and the future." Page 551 XV 15. And another XV 21: "These are elements (dhaatu) since they cause [a state's] own individual essence [sabhaava] to be borne (dhaarenti)." There are several other passages that could be quoted. Nyanaponika quotes a sub-commentary to an Abhidhamma text: "There is no other thing than the quality borne by it." (na ca dhaariyamma-sabhaavaa an~n~o dhammo naama atthi). Abhidhamma Studies, page 40. Warder, in INDIAN BUDDHISM, page 323, discussing the Pali Abhidhamma commentarial literature, states: "The most significant new idea in the commentaries is the definition of a 'principle' or element (dharma): dharmas are what have (or 'hold', 'maintain', dhr. is the nearest equivalent in the language to the English 'have') their own own-nature (svabhaava). It is added that they naturally have this through conditions." Harvey in his excellent INTRODUCTION TO BUDDHISM, page 97, states in reference to the Mahayana critique of the Abhidharma (of the Sarvastivadins): "That is, seeing a dharma as an ultimate building block of reality, with an inherent nature of its 'own', is to hold that it can be identified without reference to other dharmas on which it depends. This implies that it can exist independently, making it a virtual self." Harvey characterizes the Theravadin position, page 87: "'They are _dhammas_ because they uphold their own nature [sabhaava]. They are _dhammas_ because they are upheld by conditions or they are upheld according to their own nature' (Asl.39). Here 'own-nature' would mean characteristic nature, which is not something inherent in a _dhamma_ as a separate ultimate reality, but arise due to the supporting conditions both of other _dhammas_ and previous occurrences of that _dhamma_. This is of significance as it makes the Mahayana critique of the Sarvastivadin's notion of own-nature largely irrelevant to the Theravada." As Piatigorsky points out: a dharma [in the Pali Abhidhamma], in fact, ?is? no thing, yet a term denoting (not being) a certain relation or type of relation to thought, consciousness or mind. That is, dharma is not a concept in the accepted terminological sense of the latter, but a purely relational notion. > >These are the things that are "real", or > "really real" - the things that everything else > is made out of - but which themselves are not > made from anything else. If you took the > Universe completely apart until you couldn't > take it apart any more - all you would have > left is "dharmas". Vipassana meditation tends > to be somewhat complicated precisely because it > assume that there are actually lots of these > things ("dharmas") to investigate. But things > are more complicated than that - because > "vipassana" is not limited to schools or traditions. But that is not necessarily how vipassana works from the standpoint of the modern Theravadin vipassana movement. The following is a good, detailed and scholarly discussion of modern vipassana: http://www.dharma.org/~study/strongroots/ How vipassana is understood by the Theravadins is not necessarily how it is understood by other school. From curt at cola.iges.org Mon Oct 17 13:00:51 2005 From: curt at cola.iges.org (curt) Date: Mon Oct 17 13:10:25 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Vipassana? In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20051017130545.01ebf6d8@mailbag.com> References: <435286A4.9030905@cola.iges.org> <6.2.3.4.2.20051017130545.01ebf6d8@mailbag.com> Message-ID: <4353F4E3.1050106@cola.iges.org> Wow - thanks putting the effort into going through this tricky business! Your carefully and thoughtfully annotated comments are much better than my sloppy paraphrases were. As far as your last comment - I think it is always wisest to defer to a school's own explanation of itself - unless there is really an awfully good reason not to. But one should also study critiques and "other points of view" - especially of ones own particular school/faction/bowling-team. I did not intend to misrepresent modern Theravada Buddhism (or any other Buddhism). - Curt Bruce Burrill wrote: > At 11:58 AM 10/16/2005, Curt wrote: > > >What "dharma" means here is "a thing that has inherent existence". > > Well, that is a tricky one. Nanamoli in a footnote in his PATH OF > PURIFICATION, pages 317-8, states: > > "In the Pitakas the word _sabhaava_ seems to appear only once...," > > it appears several times in Milindapanha, and it is used quite a bit > in the PoP and it commentaries. He states it often roughly corresponds > to _dhaatu_, element and to _lakkhana_, characteristic. > > An interesting passage from the PoP reads: > > "On the contrary, before their rise [the bases, aayatana] they had no > individual essence [sabhaava], and after their fall their individual > essence are completely dissolved. And they occur without mastery > [being exercisable over them] since they exist in dependence on > conditions and in between the past and the future." Page 551 XV 15. > > And another XV 21: > > "These are elements (dhaatu) since they cause [a state's] own > individual essence [sabhaava] to be borne (dhaarenti)." > > There are several other passages that could be quoted. Nyanaponika > quotes a sub-commentary to an Abhidhamma text: > > "There is no other thing than the quality borne by it." (na ca > dhaariyamma-sabhaavaa an~n~o dhammo naama atthi). Abhidhamma Studies, > page 40. > > Warder, in INDIAN BUDDHISM, page 323, discussing the Pali Abhidhamma > commentarial literature, states: > > "The most significant new idea in the commentaries is the definition > of a 'principle' or element (dharma): dharmas are what > have (or 'hold', 'maintain', dhr. is the nearest equivalent in the > language to the English 'have') their own own-nature (svabhaava). It > is added that they naturally have this through conditions." > > Harvey in his excellent INTRODUCTION TO BUDDHISM, page 97, states in > reference to the Mahayana critique of the Abhidharma (of the > Sarvastivadins): > > "That is, seeing a dharma as an ultimate building block of reality, > with an inherent nature of its 'own', is to hold that it can be > identified without reference to other dharmas on which it depends. > This implies that it can exist independently, making it a virtual self." > > Harvey characterizes the Theravadin position, page 87: > > "'They are _dhammas_ because they uphold their own nature [sabhaava]. > They are _dhammas_ because they are upheld by conditions or they are > upheld according to their own nature' (Asl.39). Here 'own-nature' > would mean characteristic nature, which is not something inherent in a > _dhamma_ as a separate ultimate reality, but arise due to the > supporting conditions both of other _dhammas_ and previous occurrences > of that _dhamma_. This is of significance as it makes the Mahayana > critique of the Sarvastivadin's notion of own-nature largely > irrelevant to the Theravada." > > As Piatigorsky points out: > > a dharma [in the Pali Abhidhamma], in fact, ?is? no thing, yet a term > denoting (not being) a certain relation or type of relation to > thought, consciousness or mind. That is, dharma is not a concept in > the accepted terminological sense of the latter, but a purely > relational notion. > >> >These are the things that are "real", or "really real" - the things >> that everything else is made out of - but which themselves are not >> made from anything else. If you took the Universe completely apart >> until you couldn't take it apart any more - all you would have left >> is "dharmas". Vipassana meditation tends to be somewhat complicated >> precisely because it assume that there are actually lots of these >> things ("dharmas") to investigate. ? But things are more complicated >> than that - because "vipassana" is not limited to schools or traditions. > > > > But that is not necessarily how vipassana works from the standpoint of > the modern Theravadin vipassana movement. The following is a good, > detailed and scholarly discussion of modern vipassana: > > http://www.dharma.org/~study/strongroots/ > > > How vipassana is understood by the Theravadins is not necessarily how > it is understood by other school. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l > > From brburl at mailbag.com Mon Oct 17 13:20:51 2005 From: brburl at mailbag.com (Bruce Burrill) Date: Mon Oct 17 13:29:14 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] recommendations for books on Madhyamika In-Reply-To: <20051017144023.40801.qmail@web32604.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <003501c5d297$967e9560$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> <20051017144023.40801.qmail@web32604.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20051017141914.03b0b0e8@mailbag.com> At 09:40 AM 10/17/2005, you wrote: >So Zen is connected with Madhyamika philosophy? > >Any recommendations for books on Madhyamika, preferably suitable for >one without much background? Get a hold of T.P Kasulis' excellent ZEN ACTION/ZEN PERSON. You'll not be disappointed. From mike at lamrim.org.uk Mon Oct 17 13:18:57 2005 From: mike at lamrim.org.uk (Mike Austin) Date: Mon Oct 17 13:29:26 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism In-Reply-To: <000601c5d32a$0f57d9f0$d0614e51@zen> References: <00a801c5ceb1$0c557eb0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <434D2A04.5090803@nerim.net> <434D33CB.9050603@cola.iges.org> <434D5216.2000405@nerim.net> <434D6684.9020608@cola.iges.org> <434E0441.1060706@nerim.net> <1129188650.5150.18.camel@spinoza> <434E52F5.5060106@cola.iges.org> <1129235781.5150.57.camel@spinoza> <742428727.20051014000232@kungzhi.org> <1129247666.5150.95.camel@spinoza> <434FACC8.90608@nerim.net> <003a01c5d1dc$1ca1c020$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> <1129426250.8400.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> <001901c5d209$8c12ad20$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> <002b01c5d2a0$8cea68e0$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> <1129511331.7820.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1K30yQEVFwUDFwxh@clara.net> <000601c5d32a$0f57d9f0$d0614e51@zen> Message-ID: In message <000601c5d32a$0f57d9f0$d0614e51@zen>, Stephen Hodge writes >Mike Austin wrote: > >> If one buys meat, it is the intention and action of the butcher etc. >>that determines if he kills. No order is given. Such an order would >>be just an imputation from the butcher's side. > >Mike, I think you need a reality check Ok, I will book myself in for one. I have had many discussions on this topic. People become dogmatic and try to convert each other. I explain my approach and leave it at that. I am happy when people are vegetarian because their intention is good. I don't eat very much meat, but when I do, I don't think my actions of body, speech and mind are bad. -- Metta Mike Austin From bcarral at kungzhi.org Mon Oct 17 13:43:03 2005 From: bcarral at kungzhi.org (Benito Carral) Date: Mon Oct 17 13:49:15 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism In-Reply-To: <4351094F.5020309@nerim.net> References: <00a801c5ceb1$0c557eb0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <020801c5cf2c$84bc70e0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <434D2A04.5090803@nerim.net> <434D33CB.9050603@cola.iges.org> <434D5216.2000405@nerim.net> <434D6684.9020608@cola.iges.org> <294991653.20051013194841@kungzhi.org> <434EA1EA.30109@cola.iges.org> <14138687.20051015034940@kungzhi.org> <4351094F.5020309@nerim.net> Message-ID: <1819706691.20051017214303@kungzhi.org> On Saturday, October 15, 2005, Joy Vriens wrote: > An individual is only the sum of various coexisting > physical experiences, impulses and ideas at a given > moment, like a society is. I tend to think that things are somewhat more complex than that. I interpret your words as a view (among others) about what an "individual" is. I accept your interpretation from a Buddhist point of view, however everything is interdependent, but not everything is the same. I don't usually like to ask, "What is it?," but, "How does it work?." I prefer to ask, "What is the function of an individual?", "What is a function of a society?" - keeping in mind that there are many kinds of individuals and societies. > An individual is a society (or maybe I am totally > schizophrenic) on a lower level if you like. What is > good about society and what is bad about an > individual? I think of an individual as someone who thinks, "I must pursue my own dreams, feelings, and ideas," and in doing so he remains alone, without taking care of others, unable of offering trust and loyalty, unable of commitment. In the other hand, a society member is someone who doesn't think in those terms, but understands himself as part of a team, "I must pursue our dreams, our feelings, and our ideas." Someone who can offer trust and loyalty, and keep commitments. So, for me, it's not a surprise that relationships are falling apart and individuals feeling miserable. I think that if there is something that matters that is others, and that's why I would like to develop a family centered Buddhism. Best wishes, Beni From rhayes at unm.edu Mon Oct 17 13:47:37 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Mon Oct 17 13:49:29 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism In-Reply-To: <4353E117.5030505@cola.iges.org> References: <00a801c5ceb1$0c557eb0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <020801c5cf2c$84bc70e0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <434D2A04.5090803@nerim.net> <434D33CB.9050603@cola.iges.org> <434D5216.2000405@nerim.net> <434D6684.9020608@cola.iges.org> <434E0441.1060706@nerim.net> <1129188650.5150.18.camel@spinoza> <434E52F5.5060106@cola.iges.org> <1129235781.5150.57.camel@spinoza><742428727.20051014000232@kungzhi.org> <1129247666.5150.95.camel@spinoza> <434FACC8.90608@nerim.net> <003a01c5d1dc$1ca1c020$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> <1129426250.8400.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> <001901c5d209$8c12ad20$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> <002b01c5d2a0$8cea68e0$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> <1129511331.7820.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1K30yQEVFwUDFwxh@clara.net> <000601c5d32a$0f57d9f0$d0614e51@zen> <1129566096.4561.34.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4353E117.5030505@cola.iges.org> Message-ID: <1129578458.6140.12.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Mon, 2005-10-17 at 13:36 -0400, curt wrote: > Now you know how I feel about preachy pacifists. Yes, they have the same effect on me. > Obviously you have to decide where to draw the line, and no one has a > monopoly on where the right place is to draw the line. Discussions about various places to draw the line are helpful, I think. One of the many signs of the death of American democracy is that there are few discussions these days that do not turn into one or more opposing camps of people who speak much and listen little. > Hmmm, are pacifists against the "violence" of anti-biotics? The pacifists I know are opposed to unnecessary killing. Of course there are plenty of disagreements about what killing is unnecessary. My own position is that no taking of human life is ever necessary, and so I oppose all wars and the death penalty. But when I have the misfortune to live in a society that goes to war and executes criminals, my opposition takes the feeble form of speaking out against the practices and trying to persuade others. I also find the killing of animals unnecessary in the sense that it is perfectly possible to survive, and even to thrive, without it. As for antibiotics, I personally have resisted using them most of the time, but I have taken courses of them to combat especially strong infections that I have acquired in Asia. Of course I realize that taking antibiotics is killing organisms and is therefore an action to which I am opposed, and I see this as a sign that I still have attachments and take it for granted that those attachments will cause me my share of dukkha. I look forward to the day when I have eliminated those attachments and can die with equanimity of whatever micro-organism comes my way. > How about the "violence" of that mass murderer: the immune > system? What is the "justification" for defending oneself against diseases? To defend oneself is a form of attachment. There is no justification for it, nor is there a need for one. People have attachments, and because of them they experience suffering. There is nothing more to be said about it, is there? -- Richard Hayes Department of Philosophy University of New Mexico From rhayes at unm.edu Mon Oct 17 14:02:27 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Mon Oct 17 14:09:18 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism In-Reply-To: References: <00a801c5ceb1$0c557eb0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <434D2A04.5090803@nerim.net> <434D33CB.9050603@cola.iges.org> <434D5216.2000405@nerim.net> <434D6684.9020608@cola.iges.org> <434E0441.1060706@nerim.net> <1129188650.5150.18.camel@spinoza> <434E52F5.5060106@cola.iges.org> <1129235781.5150.57.camel@spinoza> <742428727.20051014000232@kungzhi.org> <1129247666.5150.95.camel@spinoza> <434FACC8.90608@nerim.net> <003a01c5d1dc$1ca1c020$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> <1129426250.8400.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> <001901c5d209$8c12ad20$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> <002b01c5d2a0$8cea68e0$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> <1129511331.7820.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1K30yQEVFwUDFwxh@clara.net> <000601c5d32a$0f57d9f0$d0614e51@zen> Message-ID: <1129579348.6140.29.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Mon, 2005-10-17 at 20:18 +0100, Mike Austin wrote: > I don't eat very much meat, but when I do, I don't think my actions of > body, speech and mind are bad. It is not a matter of seeing anything as good or bad. Rather, it is a matter of noting that there is suffering in the world and that one is doing one's part in contributing to it and then being willing to consider trying to act in ways that reduce the contribution one is making to the unnecessary suffering that sentient beings suffer. Clarity of mind, honest and mindfulness do not require feeling guilty; indeed, feelings of guilt may cloud the mind more than clarifying it. As long as we are disclosing our personal habits, nowadays I eat fish and chicken from time to time. I don't, however, try to justify it. I see it as about the same as when I used to smoke tobacco, even though I also firmly believed it was causing myself and others quite a lot of avoidable suffering. There is such a thing as weakness of will. When one has it, one causes suffering. There is no need to see that as morally blameworthy, but it does not hurt to recognize that it's too bad that things work out this way. Far more productive that blaming oneself and others who have weakness of character, I think, is rejoicing that there are people around us who are strong in ways in which we are weak and that we may, in time, cultivate more strength in ourselves by seeing those who are around us. -- Richard Hayes From bcarral at kungzhi.org Mon Oct 17 14:16:45 2005 From: bcarral at kungzhi.org (Benito Carral) Date: Mon Oct 17 14:20:28 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Devadatta the Renegade: The Thrue History of Buddhism In-Reply-To: <4350FA52.3070905@nerim.net> References: <433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net><617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org> <4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net><1359619694.20051004213630@kungzhi.org> <43441B56.7080303@nerim.net> <1479321719.20051006043947@kungzhi.org><003c01c5ca43$01172200$c8369c04@Dan> <4344DBFE.8030202@nerim.net> <00c701c5ca62$e5c7f5e0$c8369c04@Dan> <4345220A.5040309@nerim.net> <1667485633.20051007043716@kungzhi.org> <43462606.40507@nerim.net> <1591830279.20051010043322@kungzhi.org> <434A29F1.7080700@nerim.net> <18010600083.20051010172344@kungzhi.org> <434A9578.5040205@nerim.net> <91000758.20051011160943@kungzhi.org> <434BE971.6020008@nerim.net> <215877815.20051011192514@kungzhi.org> <434C31E6.3030108@nerim.net> <195697600.20051012010828@kungzhi.org> <434CE876.2020505@nerim.net> <1145551373.20051012185457@kungzhi.org> <434D5AFA.2020405@nerim.net> <79202899.20051015040121@kungzhi.org> <4350FA52.3070905@nerim.net> Message-ID: <29104131.20051017221645@kungzhi.org> On Saturday, October 15, 2005, Joy Vriens wrote: >> I think that I don't tend to do it. But in the case >> of the Devadattian rigorists, I think that they were >> the ones who decided to define themselves against >> the mainstrean sangha. > I am not so sure. The rigorism came first (Jainism, > the Buddha's unsuccessful practice of ascetism). > Perhaps Devadatta cum suis were simply more > traditionalist and thought Buddhism went too far in > its redefinition. The question is that Devadattian regorists defined themselves against the mainstream Buddhist sangha. They were a minority without much historical success. I suppose that they tried to moved away from a decandent sangha (inspired not by Jainism nor by the Old Guy's former ascestic practices but by his example as a Buddhist) and I admire that (as I admire the people from the Forest tradition or some wandering Chan monks), however it seems that they also eventually became decandent - I know, some people call "evolution" to "decadence," but not me. Best wishes, Beni From bcarral at kungzhi.org Mon Oct 17 14:28:13 2005 From: bcarral at kungzhi.org (Benito Carral) Date: Mon Oct 17 14:29:17 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: "So much for tsunami dana" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <784208901.20051017222813@kungzhi.org> On Saturday, October 15, 2005, Andrew Skilton wrote: > Two questions come to mind: > 1. Is this happening anywhere? My knowledge of the > fairtrade 'movement' is minimal (coffee and bananas, > basically) so forgive my ignorance if I should know. > A brief internet search did not seem to uncover any > thing like this - just a mountain of organic bananas > and coffee beans. I have been involved in the fairtrade movement for some time, and I'm not aware of anything like being happening. It's my own personal proposal. The people I discussed it with tend to think that it's too glabal. > 2. I'm not sure about your last two sentences - I am > wary of bureaucracy in any context (other than in my > bureau). Would not a 'ground up' approach be more > suitable and in keeping with the fairtrade ethos? I don't exclude such a view, I just complement it because I think that some kind of global organization is necessary in order to work in a global scale. > (And, in my view, with Buddhist principals, insofar > as it could support a greater degree of personal or > individual engagement/responsibility. I note that the > FairTrade Foundation attempted to link FairTrade > consumers with partners in Asia who could offer > direct assistance to tsunami survivors.) I like very much such an approach. The problem is that sometimes there is nothing to offer in the devastated territories. That's why, in such cases, I propose that goods, services, and infrastructures come from fairtrade cooperatives instead from corportations. Best wishes, Beni From ghoti at consultron.ca Mon Oct 17 14:43:23 2005 From: ghoti at consultron.ca (Tom Troughton) Date: Mon Oct 17 14:49:15 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Vipassana? In-Reply-To: <7964f6db0510170902l11d5ba7evbca287f9ea7219cc@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200510172045.j9HKjvtj009590@mail2.magma.ca> On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 12:02:55 -0400, Hugo wrote: >According to Theravada, no thing has inherent existence. > >In Pali: Sabbe dhamma anatta > >Even Nibbana lacks inherent existence. Are you suggesting that in Theravada nibbana is a dhamma (thing)? Best wishes Tom From mike at lamrim.org.uk Mon Oct 17 14:51:32 2005 From: mike at lamrim.org.uk (Mike Austin) Date: Mon Oct 17 14:59:18 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism In-Reply-To: <1129579348.6140.29.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <00a801c5ceb1$0c557eb0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <434D5216.2000405@nerim.net> <434D6684.9020608@cola.iges.org> <434E0441.1060706@nerim.net> <1129188650.5150.18.camel@spinoza> <434E52F5.5060106@cola.iges.org> <1129235781.5150.57.camel@spinoza> <742428727.20051014000232@kungzhi.org> <1129247666.5150.95.camel@spinoza> <434FACC8.90608@nerim.net> <003a01c5d1dc$1ca1c020$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> <1129426250.8400.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> <001901c5d209$8c12ad20$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> <002b01c5d2a0$8cea68e0$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> <1129511331.7820.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1K30yQEVFwUDFwxh@clara.net> <000601c5d32a$0f57d9f0$d0614e51@zen> <1129579348.6140.29.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: In message <1129579348.6140.29.camel@localhost.localdomain>, Richard P. Hayes writes >On Mon, 2005-10-17 at 20:18 +0100, Mike Austin wrote: > >> I don't eat very much meat, but when I do, I don't think my actions of >> body, speech and mind are bad. > >It is not a matter of seeing anything as good or bad. Rather, it is a >matter of noting that there is suffering in the world and that one is >doing one's part in contributing to it and then being willing to >consider trying to act in ways that reduce the contribution one is >making to the unnecessary suffering that sentient beings suffer. Clarity >of mind, honest and mindfulness do not require feeling guilty; indeed, >feelings of guilt may cloud the mind more than clarifying it. What is it about this issue that makes it so tempting to discuss? But I am going to pass on it. I do note the suffering of samsara; that actions have results; that there is an interdependence of actions of all beings. I just come to a different conclusion about my actions - and guilt does not feature there at all. -- Metta Mike Austin From bcarral at kungzhi.org Mon Oct 17 15:38:41 2005 From: bcarral at kungzhi.org (Benito Carral) Date: Mon Oct 17 15:39:18 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism In-Reply-To: <00a901c5d1c5$58511b00$7dee6480@chass> References: <00a801c5ceb1$0c557eb0$2c1b9c04@Dan><020801c5cf2c$84bc70e0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <434D2A04.5090803@nerim.net><434D33CB.9050603@cola.iges.org> <434D5216.2000405@nerim.net><434D6684.9020608@cola.iges.org> <294991653.20051013194841@kungzhi.org><434EA1EA.30109@cola.iges.org> <14138687.20051015034940@kungzhi.org> <00a901c5d1c5$58511b00$7dee6480@chass> Message-ID: <1024688094.20051017233841@kungzhi.org> On Saturday, October 15, 2005, Gad Horowitz wrote: > the question is whether individuals are MERELY > members.does membership not presuppose some degree of > individuality (self-organization) (integrity)? Our left hand is much more than a left hand - in fact, it's that "much more" what makes it our left hand. Our body can go on without our left hand, but our left hand can't do without our body. That's how I understand what a society member is. Best wishes, Beni From bcarral at kungzhi.org Mon Oct 17 15:45:54 2005 From: bcarral at kungzhi.org (Benito Carral) Date: Mon Oct 17 15:49:17 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Vipassana? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1153954862.20051017234554@kungzhi.org> On Sunday, October 16, 2005, d f tweney wrote: > Can someone give me (or point me to) a good > description of what makes "vipassana" meditation > unique -- or what differentiates it from, say, Zen > meditation? I would tend to say that context is everything. Vipassana meditation is part of a Buddhist view, Zen meditation is part of a different Buddhist wiew. Of course, there are also different Zen meditations. Best wishes, Beni From bcarral at kungzhi.org Mon Oct 17 15:56:42 2005 From: bcarral at kungzhi.org (Benito Carral) Date: Mon Oct 17 15:59:19 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Vipassana? In-Reply-To: <1129490487.6353.42.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1129490487.6353.42.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <559603479.20051017235642@kungzhi.org> On Sunday, October 16, 2005, Richard P. Hayes wrote: > There is just more mumbo jumbo about enlightenment in > Zen, in addition to which you have to put up with a > totalitarian master who abuses you and tells you it > is good for you. If the goal is to become liberated > form dukkha, vipassana is the method of choice. If > your goal is to become an obedient robot, go for Zen. This is plain nonsense. I have been practicing Chinese Zen for almost 20 years and have never found something like that. However I have seen some Japanese roshis and their acolytes playing a similar game to the one that you describe here. Best wishes, Beni From bcarral at kungzhi.org Mon Oct 17 16:08:55 2005 From: bcarral at kungzhi.org (Benito Carral) Date: Mon Oct 17 16:09:18 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: recommendations for books on Madhyamika In-Reply-To: <4353C0DF.5000404@cola.iges.org> References: <20051017144023.40801.qmail@web32604.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4353C0DF.5000404@cola.iges.org> Message-ID: <1289233492.20051018000855@kungzhi.org> On Monday, October 17, 2005, Curt wrote: > My point is: don't bother going around saying to Zen > folks, "so Zen is connected with Madhamika?" - you'll > either get blank stares or you'll be criticized for > "thinking" too much. I suppose that I'm a Zen folk after all, and I'm sure that many Zen folks like me agree that Zen is connected with Madhyamika, and with Huayan. Maybe some Zen folks (specially from Japanese schools) don't read or study books, but if you visit Chinese monasteries, you will discover that they have great study programs. That Zen stereotype that you reproduce is just plain nonsense. Best wishes, Beni From bcarral at kungzhi.org Mon Oct 17 16:11:59 2005 From: bcarral at kungzhi.org (Benito Carral) Date: Mon Oct 17 16:19:18 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: recommendations for books on Madhyamika In-Reply-To: <20051017144023.40801.qmail@web32604.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <003501c5d297$967e9560$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> <20051017144023.40801.qmail@web32604.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <449715197.20051018001159@kungzhi.org> On Monday, October 17, 2005, Michael Paris wrote: > Any recommendations for books on Madhyamika, > preferably suitable for one without much background? I like _Early Madhyamila in India and China_ by Richard H. Robinson very much. I think that it's very clear. Best wishes, Beni From franzmetcalf at earthlink.net Mon Oct 17 16:17:32 2005 From: franzmetcalf at earthlink.net (Franz Metcalf) Date: Mon Oct 17 16:19:33 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Vipassana? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dylan, This issue has a long history in Buddhist scholarly literature (and Buddhist apologetic literature, too). One recent and easily accessible treatment can be found in a Journal of Buddhist Ethics article from last year, by Ethan Mills: http://jbe.gold.ac.uk/11/mill0301.html I had my mind blown by a very early Paul Griffiths article (in the Journal of the American Academy of Religion, I believe) on these two forms of meditation. (Sorry, I don't have the reference to hand--does anyone know the article I'm talking about? It was from the 70s, I believe.) Winston King did a whole book on this issue: _Theravada Meditation: The Buddhist Transformation of Yoga_ (1980). This contrast of insight (vipassana) and calming (samadhi/shamata, etc.) meditation also comes up in Brad Clough's work. If he's not too busy, he'll be able to help you a good deal. It is a crucial issue because it brings up the question of soteriology: vipassana and shamata really move a person toward different end-states. My own experiential perspective (based on experiences in Zen centers) is that Soto style "just sitting" is effectively very similar to vipassana meditation. Some Zen meditation is more samadhi-focussed, but most forms of Zen attempt to maintain a balance of both styles. Cheers, Franz From franzmetcalf at earthlink.net Mon Oct 17 16:26:17 2005 From: franzmetcalf at earthlink.net (Franz Metcalf) Date: Mon Oct 17 16:29:21 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: recommendations for books on Madhyamika In-Reply-To: <1289233492.20051018000855@kungzhi.org> References: <20051017144023.40801.qmail@web32604.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4353C0DF.5000404@cola.iges.org> <1289233492.20051018000855@kungzhi.org> Message-ID: <697c8217e913dcffa9acd5db6d248da6@earthlink.net> Beni et al., I wouldn't say that Curt's and Richard's caricatures of Zen practice are "plain nonsense." Stereotypes, yes, but not nonsense. I think they are off the mark these days at most Zen centers in the West, but I think that's because Western Zen has grown much more comfortable with its intellectual heritage in these last ten years or so. Before that things were pretty darn anti-intellectual, at least here in California. (But then, this should not be surprising.) This movement away from authoritarianism and anti-intellectualism is my anecdotal experience of Zen practice, but it's something I see from afar in other Zen contexts as well--and thank goodness for it. Cheers, Franz From rhayes at unm.edu Mon Oct 17 16:38:34 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Mon Oct 17 16:39:17 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Vipassana? In-Reply-To: <559603479.20051017235642@kungzhi.org> References: <1129490487.6353.42.camel@localhost.localdomain> <559603479.20051017235642@kungzhi.org> Message-ID: <1129588715.4346.1.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Mon, 2005-10-17 at 23:56 +0200, Benito Carral wrote: > This is plain nonsense. Yes, of course it is. I'm glad you appreciated the joke. Thank Providence people have not lost their sense of humor here on buddha-l. -- Richard Hayes From laura.castell at jcu.edu.au Mon Oct 17 16:46:19 2005 From: laura.castell at jcu.edu.au (Laura Castell) Date: Mon Oct 17 16:49:22 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] on eating meat In-Reply-To: <200510171604.j9HG4eVC002402@ns1.swcp.com> Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.0.20051018083252.0120e5f8@mail.jcu.edu.au> At 10:04 AM 17/10/2005 -0600, you wrote: >Message: 6 >Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 15:49:33 +0100 >From: "Stephen Hodge" >Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism >To: "Buddhist discussion forum" >Message-ID: <000601c5d32a$0f57d9f0$d0614e51@zen> >Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; > reply-type=response > >Mike Austin wrote: > > > If one buys meat, it is the intention and action of the butcher etc. that > > determines if he kills. No order is given. Such an order would be just an > > imputation from the butcher's side. > >Mike, I think you need a reality check -- you obviously do not understand >the dynamics of the modern meat trade or just don't want to know about it >for some reason. > >Your stance is based on the Buddha's stipulations which applied to a totally >different social situation. His advice was given to a small group of monks, >the newly founded sangha, reliant upon alms from the general population, at >a time when meat production was small-scale and involved considerably less >suffering, numerically and qualitatively. Find out about present-day meat >production and then ask yourself if you think the Buddha would have >permitted any meat-eating if he were alive today. > >The situation now is totally different. Meat production is geared to the >consumer -- without the demand would so many animals be slaughtered ? An >animal might not be killed for you as "Mike Austin" but it is killed for you >"the consumer". As a consumer you are causing others to kill for you. It's >that simple. > >Do you even know how many animals are murdered each year for human >consumption ? In the US alone, over 9.4 billion animals per annun (2.5 >million per day) ! The numbers in Europe are proportionately similiar. >How does that sit with your professed Mahayana belief in compassion ? This >is even before we recognize that many animals are not even stunned properly >before they are butchered -- at times they are skinned, gutted and butchered >while fully conscious due to the pressures of production. Remember also >that these animals have been bred and raised solely for one purpose -- to be >killed and eaten by humans. You the consumer creates this demand, >therefore you are responsible in part. When you buy meat, do you look at >the price and buy "value for money" ? If so, you are causing animals even >more suffering because cost saving comes at a heavy price to them. > >I suggest you do a couple of things quickly. Get the book that Joanna >mentioned recently by Charles Patterson, "Eternal Treblinka", or similar, >and also have a look at some of the videos of slaughter-houses in action -- >have a bucket close to hand because you will probably want to vomit. If you >can't get hold of any of these videos, I might possibly be able to arrange >for somebody to send something to you. Have a video evening and invite >your local friendly lamas around to watch, since they need educating too. >I'll even send you my copy of Patterson's book although it is inexpensive >and easily available even here in the UK. > >This is also very relevent to the title of this thread -- read Patterson and >you will understand. > >Best wishes, >Stephen Hodge I've been following this thread with attention because I think we (people) tend to live with many contradictions between what we do and what we 'pray' or think is correct, often not being aware of these contradictions, and the case of eating meat is usually one. I think it is basically the same attitude that drives us to use air conditioning, waste water, produce lots of waste, etc etc. But the point I want to make in this message is that I read in one of the many books by The Dalai Lama that he eats meat once a week for health reasons. At least in the interview there was no mention of killing the animal in a special way or anything like that. It made me wonder though. Should I assume that someone like The Dalai Lama would (obviously) take that into consideration or am I being idealistic? Sometimes I think I expect perfection from people who practice Buddhism, but they are people like us (in other words, full of imperfections!) and are in the road of learning, aren't they? Best wishes, Laura From richard.nance at gmail.com Mon Oct 17 16:50:37 2005 From: richard.nance at gmail.com (Richard Nance) Date: Mon Oct 17 16:59:18 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Vipassana? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Franz wrote: > I had my mind blown by a very early Paul Griffiths article (in the > Journal of the American Academy of Religion, I believe) on these two > forms of meditation. (Sorry, I don't have the reference to hand--does > anyone know the article I'm talking about? It was from the 70s, I > believe.) I think the article you're referencing is from 1981. Griffiths, Paul J. "Concentration or Insight: The Problematic of Theravaada Buddhist Meditation-Theory." Journal of the American Academy of Religion 49: 606-624. Best wishes, R. Nance From curt at cola.iges.org Mon Oct 17 17:08:47 2005 From: curt at cola.iges.org (curt) Date: Mon Oct 17 17:09:20 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: recommendations for books on Madhyamika In-Reply-To: <1289233492.20051018000855@kungzhi.org> References: <20051017144023.40801.qmail@web32604.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4353C0DF.5000404@cola.iges.org> <1289233492.20051018000855@kungzhi.org> Message-ID: <43542EFF.9080305@cola.iges.org> I changed my mind. I now think that anti-intellectualism is a good thing in Zen. Anyone who is going to read or not read depending on what their teacher tells them to do, or what the peer pressure pressures them to do, should sit more until they grow some gonads. Leave the reading material for the adults who think for themselves and are not so easily led. - Curt Benito Carral wrote: >On Monday, October 17, 2005, Curt wrote: > > > >>My point is: don't bother going around saying to Zen >>folks, "so Zen is connected with Madhamika?" - you'll >>either get blank stares or you'll be criticized for >>"thinking" too much. >> >> > > I suppose that I'm a Zen folk after all, and I'm >sure that many Zen folks like me agree that Zen is >connected with Madhyamika, and with Huayan. Maybe some >Zen folks (specially from Japanese schools) don't read >or study books, but if you visit Chinese monasteries, >you will discover that they have great study programs. >That Zen stereotype that you reproduce is just plain >nonsense. > > Best wishes, > > Beni > > >_______________________________________________ >buddha-l mailing list >buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com >http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l > > > > From curt at cola.iges.org Mon Oct 17 17:06:18 2005 From: curt at cola.iges.org (curt) Date: Mon Oct 17 17:09:42 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] on eating meat In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.0.20051018083252.0120e5f8@mail.jcu.edu.au> References: <5.2.1.1.0.20051018083252.0120e5f8@mail.jcu.edu.au> Message-ID: <43542E6A.2000403@cola.iges.org> Tibetan monks do not practice vegetarianism as a general rule and I am pretty sure that the Dalai Lama eats meat more than once a week. I heard him speak once and he was asked this question (it was funny hearing several thousand Buddhists groan all at once when he was asked "the vegetarian question") and he said he was a vegetarian "50% of the time". You should remember that the Dalai Lama is the avatar of Avalokitesvara, the freaking Bodhisattva of Compassion - so if he (she?) doesn't have to be a vegetarian, why should the rest of us get all worked up about it?? The great Tibetan saint/sage Milarepa did in fact practice and encourage vegetarianism - but as far as I know it never caught on in his lineage - Kagyu. Eating meat is pretty much a matter of survival in a cold place like Tibet. But Milarepa was able to generate his own heat magically, so I think that's why he was able to be a vegetarian. Personally I consider that cheating. - Curt Laura Castell wrote: > > I've been following this thread with attention because I think we > (people) tend to live with many contradictions between what we do and > what we 'pray' or think is correct, often not being aware of these > contradictions, and the case of eating meat is usually one. I think > it is basically the same attitude that drives us to use air > conditioning, waste water, produce lots of waste, etc etc. But the > point I want to make in this message is that I read in one of the many > books by The Dalai Lama that he eats meat once a week for health > reasons. At least in the interview there was no mention of killing > the animal in a special way or anything like that. It made me wonder > though. Should I assume that someone like The Dalai Lama would > (obviously) take that into consideration or am I being idealistic? > Sometimes I think I expect perfection from people who practice > Buddhism, but they are people like us (in other words, full of > imperfections!) and are in the road of learning, aren't they? > Best wishes, Laura > > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l > > From marshallarts at bigpond.com Mon Oct 17 17:12:26 2005 From: marshallarts at bigpond.com (Kate) Date: Mon Oct 17 17:19:21 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] on eating meat References: <5.2.1.1.0.20051018083252.0120e5f8@mail.jcu.edu.au> Message-ID: <000b01c5d370$3d55acb0$9b00a8c0@whizzo> . But the point I want to make in this message is that I > read in one of the many books by The Dalai Lama that he eats meat once a > week for health reasons. At least in the interview there was no mention > of killing the animal in a special way or anything like that. It made me > wonder though. Should I assume that someone like The Dalai Lama would > (obviously) take that into consideration or am I being idealistic? > Sometimes I think I expect perfection from people who practice Buddhism, > but they are people like us (in other words, full of imperfections!) and > are in the road of learning, aren't they? > Best wishes, Laura Hi Laura, Just out of interest, the Dalai Lama is particularly partial to Yak rissoles called "Mo Mo" (don't know if this is mentioned in any of the books). On occasion he also enjoys a small glass of sweet white wine. Regards Kate From mike at lamrim.org.uk Mon Oct 17 17:36:33 2005 From: mike at lamrim.org.uk (Mike Austin) Date: Mon Oct 17 17:39:18 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] on eating meat In-Reply-To: <000b01c5d370$3d55acb0$9b00a8c0@whizzo> References: <5.2.1.1.0.20051018083252.0120e5f8@mail.jcu.edu.au> <000b01c5d370$3d55acb0$9b00a8c0@whizzo> Message-ID: In message <000b01c5d370$3d55acb0$9b00a8c0@whizzo>, Kate writes >Just out of interest, the Dalai Lama is particularly partial to Yak >rissoles called "Mo Mo" MoMo are steamed dumplings - like Dim Sum - usually containing meat. >On occasion he also enjoys a small glass of sweet white wine. Now that would surprise me. Where did you read that? -- Metta Mike Austin From marshallarts at bigpond.com Mon Oct 17 17:42:55 2005 From: marshallarts at bigpond.com (Kate) Date: Mon Oct 17 17:49:19 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] on eating meat References: <5.2.1.1.0.20051018083252.0120e5f8@mail.jcu.edu.au> <43542E6A.2000403@cola.iges.org> Message-ID: <000801c5d374$7f1f1e20$9b00a8c0@whizzo> > Tibetan monks do not practice vegetarianism as a general rule It is the Chinese monks who are the strict vegetarians. They draw their precepts etc from the Chinese version of the Brahmajala sutra which forbids the eating of any meat. Regards Kate From marshallarts at bigpond.com Mon Oct 17 18:02:40 2005 From: marshallarts at bigpond.com (Kate) Date: Mon Oct 17 18:09:18 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] on eating meat References: <5.2.1.1.0.20051018083252.0120e5f8@mail.jcu.edu.au><000b01c5d370$3d55acb0$9b00a8c0@whizzo> Message-ID: <000601c5d377$4182d770$9b00a8c0@whizzo> > >>On occasion he also enjoys a small glass of sweet white wine. > > Now that would surprise me. Where did you read that? Hi Mike, My teachers are Buddhist monks who have dined with the Dalai Lama a number of times. But you've got me wondering. Was it white or red? Will have to check my notes and get back to you on this. >MoMo are steamed dumplings - like Dim Sum - usually containing meat.< Thanks for the correction, Mike. One of my teachers refers to momo as rissoles, meatballs or dumplings indiscriminatively. Regards Kate From dylan at tweney.com Mon Oct 17 17:57:03 2005 From: dylan at tweney.com (d f tweney) Date: Mon Oct 17 18:09:23 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Vipassana? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Oct 17, 2005, at 3:17 PM, Franz Metcalf wrote: > > My own experiential perspective (based on experiences in Zen centers) > is that Soto style "just sitting" is effectively very similar to > vipassana meditation. Some Zen meditation is more samadhi-focussed, > but most forms of Zen attempt to maintain a balance of both styles. Franz, this is perhaps why I've been confused. The (very little) Zen meditation instruction I've received began exactly the way Henepola Gunaratana begins, in "Mindfulness in Plain English" -- that is, begin by following your breath, watching your thoughts but not fixating on them. In other words, the instruction is to calmly observe your mind, instead of trying to force your mind onto a single object or force your mind to be blank. Incidentally, this is also the advice Thich Nhat Hanh gives in the books of his that I've read. However, from other posters' comments I infer that this might be a later addition to Zen meditation -- (or perhaps, as you suggest, this is more Soto style as opposed to Rinzai). Is it possible that in America, Zen meditation has begun to adopt some aspects of Theravada Vipassana technique, as a way of making it easier for beginners to start meditating? Jumping right into the koan-pondering and beating-with-sticks approach to meditation is probably much harder -- not to mention dependent on having a master to instruct you. --dylan. From mike at lamrim.org.uk Mon Oct 17 18:15:06 2005 From: mike at lamrim.org.uk (Mike Austin) Date: Mon Oct 17 18:19:20 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] on eating meat In-Reply-To: <000801c5d374$7f1f1e20$9b00a8c0@whizzo> References: <5.2.1.1.0.20051018083252.0120e5f8@mail.jcu.edu.au> <43542E6A.2000403@cola.iges.org> <000801c5d374$7f1f1e20$9b00a8c0@whizzo> Message-ID: In message <000801c5d374$7f1f1e20$9b00a8c0@whizzo>, Kate writes >It is the Chinese monks who are the strict vegetarians. They draw >their precepts etc from the Chinese version of the Brahmajala sutra >which forbids the eating of any meat. When I was at the Nun Hua Temple in Bronkhorstspruit in South Africa a few years ago, the food was delicious - all vegetarian. Interestingly, though, much of it had been made to look like meat, with corresponding taste and texture. One reason for not eating meat that I read (was it in the Lankavatara Sutta?) was that one may think of animals as meat and cause fear when looking at them. Eating meat substitutes would not overcome this. This reason was put forward because monks were eating meat and could have been criticised by the laity. Because there was no bad karma in eating meat, this was the reason put forward. -- Metta Mike Austin From tbovee at gmail.com Mon Oct 17 18:34:19 2005 From: tbovee at gmail.com (Timothy Bovee/DayPoems) Date: Mon Oct 17 18:40:30 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] on eating meat In-Reply-To: References: <5.2.1.1.0.20051018083252.0120e5f8@mail.jcu.edu.au> <43542E6A.2000403@cola.iges.org> <000801c5d374$7f1f1e20$9b00a8c0@whizzo> Message-ID: The second post. On 10/17/05, Mike Austin wrote: > > In message <000801c5d374$7f1f1e20$9b00a8c0@whizzo>, Kate > writes > > >It is the Chinese monks who are the strict vegetarians. They draw > >their precepts etc from the Chinese version of the Brahmajala sutra > >which forbids the eating of any meat. > > When I was at the Nun Hua Temple in Bronkhorstspruit in South Africa a > few years ago, the food was delicious - all vegetarian. Interestingly, > though, much of it had been made to look like meat, with corresponding > taste and texture. > > One reason for not eating meat that I read (was it in the Lankavatara > Sutta?) was that one may think of animals as meat and cause fear when > looking at them. Eating meat substitutes would not overcome this. > > This reason was put forward because monks were eating meat and could > have been criticised by the laity. Because there was no bad karma in > eating meat, this was the reason put forward. > > -- > Metta > Mike Austin > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l > -- tbovee@gmail.com/www.daypoems.net * * * * * * My Unitarian Jihad Name is The Garrote of Reasoned Discussion. Get yours at http://homepage.mac.com/whump/ujname.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20051017/e46bdced/attachment.html From tbovee at gmail.com Mon Oct 17 18:34:01 2005 From: tbovee at gmail.com (Timothy Bovee/DayPoems) Date: Mon Oct 17 18:40:37 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] on eating meat In-Reply-To: <43542E6A.2000403@cola.iges.org> References: <5.2.1.1.0.20051018083252.0120e5f8@mail.jcu.edu.au> <43542E6A.2000403@cola.iges.org> Message-ID: Hi, Interesting post from the BUDDHA-L academic Buddhism list. A second one follows. These guys are so good sometimes. Papa On 10/17/05, curt wrote: > > Tibetan monks do not practice vegetarianism as a general rule and I am > pretty sure that the Dalai Lama eats meat more than once a week. I heard > him speak once and he was asked this question (it was funny hearing > several thousand Buddhists groan all at once when he was asked "the > vegetarian question") and he said he was a vegetarian "50% of the time". > You should remember that the Dalai Lama is the avatar of Avalokitesvara, > the freaking Bodhisattva of Compassion - so if he (she?) doesn't have to > be a vegetarian, why should the rest of us get all worked up about it?? > > The great Tibetan saint/sage Milarepa did in fact practice and encourage > vegetarianism - but as far as I know it never caught on in his lineage - > Kagyu. Eating meat is pretty much a matter of survival in a cold place > like Tibet. But Milarepa was able to generate his own heat magically, so > I think that's why he was able to be a vegetarian. Personally I consider > that cheating. > > - Curt > > Laura Castell wrote: > > > > > I've been following this thread with attention because I think we > > (people) tend to live with many contradictions between what we do and > > what we 'pray' or think is correct, often not being aware of these > > contradictions, and the case of eating meat is usually one. I think > > it is basically the same attitude that drives us to use air > > conditioning, waste water, produce lots of waste, etc etc. But the > > point I want to make in this message is that I read in one of the many > > books by The Dalai Lama that he eats meat once a week for health > > reasons. At least in the interview there was no mention of killing > > the animal in a special way or anything like that. It made me wonder > > though. Should I assume that someone like The Dalai Lama would > > (obviously) take that into consideration or am I being idealistic? > > Sometimes I think I expect perfection from people who practice > > Buddhism, but they are people like us (in other words, full of > > imperfections!) and are in the road of learning, aren't they? > > Best wishes, Laura > > > > _______________________________________________ > > buddha-l mailing list > > buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com > > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l > > > > > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l > -- tbovee@gmail.com/www.daypoems.net * * * * * * My Unitarian Jihad Name is The Garrote of Reasoned Discussion. Get yours at http://homepage.mac.com/whump/ujname.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20051017/0353db4d/attachment.htm From eklektik at gmail.com Mon Oct 17 18:57:08 2005 From: eklektik at gmail.com (Hugo) Date: Mon Oct 17 18:59:24 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Vipassana? In-Reply-To: <200510172045.j9HKjvtj009590@mail2.magma.ca> References: <7964f6db0510170902l11d5ba7evbca287f9ea7219cc@mail.gmail.com> <200510172045.j9HKjvtj009590@mail2.magma.ca> Message-ID: <7964f6db0510171757v4f6fe39cqe6cea28ea2a133d4@mail.gmail.com> Hello Tom, On 10/17/05, Tom Troughton wrote: > Are you suggesting that in Theravada nibbana is a dhamma (thing)? I can't answer either "yes" or "no" to your question because "dhamma" does not equal to "thing" (at least not as we commonly use the word "thing" to describe physical objects). What I can say is that in Theravada Nibbana is a dhamma. -- Hugo From marshallarts at bigpond.com Mon Oct 17 18:55:50 2005 From: marshallarts at bigpond.com (Kate) Date: Mon Oct 17 19:00:35 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] on eating meat References: <5.2.1.1.0.20051018083252.0120e5f8@mail.jcu.edu.au><43542E6A.2000403@cola.iges.org><000801c5d374$7f1f1e20$9b00a8c0@whizzo> Message-ID: <000901c5d37e$af5b1850$9b00a8c0@whizzo> > When I was at the Nun Hua Temple in Bronkhorstspruit in South Africa a > few years ago, the food was delicious - all vegetarian. Interestingly, > though, much of it had been made to look like meat, with corresponding > taste and texture. My mother was born and raised in China. Left when she was 18. Mum mentioned that she used to go to many banquets where there were dozens of different dishes, all without meat, though like you, she couldn't tell the difference. > One reason for not eating meat that I read (was it in the Lankavatara > Sutta?) was that one may think of animals as meat and cause fear when > looking at them. Eating meat substitutes would not overcome this. My teacher mentioned that Buddha was not a vegetarian nor were Buddhists required to be vegetarian, at least not by Buddha himself. Devadatta wanted the Buddha to make vegetarian compulsory (like Hindu Sanyassins and Brahmin) so eventually the conditions placed upon eating meat were introduced as a middle way. (Have the feeling another member may have mentioned this lately.) Same with alcohol. At first monks were only forbidden to drink up to and past the point of intoxication. As this could be left to personal interpretation, some sects considered it prudent to change this. Alcohol was restricted in the first place because of the incident with the warrior who slay the "monster" or whatever it was. (I'm a bit hazy on the details on some of these tales without looking them up) After he battled the monster to save the village, he got roaring drunk and couldn't stand up. When the difference in his mental and body control after drinking was noted, it was decided to bring in the restriction. Most of these types of restrictions were brought in by the monks themselves after some incident or other. It made living together more pleasant. Regards Kate A quick look hasn't turned up the details on red or white wine. This may have to wait a bit. > This reason was put forward because monks were eating meat and could have > been criticised by the laity. Because there was no bad karma in eating > meat, this was the reason put forward. > > -- > Metta > Mike Austin > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.12.0/134 - Release Date: 14/10/2005 > > From tbovee at gmail.com Mon Oct 17 18:57:40 2005 From: tbovee at gmail.com (Timothy Bovee/DayPoems) Date: Mon Oct 17 19:00:44 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] on eating meat In-Reply-To: References: <5.2.1.1.0.20051018083252.0120e5f8@mail.jcu.edu.au> <43542E6A.2000403@cola.iges.org> Message-ID: My aplogies. I was forwarding these posts to my son in Fukuoka, Japan. (But the "these guys are so good sometimes" sentiment is sincere.) Tim -- tbovee@gmail.com/www.daypoems.net On 10/17/05, Timothy Bovee/DayPoems wrote: > > Hi, > > Interesting post from the BUDDHA-L academic Buddhism list. A second one > follows. These guys are so good sometimes. > > Papa > > On 10/17/05, curt wrote: > > > > Tibetan monks do not practice vegetarianism as a general rule and I am > > pretty sure that the Dalai Lama eats meat more than once a week. I heard > > him speak once and he was asked this question (it was funny hearing > > several thousand Buddhists groan all at once when he was asked "the > > vegetarian question") and he said he was a vegetarian "50% of the time". > > You should remember that the Dalai Lama is the avatar of Avalokitesvara, > > > > the freaking Bodhisattva of Compassion - so if he (she?) doesn't have to > > be a vegetarian, why should the rest of us get all worked up about it?? > > > > The great Tibetan saint/sage Milarepa did in fact practice and encourage > > > > vegetarianism - but as far as I know it never caught on in his lineage - > > Kagyu. Eating meat is pretty much a matter of survival in a cold place > > like Tibet. But Milarepa was able to generate his own heat magically, so > > > > I think that's why he was able to be a vegetarian. Personally I consider > > that cheating. > > > > - Curt > > > > Laura Castell wrote: > > > > > > > > I've been following this thread with attention because I think we > > > (people) tend to live with many contradictions between what we do and > > > what we 'pray' or think is correct, often not being aware of these > > > contradictions, and the case of eating meat is usually one. I think > > > it is basically the same attitude that drives us to use air > > > conditioning, waste water, produce lots of waste, etc etc. But the > > > point I want to make in this message is that I read in one of the many > > > > > books by The Dalai Lama that he eats meat once a week for health > > > reasons. At least in the interview there was no mention of killing > > > the animal in a special way or anything like that. It made me wonder > > > though. Should I assume that someone like The Dalai Lama would > > > (obviously) take that into consideration or am I being idealistic? > > > Sometimes I think I expect perfection from people who practice > > > Buddhism, but they are people like us (in other words, full of > > > imperfections!) and are in the road of learning, aren't they? > > > Best wishes, Laura > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > buddha-l mailing list > > > buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com > > > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > buddha-l mailing list > > buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com > > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l > > > > > > -- > tbovee@gmail.com/www.daypoems.net > * * * * * * > My Unitarian Jihad Name is The Garrote of Reasoned Discussion. > Get yours at http://homepage.mac.com/whump/ujname.html > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20051017/789feb1e/attachment.html From ghoti at consultron.ca Mon Oct 17 19:36:15 2005 From: ghoti at consultron.ca (Tom Troughton) Date: Mon Oct 17 19:39:21 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Vipassana? In-Reply-To: <7964f6db0510171757v4f6fe39cqe6cea28ea2a133d4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200510180136.j9I1aHBh010546@mail2.magma.ca> On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 20:57:08 -0400, Hugo wrote: >Hello Tom, > >On 10/17/05, Tom Troughton wrote: >> Are you suggesting that in Theravada nibbana is a dhamma (thing)? > >I can't answer either "yes" or "no" to your question because "dhamma" >does not equal to "thing" (at least not as we commonly use the word >"thing" to describe physical objects). > >What I can say is that in Theravada Nibbana is a dhamma. I hadn't realised this - Thanks! Best wishes Tom From marshallarts at bigpond.com Mon Oct 17 19:42:12 2005 From: marshallarts at bigpond.com (Kate) Date: Mon Oct 17 19:49:19 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] on eating meat References: <5.2.1.1.0.20051018083252.0120e5f8@mail.jcu.edu.au><43542E6A.2000403@cola.iges.org><000801c5d374$7f1f1e20$9b00a8c0@whizzo> <000901c5d37e$af5b1850$9b00a8c0@whizzo> Message-ID: <001101c5d385$29804370$9b00a8c0@whizzo> At first monks were only forbidden to drink up to and > past the point of intoxication. < This could be confusing. I meant that monks could drink alcohol, just not get drunk. From s.hodge at padmacholing.freeserve.co.uk Mon Oct 17 20:47:53 2005 From: s.hodge at padmacholing.freeserve.co.uk (Stephen Hodge) Date: Mon Oct 17 20:59:22 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] on eating meat References: <5.2.1.1.0.20051018083252.0120e5f8@mail.jcu.edu.au> <43542E6A.2000403@cola.iges.org> Message-ID: <004101c5d38f$998b8990$a3694e51@zen> Curt wrote: > Eating meat is pretty much a matter of survival in a cold place like > Tibet. Yes, and the same applies to the Inuit and others in similar situations. That does not necessarily make it right, but it is understandable and perhaps even justifiable. But nothing of the sort applies to most USAns and Europeans etc who inflict appalling yet avoidable and unnecessary suffering upon animals -- in addition to the environmental damage and health issues that Richard mentioned. Best wishes, Stephen Hodge PS: Don't forget to get the bit in about Hitler (supposedly) being a vegetarian. From s.hodge at padmacholing.freeserve.co.uk Mon Oct 17 20:33:44 2005 From: s.hodge at padmacholing.freeserve.co.uk (Stephen Hodge) Date: Mon Oct 17 20:59:27 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] on eating meat References: <5.2.1.1.0.20051018083252.0120e5f8@mail.jcu.edu.au> Message-ID: <004001c5d38f$98c04a50$a3694e51@zen> Laura Castell wrote: > Should I assume that someone like The Dalai Lama would (obviously) take > that into consideration or am I being idealistic ? Though the Dalai Lama is well-travelled, he also seems somewhat insulated and uninformed about some things that go on in the West. I wonder if the industrialization of the meat industry is one of them. Until recently, he got things seriously wrong about the plight of gays in the West until somebody explained the situation to him. > Sometimes I think I expect perfection from people who practice Buddhism, > but they are people like us (in other words, full of imperfections!) and > are on the road of learning, aren't they? Indeed. And we all have our blind spots. Best wishes, Stephen Hodge From s.hodge at padmacholing.freeserve.co.uk Mon Oct 17 20:07:47 2005 From: s.hodge at padmacholing.freeserve.co.uk (Stephen Hodge) Date: Mon Oct 17 20:59:31 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism References: <00a801c5ceb1$0c557eb0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <434D5216.2000405@nerim.net><434D6684.9020608@cola.iges.org> <434E0441.1060706@nerim.net><1129188650.5150.18.camel@spinoza> <434E52F5.5060106@cola.iges.org><1129235781.5150.57.camel@spinoza><742428727.20051014000232@kungzhi.org><1129247666.5150.95.camel@spinoza> <434FACC8.90608@nerim.net><003a01c5d1dc$1ca1c020$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au><1129426250.8400.10.camel@localhost.localdomain><001901c5d209$8c12ad20$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au><002b01c5d2a0$8cea68e0$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au><1129511331.7820.4.camel@localhost.localdomain><1K30yQEVFwUDFwxh@clara.net> <000601c5d32a$0f57d9f0$d0614e51@zen><1129579348.6140.29.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <003e01c5d38f$970ccdf0$a3694e51@zen> Mike Austin wrote: > I do note the suffering of samsara; that actions have results; that there > is an interdependence of actions of all beings. May all beings be free from suffering and the causes of suffering (except the animals whose flesh I eat) ! Best wishes, Stephen Hodge From s.hodge at padmacholing.freeserve.co.uk Mon Oct 17 20:25:37 2005 From: s.hodge at padmacholing.freeserve.co.uk (Stephen Hodge) Date: Mon Oct 17 20:59:40 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism References: <00a801c5ceb1$0c557eb0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <434D2A04.5090803@nerim.net><434D33CB.9050603@cola.iges.org> <434D5216.2000405@nerim.net><434D6684.9020608@cola.iges.org> <434E0441.1060706@nerim.net><1129188650.5150.18.camel@spinoza> <434E52F5.5060106@cola.iges.org><1129235781.5150.57.camel@spinoza><742428727.20051014000232@kungzhi.org><1129247666.5150.95.camel@spinoza> <434FACC8.90608@nerim.net><003a01c5d1dc$1ca1c020$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au><1129426250.8400.10.camel@localhost.localdomain><001901c5d209$8c12ad20$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au><002b01c5d2a0$8cea68e0$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au><1129511331.7820.4.camel@localhost.localdomain><1K30yQEVFwUDFwxh@clara.net> <000601c5d32a$0f57d9f0$d0614e51@zen> Message-ID: <003f01c5d38f$97f38470$a3694e51@zen> Mike Austin wrote: > Ok, I will book myself in for one. I have had many discussions on this > topic. People become dogmatic and try to convert each other. I explain my > approach and leave it at that. I am happy when people are vegetarian > because their intention is good. I don't eat very much meat, but when I > do, I don't think my actions of body, speech and mind are bad. A couple of hundred years ago somebody might have written "I have had many discussions on this topic. People become dogmatic and try to convert each other. I explain my approach and leave it at that. I am happy when people free their slaves because their intention is good. I don't keep very many slaves, but though I do, I don't think my actions of body, speech and mind are bad." How did we grow out of that one ? Best wishes, Stephen Hodge From joy.vriens at nerim.net Mon Oct 17 23:23:56 2005 From: joy.vriens at nerim.net (Joy Vriens) Date: Mon Oct 17 23:29:22 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism In-Reply-To: <1819706691.20051017214303@kungzhi.org> References: <00a801c5ceb1$0c557eb0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <020801c5cf2c$84bc70e0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <434D2A04.5090803@nerim.net> <434D33CB.9050603@cola.iges.org> <434D5216.2000405@nerim.net> <434D6684.9020608@cola.iges.org> <294991653.20051013194841@kungzhi.org> <434EA1EA.30109@cola.iges.org> <14138687.20051015034940@kungzhi.org> <4351094F.5020309@nerim.net> <1819706691.20051017214303@kungzhi.org> Message-ID: <435486EC.9060000@nerim.net> Benito Carral wrote: >>An individual is only the sum of various coexisting >>physical experiences, impulses and ideas at a given >>moment, like a society is. > I don't usually like to ask, > "What is it?," but, "How does it work?." I prefer to > ask, "What is the function of an individual?", "What is > a function of a society?" - keeping in mind that there > are many kinds of individuals and societies. These are all questions that are guided by a certain idea. "What is the function of an individual" suggests that an individual has a function. It also suggests that whatever is their function lies outside that individual. I don't have a problem with an individual who sets himself a function outside of himself, it happens all the time. But I find it more troublesome when the function of an individual is imposed from outside. "Function" evokes the idea of usefulness and I start wondering whether usefulness is a very useful idea. Useful regarding to what? > I think of an individual as someone who thinks, "I > must pursue my own dreams, feelings, and ideas," and in > doing so he remains alone, without taking care of > others, unable of offering trust and loyalty, unable of > commitment. I don't think that will ever happen. Even the Buddha couldn't keep his own dreams, feelings, and ideas to himself and felt the need to bother others with them. Individuals and societies are expansive little creatures. The West has always wanted to impose their good ideas onto others: first it wanted to christen them, then it wanted to civilise them (with its republican and human right values), now it's the turn of democracy and freedom that need to be imposed onto others. The history of colonisation is one of infinite care of and commitment to others. > In the other hand, a society member is someone who > doesn't think in those terms, but understands himself > as part of a team, "I must pursue our dreams, our > feelings, and our ideas." Someone who can offer trust > and loyalty, and keep commitments. The advantage of an individual is that they can feel and experience things directly in their bodies and minds. Societies don't feel anything, they are blind. Individuals can say "this hurts", individuals can die and are mortal. Thanks to that they know the value of life. Societies don't and can sacrify as many lifes as they want. Therefore I don't feel any need to pursue the ideas and dreams of societies that don't respect the dreams, ideas or simply the physical integrety of indivuals. Besides, Nirvana is only open to individuals not to societies. > So, for me, it's not a surprise that relationships > are falling apart and individuals feeling miserable. That is because our society is sick of its own ideas and dreams and by pursuing those ideas and dreams, individuals and their relationships become sick too. > I > think that if there is something that matters that is > others, and that's why I would like to develop a family > centered Buddhism. I think I see what you mean. What this world lacks is a stronger sense of solidarity. It needs to reconnect with and listen more to individual needs. The most fundamental need of individuals is love. Love is something only individuals can feel. Joy From joy.vriens at nerim.net Mon Oct 17 23:40:29 2005 From: joy.vriens at nerim.net (Joy Vriens) Date: Mon Oct 17 23:49:24 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Devadatta the Renegade: The Thrue History of Buddhism In-Reply-To: <29104131.20051017221645@kungzhi.org> References: <433B94C7.4090108@nerim.net><617632845.20051003042946@kungzhi.org> <4340CAFD.1060809@nerim.net><1359619694.20051004213630@kungzhi.org> <43441B56.7080303@nerim.net> <1479321719.20051006043947@kungzhi.org><003c01c5ca43$01172200$c8369c04@Dan> <4344DBFE.8030202@nerim.net> <00c701c5ca62$e5c7f5e0$c8369c04@Dan> <4345220A.5040309@nerim.net> <1667485633.20051007043716@kungzhi.org> <43462606.40507@nerim.net> <1591830279.20051010043322@kungzhi.org> <434A29F1.7080700@nerim.net> <18010600083.20051010172344@kungzhi.org> <434A9578.5040205@nerim.net> <91000758.20051011160943@kungzhi.org> <434BE971.6020008@nerim.net> <215877815.20051011192514@kungzhi.org> <434C31E6.3030108@nerim.net> <195697600.20051012010828@kungzhi.org> <434CE876.2020505@nerim.net> <1145551373.20051012185457@kungzhi.org> <434D5AFA.2020405@nerim.net> <79202899.20051015040121@kungzhi.org> <4350FA52.3070905@nerim.net> <29104131.20051017221645@kungzhi.org> Message-ID: <43548ACD.4090600@nerim.net> Benito Carral wrote: >>I am not so sure. The rigorism came first (Jainism, >>the Buddha's unsuccessful practice of ascetism). >>Perhaps Devadatta cum suis were simply more >>traditionalist and thought Buddhism went too far in >>its redefinition. > The question is that Devadattian regorists defined > themselves against the mainstream Buddhist sangha. They > were a minority without much historical success. If one believes in a mainstream Buddhist (read Theravada and Sarvastivada) sangha right from the start, then I understand that is the way one sees "Devadattian rigorism". But I don't believe in a mainstream Buddhism right from the start. I believe in various ascetic currents that grew into "mainstream Buddhism", the Buddhism that succeeded historically, initially. But the elder currents must have been logically more inclined to living in forests than in settlements, and more "rigorist" than "middle way". Also if it is historical success that determines what mainstream Buddhism is, then I am afraid that Theravada and Sarvastivada are loosing field to Mahayana Buddhism. Joy From c_castell at yahoo.com Tue Oct 18 00:39:04 2005 From: c_castell at yahoo.com (Catalina Castell-du Payrat) Date: Tue Oct 18 00:40:34 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] on eating meat In-Reply-To: <000b01c5d370$3d55acb0$9b00a8c0@whizzo> Message-ID: <20051018063904.87415.qmail@web60819.mail.yahoo.com> I always thougt about budhism as a common sense practical way of life (yes, you may try to prove I am wrong......) so I guess that aplies on eating meat as well. I also see budhism as "no absolutisms". I feel compasionated for animals who are killed for their meat.......if everybody stops eating meat I will do it for sure, yes I know, I should start........ (I am not vegetarian, I was for a while, and I found it very complicated socially in my country at the time and complicated as well to eat in a healthy way given my ignorance, I eat meat now once in a while) In another hand, is generally accepted that humans survived in time because they ate meat.......and that a brain like ours to develop "needed" meat. Intention is crucial in budhism as well. I agree with the idea that if you are a meat consumer, the butcher is killing for you anyways as a consumer. I asume that. Catalina Catalina Castell - du Payrat c_castell@yahoo.com --------------------------------- Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20051017/53dd4254/attachment.htm From stefan.detrez at gmail.com Tue Oct 18 01:43:19 2005 From: stefan.detrez at gmail.com (Stefan Detrez) Date: Tue Oct 18 01:49:25 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: recommendations for books on Madhyamika In-Reply-To: <43542EFF.9080305@cola.iges.org> References: <20051017144023.40801.qmail@web32604.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4353C0DF.5000404@cola.iges.org> <1289233492.20051018000855@kungzhi.org> <43542EFF.9080305@cola.iges.org> Message-ID: <4526ba440510180043jc7ef1f0g@mail.gmail.com> The connection between Zen and Madhyamaka is the 'Two-truths'-doctrine of paramartha- and samvrtisatya. Plenty of Koans consist in the complementariness of everyday situations and their soaking wetness of supreme reality. Stefan On 10/18/05, curt wrote: > I changed my mind. I now think that anti-intellectualism is a good thing > in Zen. Anyone who is going to read or not read depending on what their > teacher tells them to do, or what the peer pressure pressures them to > do, should sit more until they grow some gonads. Leave the reading > material for the adults who think for themselves and are not so easily led. > - Curt > > Benito Carral wrote: > > >On Monday, October 17, 2005, Curt wrote: > > > > > > > >>My point is: don't bother going around saying to Zen > >>folks, "so Zen is connected with Madhamika?" - you'll > >>either get blank stares or you'll be criticized for > >>"thinking" too much. > >> > >> > > > > I suppose that I'm a Zen folk after all, and I'm > >sure that many Zen folks like me agree that Zen is > >connected with Madhyamika, and with Huayan. Maybe some > >Zen folks (specially from Japanese schools) don't read > >or study books, but if you visit Chinese monasteries, > >you will discover that they have great study programs. > >That Zen stereotype that you reproduce is just plain > >nonsense. > > > > Best wishes, > > > > Beni > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >buddha-l mailing list > >buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com > >http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l > From marshallarts at bigpond.com Tue Oct 18 04:56:52 2005 From: marshallarts at bigpond.com (Kate) Date: Tue Oct 18 05:00:40 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Fw: Buddhism & Alcohol Message-ID: <001901c5d3d2$a648a9e0$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> Hi Mike, I found one version of the story I mentioned earlier: Contrary to what one may assume, the monastic rules were not set down beforehand by the Buddha, but were developed from the living experience of the monks themselves. The sutras describe incidents which brought about specific rules. Many are highly humorous. The Disciple Sugata, for instance, was a monk famous for his psychic powers, and by using them, he had subdued the evil Naga spirits who lived in a mango grove and who were terrifying the local people. One day, while going on his alms round in a village named Kosambi, he had accepted many drinks given him by the population. Unknown to him these were all highly alcoholic and by the time he returned to the monastery he was quite drunk. In a short time he had fallen senseless on the ground. His fellow monks carried him to the Buddha, who said, "Is this the man who subdued the Nagas with such ease?" The monks replied, "Yes Lord." The Buddha responded by saying, "Why, he couldn't even subdue a water lizard now!" Thereafter the monks decided to avoid alcohol. This isn't the version I was thinking of that used the term monster instead of nagas, and mentioned alcohol restriction rather than total avoidance. I'm not sure where I read that now and tried checking the net for any mention of it. I couldn't find the story so checked out the sites on Buddhism and alcohol. Most sites do say total alcohol avoidance is necessary, though a number say it's ok to drink a small amount for medicinal purposes, a few mention alcohol restriction instead of avoidance. Thai temples seem to be all for it with alcohol sold in the temple grounds on "joyful days". Also I couldn't find what I was looking for on the Dalai Lama and wine. (I've got stacks of folders and files to go through.) So its probably best to ignore my comments on this until I can confirm in case I got it wrong in any way. While on the net I did come across the following article: http://oregonbuddhisttemple.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=39&Itemid=1 Regards Kate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20051018/7d7a1867/attachment.htm From parisjm2004 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 18 06:45:22 2005 From: parisjm2004 at yahoo.com (Michael Paris) Date: Tue Oct 18 06:49:28 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: recommendations for books on Madhyamika In-Reply-To: <4526ba440510180043jc7ef1f0g@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20051018124523.49538.qmail@web32606.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Yes. IMHO much of everyday life is equivalent to koans. We are confronted with conflicting situations all the time, e.g., to eat meat, to take a job with the military-industrical complex, to use violence in self-defense. There's rarely a definitive answer. What is one to do? Michael --- Stefan Detrez wrote: > Plenty of Koans consist in the complementariness of everyday situations and their soaking wetness of supreme reality. > __________________________________ Yahoo! Music Unlimited Access over 1 million songs. Try it free. http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/ From Jackhat1 at aol.com Tue Oct 18 06:53:30 2005 From: Jackhat1 at aol.com (Jackhat1@aol.com) Date: Tue Oct 18 06:59:30 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Vipassana? Message-ID: <111.54f912d8.30864a4a@aol.com> Many Thera. teachers notably Bhikkhu Buddhadasa and those influenced by him believe that the split between vipassana and samadhi meditation is not true to the Buddha's teachings. Basing their interpretation mainly on the Anapanasati Sutta (as well as other suttas), they believe and teach one meditation process but with a concentration or insight emphasis at times. They think Bhikkhu Buddhaghosa in his Visuddhimagga was the one who broke with the original teachings and influenced what is sometimes taught today. Jack Buddgaghosa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20051018/9994edda/attachment.html From parisjm2004 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 18 07:00:28 2005 From: parisjm2004 at yahoo.com (Michael Paris) Date: Tue Oct 18 07:09:29 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Vipassana? In-Reply-To: <559603479.20051017235642@kungzhi.org> Message-ID: <20051018130028.33697.qmail@web32604.mail.mud.yahoo.com> >From my very limited understanding, Zen is inextricable from Japanese culture. Wasn't there a long thread more or less pertaining to that a few months back? Michael --- Benito Carral wrote: > On Sunday, October 16, 2005, Richard P. Hayes wrote: > > > There is just more mumbo jumbo about enlightenment in > > Zen, in addition to which you have to put up with a > > totalitarian master who abuses you and tells you it > > is good for you. If the goal is to become liberated > > form dukkha, vipassana is the method of choice. If > > your goal is to become an obedient robot, go for Zen. > > This is plain nonsense. I have been practicing > Chinese Zen for almost 20 years and have never found > something like that. However I have seen some Japanese > roshis and their acolytes playing a similar game to the > one that you describe here. > > Best wishes, > > Beni __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From parisjm2004 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 18 07:15:38 2005 From: parisjm2004 at yahoo.com (Michael Paris) Date: Tue Oct 18 07:19:29 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: recommendations for books on Madhyamika In-Reply-To: <43542EFF.9080305@cola.iges.org> Message-ID: <20051018131538.71804.qmail@web32608.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Extremes in either direction are unwise. Condemning reading is as bad as insisting truth is to be found in books. Perhaps there is a middle way? I wonder if the Zen stance might have been a reaction against intellectualism (and ritualisim) of the Tendai sect? Methinks religious dictums are as influenced by social concerns as logical or metaphysical. Nothing occurs in a vacuum. Michael P.S. Another problem is the dearth of decent reading material, at least in English. Sturgeon's Law definitely applies to books on Zen. --- curt wrote: > I changed my mind. I now think that anti-intellectualism is a good thing in Zen. Anyone who is going to read or not read depending on what their teacher tells them to do, or what the peer pressure pressures them to do, should sit more until they grow some gonads. Leave the reading material for the adults who think for themselves and are not so easily led. > > - Curt __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From jpeavler at mindspring.com Tue Oct 18 07:28:07 2005 From: jpeavler at mindspring.com (Jim Peavler) Date: Tue Oct 18 07:29:30 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism In-Reply-To: <4353E117.5030505@cola.iges.org> References: <00a801c5ceb1$0c557eb0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <020801c5cf2c$84bc70e0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <434D2A04.5090803@nerim.net> <434D33CB.9050603@cola.iges.org> <434D5216.2000405@nerim.net> <434D6684.9020608@cola.iges.org> <434E0441.1060706@nerim.net> <1129188650.5150.18.camel@spinoza> <434E52F5.5060106@cola.iges.org> <1129235781.5150.57.camel@spinoza><742428727.20051014000232@kungzhi.org> <1129247666.5150.95.camel@spinoza> <434FACC8.90608@nerim.net> <003a01c5d1dc$1ca1c020$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> <1129426250.8400.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> <001901c5d209$8c12ad20$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> <002b01c5d2a0$8cea68e0$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> <1129511331.7820.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1K30yQEVFwUDFwxh@clara.net> <000601c5d32a$0f57d9f0$d0614e51@zen> <1129566096.4561.34.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4353E117.5030505@cola.iges.org> Message-ID: <7828c5d12d6836c3e06a6d6d9fb8a8ea@mindspring.com> On Oct 17, 2005, at 11:36 AM, curt wrote: > > Obviously you have to decide where to draw the line, and no one has a > monopoly on where the right place is to draw the line. Especially > preachy vegetarians. Hmmm, are pacifists against the "violence" of > anti-biotics? How about the "violence" of that mass murderer: the > immune system? What is the "justification" for defending oneself > against diseases? > This is a strawbuginom argument with elements of strawgerm fallacy. From jpeavler at mindspring.com Tue Oct 18 07:47:58 2005 From: jpeavler at mindspring.com (Jim Peavler) Date: Tue Oct 18 07:49:29 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism In-Reply-To: <7828c5d12d6836c3e06a6d6d9fb8a8ea@mindspring.com> References: <00a801c5ceb1$0c557eb0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <020801c5cf2c$84bc70e0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <434D2A04.5090803@nerim.net> <434D33CB.9050603@cola.iges.org> <434D5216.2000405@nerim.net> <434D6684.9020608@cola.iges.org> <434E0441.1060706@nerim.net> <1129188650.5150.18.camel@spinoza> <434E52F5.5060106@cola.iges.org> <1129235781.5150.57.camel@spinoza><742428727.20051014000232@kungzhi.org> <1129247666.5150.95.camel@spinoza> <434FACC8.90608@nerim.net> <003a01c5d1dc$1ca1c020$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> <1129426250.8400.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> <001901c5d209$8c12ad20$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> <002b01c5d2a0$8cea68e0$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> <1129511331.7820.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1K30yQEVFwUDFwxh@clara.net> <000601c5d32a$0f57d9f0$d0614e51@zen> <1129566096.4561.34.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4353E117.5030505@cola.iges.org> <7828c5d12d6836c3e06a6d6d9fb8a8ea@mindspring.com> Message-ID: I stand corrected. Of course I meant to say "adbuginon". My latin is SO rusty. On Oct 18, 2005, at 7:28 AM, Jim Peavler wrote: > This is a strawbuginom argument with elements of strawgerm fallacy. From curt at cola.iges.org Tue Oct 18 07:43:21 2005 From: curt at cola.iges.org (curt) Date: Tue Oct 18 07:49:43 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism In-Reply-To: <7828c5d12d6836c3e06a6d6d9fb8a8ea@mindspring.com> References: <00a801c5ceb1$0c557eb0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <020801c5cf2c$84bc70e0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <434D2A04.5090803@nerim.net> <434D33CB.9050603@cola.iges.org> <434D5216.2000405@nerim.net> <434D6684.9020608@cola.iges.org> <434E0441.1060706@nerim.net> <1129188650.5150.18.camel@spinoza> <434E52F5.5060106@cola.iges.org> <1129235781.5150.57.camel@spinoza><742428727.20051014000232@kungzhi.org> <1129247666.5150.95.camel@spinoza> <434FACC8.90608@nerim.net> <003a01c5d1dc$1ca1c020$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> <1129426250.8400.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> <001901c5d209$8c12ad20$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> <002b01c5d2a0$8cea68e0$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> <1129511331.7820.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1K30yQEVFwUDFwxh@clara.net> <000601c5d32a$0f57d9f0$d0614e51@zen> <1129566096.4561.34.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4353E117.5030505@cola.iges.org> <7828c5d12d6836c3e06a6d6d9fb8a8ea@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <4354FBF9.6050008@cola.iges.org> Nice work - a google search of either "strawgerm" or "strawbuginom" yields no hits! So I give - what the heck are they? Are my arguments really so unassailable that new words must be invented to assail them? - Curt Jim Peavler wrote: > > On Oct 17, 2005, at 11:36 AM, curt wrote: > >> >> Obviously you have to decide where to draw the line, and no one has a >> monopoly on where the right place is to draw the line. Especially >> preachy vegetarians. Hmmm, are pacifists against the "violence" of >> anti-biotics? How about the "violence" of that mass murderer: the >> immune system? What is the "justification" for defending oneself >> against diseases? >> > > This is a strawbuginom argument with elements of strawgerm fallacy. > > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l > > From curt at cola.iges.org Tue Oct 18 08:06:17 2005 From: curt at cola.iges.org (curt) Date: Tue Oct 18 08:09:35 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism In-Reply-To: References: <00a801c5ceb1$0c557eb0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <434D2A04.5090803@nerim.net> <434D33CB.9050603@cola.iges.org> <434D5216.2000405@nerim.net> <434D6684.9020608@cola.iges.org> <434E0441.1060706@nerim.net> <1129188650.5150.18.camel@spinoza> <434E52F5.5060106@cola.iges.org> <1129235781.5150.57.camel@spinoza><742428727.20051014000232@kungzhi.org> <1129247666.5150.95.camel@spinoza> <434FACC8.90608@nerim.net> <003a01c5d1dc$1ca1c020$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> <1129426250.8400.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> <001901c5d209$8c12ad20$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> <002b01c5d2a0$8cea68e0$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> <1129511331.7820.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1K30yQEVFwUDFwxh@clara.net> <000601c5d32a$0f57d9f0$d0614e51@zen> <1129566096.4561.34.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4353E117.5030505@cola.iges.org> <7828c5d12d6836c3e06a6d6d9fb8a8ea@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <43550159.1090406@cola.iges.org> OK - I realize that its funnier if you don't explain - but I still give. What's an "abduginon argument"? I promise to reference you in the future whenever I use this phrase. My latin is just plain crappy. I have tried a couple of times to take it up - but I never get very far. Why couldn't those Romans just speak English like everyone else? - Curt Jim Peavler wrote: > I stand corrected. Of course I meant to say "adbuginon". My latin is > SO rusty. > > On Oct 18, 2005, at 7:28 AM, Jim Peavler wrote: > >> This is a strawbuginom argument with elements of strawgerm fallacy. > From curt at cola.iges.org Tue Oct 18 08:27:40 2005 From: curt at cola.iges.org (curt) Date: Tue Oct 18 08:29:33 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism In-Reply-To: <1129497085.7117.35.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <20051016043330.45126.qmail@web32602.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1129487062.6353.1.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4352B8CA.9000709@cola.iges.org> <1129497085.7117.35.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <4355065C.2070300@cola.iges.org> Richard P. Hayes wrote: >On Sun, 2005-10-16 at 16:32 -0400, curt wrote: > > > >>Looking at what Buddhists actually do is more important than is ever >>acknowledged by the people who insist that "Buddhism is inherently >>pacifist". >> >> > >Looking at what any group of people actually does is the worst place to >look for what they ought to do. If one looked. for example, at what >Americans do, one would have to conclude that the Constitution requires >invading foreign countries for no defensible reason, detaining suspected >enemies of the government indefinitely without trial, and passing laws >that place no obstacles at all in the way of major corporations while >making it almost impossible for the poor to make a legal living. > > I don't think we are talking about what Buddhists "ought to do". We are trying to decide whether or not the Buddhist religion is inherently pacifist. As far as what Buddhists "ought to do" - well, they should all be a whole lot more like me, in my opinion. Now, back to your Constitutional example. If we wished to tackle the question "is the U.S. inherently democratic", for instance, then we would not want to base our answer solely, or even primarily, on the words written down on paper (er, parchment) in the Constitution. We would look first and foremost at how the U.S. conducts itself as a nation. The answer, by the way, is no. Even if we wanted to answer the question "is the U.S. Constitution an inherently democratic document" we should feel free to take into account such things as (a) slavery, (b) women's rights, (c) indigenous rights, (d) voting rights, (e) direct election of the executive and judicial branches, etc. Any close examination of the Constitution shows that its primary concern is the protection of property rights. Some people (like the people who currently run planet earth) believe that protection of property rights = democracy. Many other people would disagree. As to whether or not the U.S. "ought to be" democratic I would tend to say yes, but I also have my doubts. "Democracy" has become something of a fetish for people - what does it really mean? I think it was Emma Goldman who said "if voting actually changed things they would make it illegal." But an even larger concern of mine is that there seems to be a "Protestantizing" tendency here to reduce Buddhism down to a set of texts that anyone who wants to can just come up and examine and make of what they will. I call this "Protestantizing" because it goes even further than mere "Christianizing" and appears to have its intellectual roots in the obsession with the so-called "Bible" by the people who led the so-called "Reformation", one of whose primary axes to grind was direct and equal access for all to the "holy scriptures". That's why I think the strange analogy of Buddhism (a Religion) with the Constitution (a piece of writing) came so immediately to Richard's mind (well, perhaps he stewed for hours - but, no, time stamps do not lie so it looks like he stewed at most 25 minutes). Traditionally the Dharma has not been viewed as identical with what is written in the Tripitaka - with the interpretation treated as a separate thing that everybody gets to do on their own. The correct explication of the Dharma has always been the job of the monastic Sangha and their (the Sangha's) interpretation has always been viewed as much a part of the Dharma as the words themselves. Whether one thinks this is a good idea or not is a completely different matter. In the interest of full disclosure I should point out that I generally do not rely on anyone else to tell me what Buddhism "is" or "means". But I also don't go around trying to foist my own interpretation of Buddhism on the world as what Buddhism "is". I think there are many, possibly infinitely many Buddhisms. "Pacifist Buddhism" is one of them, of course (or possibly many of them, or possibly infinitely many). My beef is with people who want to argue that "Pacifist Buddhism" IS Buddhism, period. While "traditional" Buddhism, in which the monastic Sangha gets the last word on what the Dharma "is", is not my cup of tea, I can't imagine how anyone could ever seriously assert that it "is not" Buddhism or worse yet, that it is not "correct Buddhism". > > >> But the "Buddhism is inherently pacifist" argument largely >>consists of quotations intended to convince to us that Buddhists were >>always supposed to "believe" that all violence is wrong (and please pay >>no attention to all those piles of dead bodies over there.) >> >> > >You misconstrue the argument made for pacifism. This argument is rather >simple and has nothing at all to do with belief. It has everything to do >with practice based on the observation that harming others causes >dukkha. And since the objective of Buddhist practice is to avoid dukkha, >harming others is inconsistent with positively effective Buddhist >practice. That is not a creed. It is a sample of applying elementary >logic. > > The simplicity of the argument is its downfall. It is so simple that one must conclude that if anyone (including the Buddha himself) had ever actually thought that this is what the practical import of the Buddha's teaching was supposed to be, then we would find ample evidence of this interpretation being advocated and implemented for the last 2500 years throughout all the parts of Asia in which Buddhism has been influential. "Been influential" includes things like entire countries that are run by monks - like Tibet. But all we get is quotations, and interpretations of Buddhist "ideas". This reveals a consistently "Christianizing" approach to Buddhism, which explains why people who hold this view are completely incapable of dealing with Buddhism as it actually exists and has existed throughout its history. Christianity (or at least the dualistic subsect of Christianity that wiped out all the others and from which all current Christians are spiritual descendants) teaches people to view "other" religions in terms of their "beliefs" - because that's the way Christianity has defined itself, as a "belief system". If a religion is a belief system then we study it by asking "what do these people believe?" and leave it at that. But if we take a broader view of Religion as a set of ideas, practices and experiences - all of which are manifested in how people actually live their lives, then when we see the incarnation of Avalokitesvara, the Boddhisattva of Compassion, as the head of state of a country with a standing army, a prison system, capital punishment, etc, well we factor those things in when weighing the "ideas" about non-violence that these people espouse. > > >>That argument, by the way, has the, hopefully unintended, side-effect of >>promoting a view of Buddhists as the most hypocritical people in the >>history of hypocrisy. >> >> > >Not really. It simply makes it obvious that Buddhists have not been much >better than anyone else at following the practices recommended for >them. > > But this is unfair to Buddhists - and reveals another "Christianizing" element in the "Buddhism is inherently pacifist" approach. Westerners who are in a culture in which the predominant religious paradigm is Christianity have a tendency to apply a very jaundiced viewpoint (more than justified in the specific case of Christianity) to all other Religions equally. In fact, however, Buddhism probably has had a "gentling" effect on Asian cultures - and here again King Asoka can be seen as an example. Just because we can find no evidence of "Buddhist countries" embracing the extreme ideology of pacifism, doesn't mean - not by a long shot - that there's no evidence that Buddhism has had a positive impact, and has encouraged people to avoid needless violence. Only if we come from the extreme viewpoint of pacifism, combined with the "all Religions are just as corrupt as Christianity" attitude, do we overlook the possibility that Buddhism has made the countries it has influenced more peaceful. Peter Harvey in his chapter on "War and Peace" expresses the opinion that Buddhism has had just such a positive influence in Asia (in his book on Buddhist Ethics). Personally I think it would be inconceivable to even speculate that such a thing might be true in the cases of Christianity and Islam - but here I am sure that many Christians and Mulsims, as well as others, would disagree. > > >>Even more embarrassingly, it puts its proponents in the position of >>being the ones who are going to explain what Buddhism is really >>supposed to be - to people who have been practicing it for 2500 years. >> >> > >Not at all. Rather, it puts people who understand the practice and >follow it in the position of offering help to those who have failed to >understand the practice and to follow it. > > > >>You don't need a Buddhist to tell you what you will find when you >>already know exactly what you are looking for. >> >> > >Quite true. If one does not look for a non-violent way of being in the >world, one will never find it. Buddhists have no monopoly on that >insight, nor have they claimed to have one. > And one doesn't have to be a pacifist to look for non-violent ways of being in the world. In fact, I think that pacifism does not help people avoid violence at all. To avoid violence one must deal with the world as it is. Pacifism by its nature requires people to ignore basic realities about our existence. - Curt From s.hodge at padmacholing.freeserve.co.uk Tue Oct 18 08:54:44 2005 From: s.hodge at padmacholing.freeserve.co.uk (Stephen Hodge) Date: Tue Oct 18 08:59:32 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism References: <00a801c5ceb1$0c557eb0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <434D2A04.5090803@nerim.net> <434D33CB.9050603@cola.iges.org> <434D5216.2000405@nerim.net> <434D6684.9020608@cola.iges.org> <434E0441.1060706@nerim.net> <1129188650.5150.18.camel@spinoza> <434E52F5.5060106@cola.iges.org> <1129235781.5150.57.camel@spinoza><742428727.20051014000232@kungzhi.org> <1129247666.5150.95.camel@spinoza> <434FACC8.90608@nerim.net> <003a01c5d1dc$1ca1c020$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> <1129426250.8400.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> <001901c5d209$8c12ad20$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> <002b01c5d2a0$8cea68e0$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> <1129511331.7820.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1K30yQEVFwUDFwxh@clara.net> <000601c5d32a$0f57d9f0$d0614e51@zen> <1129566096.4561.34.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4353E117.5030505@cola.iges.org> <7828c5d12d6836c3e06a6d6d9fb8a8ea@mindspring.com> <43550159.1090406@cola.iges. org> Message-ID: <000c01c5d3f3$f144aa90$fd5f4e51@zen> Curt wrote: > Why couldn't those Romans just speak English like everyone else? It's probably an urban myth but apparently when the film Ben Hur was first released, as they came out of the cinema, an old lady was heard to say to her friend, "Gee, Ethel, I never realized that there were so many Americans in ome even in those days". Best wishes, Stephen Hodge From rhayes at unm.edu Tue Oct 18 09:04:25 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Tue Oct 18 09:09:30 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: recommendations for books on Madhyamika In-Reply-To: <20051018124523.49538.qmail@web32606.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20051018124523.49538.qmail@web32606.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1129647865.4563.12.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Tue, 2005-10-18 at 05:45 -0700, Michael Paris wrote: > What is one to do? Watch TV. -- Richard Hayes From rhayes at unm.edu Tue Oct 18 09:01:55 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Tue Oct 18 09:09:48 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat In-Reply-To: <004101c5d38f$998b8990$a3694e51@zen> References: <5.2.1.1.0.20051018083252.0120e5f8@mail.jcu.edu.au> <43542E6A.2000403@cola.iges.org> <004101c5d38f$998b8990$a3694e51@zen> Message-ID: <1129647715.4563.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Tue, 2005-10-18 at 03:47 +0100, Stephen Hodge wrote: > PS: Don't forget to get the bit in about Hitler (supposedly) being a > vegetarian. Yes, and recall also that Gandhi (the pacifist father, not his alcoholic womanizing Muslim son) used to sleep next to naked women to prove to himself that he was over his lust. It would be handy for our friend Curt if there were a way to kill both vegetarians and pacifists with one stone, eh? -- Richard Hayes *** "Above all things, take heed in judging one another, for in that ye may destroy one another... and eat out the good of one another."-- George Fox From at8u at virginia.edu Tue Oct 18 07:20:14 2005 From: at8u at virginia.edu (Alberto Todeschini) Date: Tue Oct 18 09:15:29 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] on eating meat In-Reply-To: <200510172342.j9HNgDEM012214@ns1.swcp.com> References: <200510172342.j9HNgDEM012214@ns1.swcp.com> Message-ID: <4354F68E.1070001@virginia.edu> Dear Mike, >Mike Austin wrote: >> > > >>> > If one buys meat, it is the intention and action of the butcher etc. that >>> > determines if he kills. No order is given. Such an order would be just an >>> > imputation from the butcher's side. >> >> If you have never bought meat in your life and you have never visited a supermarket and then, for the first time, you buy meat, perhaps you are justified to think that that meat wasn't prepared for you. But the moment you buy meat (or indeed anything else) you are as a matter of fact asking your shop to stock up so that more meat will be ready for your next visit. Instead of killing the animal by yourself when you need it, you are paying someone to kill it and ship it to the store ready for you to be bought again. Alberto Todeschini From rhayes at unm.edu Tue Oct 18 09:14:00 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Tue Oct 18 09:19:32 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism In-Reply-To: <4355065C.2070300@cola.iges.org> References: <20051016043330.45126.qmail@web32602.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1129487062.6353.1.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4352B8CA.9000709@cola.iges.org> <1129497085.7117.35.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4355065C.2070300@cola.iges.org> Message-ID: <1129648440.4563.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Tue, 2005-10-18 at 10:27 -0400, curt wrote: > I don't think we are talking about what Buddhists "ought to do". We are not. I am. > We are trying to decide whether or not the Buddhist religion is inherently > pacifist. No, we are not. You are. > My beef is with people who want to argue that "Pacifist Buddhism" IS > Buddhism, period. Well, if you find someone who wants to argue that, by all means, have a beef. I think, however, that you may have just bludgeoned yet another straw man to pulp with the might hammer of prapanca. -- Richard Hayes From wongwf at comp.nus.edu.sg Tue Oct 18 09:11:38 2005 From: wongwf at comp.nus.edu.sg (Wong Weng Fai) Date: Tue Oct 18 09:19:52 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] on eating meat In-Reply-To: <000b01c5d370$3d55acb0$9b00a8c0@whizzo> References: <5.2.1.1.0.20051018083252.0120e5f8@mail.jcu.edu.au> <000b01c5d370$3d55acb0$9b00a8c0@whizzo> Message-ID: IMHO any moral principle can be pushed to an extreme if one is creative enough. On killing, for example, just being alive means that I am killing germs and other microscopic beings. Isn't reading Buddha-L during your office hour stealing? Wait, isn't thinking about your lunch while your boss pile up your work also stealing? I think we have to recall the Buddha's advice in the Dhammacakkapavatana Sutta: "avoid the two extremes (of self-indulgence and self-mortification)" one should find one's "middle path". W.F. Wong From horowitz at chass.utoronto.ca Tue Oct 18 12:35:33 2005 From: horowitz at chass.utoronto.ca (Gad Horowitz) Date: Tue Oct 18 09:29:35 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism References: <00a801c5ceb1$0c557eb0$2c1b9c04@Dan><020801c5cf2c$84bc70e0$2c1b9c04@Dan><434D2A04.5090803@nerim.net><434D33CB.9050603@cola.iges.org><434D5216.2000405@nerim.net><434D6684.9020608@cola.iges.org><294991653.20051013194841@kungzhi.org><434EA1EA.30109@cola.iges.org><14138687.20051015034940@kungzhi.org><00a901c5d1c5$58511b00$7dee6480@chass> <1024688094.20051017233841@kungzhi.org> Message-ID: <004701c5d412$bb208e60$7dee6480@chass> "Left Hand" is not a good metaphor because it has no autonomy (self-organization--do you know the Buddhist biologists Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela?)Better would be--microrganism in the large intestine. Perhaps someone could suggest a better metaphor. "Body " is not a good metaphor for "society" insofar as the former is at a much lower level of abstraction than the latter. The organic metaphor plays a large part in the ideologies of corporatist and fascist Europe.Where does the Old Fuys admonition to test things for yourself come in? Does the left hand have its own (!) karma? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Benito Carral" To: "Buddhist discussion forum" Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 2:38 PM Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism > On Saturday, October 15, 2005, Gad Horowitz wrote: > > > the question is whether individuals are MERELY > > members.does membership not presuppose some degree of > > individuality (self-organization) (integrity)? > > Our left hand is much more than a left hand - in > fact, it's that "much more" what makes it our left > hand. Our body can go on without our left hand, but our > left hand can't do without our body. That's how I > understand what a society member is. > > Best wishes, > > Beni > > > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From horowitz at chass.utoronto.ca Tue Oct 18 12:47:59 2005 From: horowitz at chass.utoronto.ca (Gad Horowitz) Date: Tue Oct 18 09:49:35 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: recommendations for books on Madhyamika References: <20051017144023.40801.qmail@web32604.mail.mud.yahoo.com><4353C0DF.5000404@cola.iges.org> <1289233492.20051018000855@kungzhi.org> Message-ID: <005501c5d414$78136aa0$7dee6480@chass> Actually hua-yen would be a great sorce of metaphors for the individual-society relation. The entire ocean (society and much more) is in one wave, yet the wave is no mere left hand--function, instrument, of the ocean. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Benito Carral" To: "Buddhist discussion forum" Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 3:08 PM Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: recommendations for books on Madhyamika > On Monday, October 17, 2005, Curt wrote: > > > My point is: don't bother going around saying to Zen > > folks, "so Zen is connected with Madhamika?" - you'll > > either get blank stares or you'll be criticized for > > "thinking" too much. > > I suppose that I'm a Zen folk after all, and I'm > sure that many Zen folks like me agree that Zen is > connected with Madhyamika, and with Huayan. Maybe some > Zen folks (specially from Japanese schools) don't read > or study books, but if you visit Chinese monasteries, > you will discover that they have great study programs. > That Zen stereotype that you reproduce is just plain > nonsense. > > Best wishes, > > Beni > > > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From richard.nance at gmail.com Tue Oct 18 09:49:24 2005 From: richard.nance at gmail.com (Richard Nance) Date: Tue Oct 18 09:49:48 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism In-Reply-To: <4355065C.2070300@cola.iges.org> References: <20051016043330.45126.qmail@web32602.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1129487062.6353.1.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4352B8CA.9000709@cola.iges.org> <1129497085.7117.35.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4355065C.2070300@cola.iges.org> Message-ID: > But all we get is quotations, and interpretations > of Buddhist "ideas". This reveals a consistently "Christianizing" > approach to Buddhism, which explains why people who hold this view are > completely incapable of dealing with Buddhism as it actually exists and > has existed throughout its history. This betrays a profound lack of knowledge of the Buddhist literary corpus. Curt, I suggest that you put down the Schopen and go have a look at the Pali commentaries, or Vasubandhu's Abhidharmako"sa, or "Saantideva's "Sik.saasamuccaya, or or any of the suutra commentaries preserved in Tibetan (most of which have been ignored by modern scholars). Or, for that matter, any number of other primary sources -- there are thousands to choose from. When you do, you'll find ample evidence that attention to "quotations and interpretations of Buddhist 'ideas'" has long been a hallmark of Buddhism. Focusing on such things is a thoroughly Buddhist thing to do; the notion that such an approach to the tradition is somehow "Christianizing" is simply false. Best wishes, R. Nance From curt at cola.iges.org Tue Oct 18 09:52:17 2005 From: curt at cola.iges.org (curt) Date: Tue Oct 18 09:59:32 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism In-Reply-To: <1129648440.4563.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <20051016043330.45126.qmail@web32602.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1129487062.6353.1.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4352B8CA.9000709@cola.iges.org> <1129497085.7117.35.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4355065C.2070300@cola.iges.org> <1129648440.4563.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <43551A31.6090504@cola.iges.org> Richard P. Hayes wrote: > >>My beef is with people who want to argue that "Pacifist Buddhism" IS >>Buddhism, period. >> >> > >Well, if you find someone who wants to argue that, by all means, have a >beef. I think, however, that you may have just bludgeoned yet another >straw man to pulp with the might hammer of prapanca. > > My argument all along has been quite simply that pacifism has never been a part of Buddhism as it has actually been practiced in Asia for 2500 years. There is no straw man there. Asian Buddhism is what it is - and it has never been a pacifist religion - going back to the Buddha himself. To dispute this, in my opinion, is to insist that Buddhism IS pacifist and that anything (like actual Buddhism as it is actually practiced in Asia) that isn't pacifist isn't Buddhist - or at least not properly so. Sometimes the "straw man argument" is the real straw man. - Curt From horowitz at chass.utoronto.ca Tue Oct 18 13:03:11 2005 From: horowitz at chass.utoronto.ca (Gad Horowitz) Date: Tue Oct 18 09:59:50 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] on eating meat References: <5.2.1.1.0.20051018083252.0120e5f8@mail.jcu.edu.au><43542E6A.2000403@cola.iges.org> <004101c5d38f$998b8990$a3694e51@zen> Message-ID: <00ca01c5d416$97a88560$7dee6480@chass> Hitler was also very kind to his staff, loved children, identified himself totally with the welfare of the German body (volk) ,and he was a great dancer! ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stephen Hodge" To: "Buddhist discussion forum" Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 7:47 PM Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] on eating meat > Curt wrote: > > > Eating meat is pretty much a matter of survival in a cold place like > > Tibet. > Yes, and the same applies to the Inuit and others in similar situations. > That does not necessarily make it right, but it is understandable and > perhaps even justifiable. But nothing of the sort applies to most USAns and > Europeans etc who inflict appalling yet avoidable and unnecessary suffering > upon animals -- in addition to the environmental damage and health issues > that Richard mentioned. > > Best wishes, > Stephen Hodge > > PS: Don't forget to get the bit in about Hitler (supposedly) being a > vegetarian. > > > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From horowitz at chass.utoronto.ca Tue Oct 18 13:00:45 2005 From: horowitz at chass.utoronto.ca (Gad Horowitz) Date: Tue Oct 18 09:59:57 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism References: <00a801c5ceb1$0c557eb0$2c1b9c04@Dan><434D2A04.5090803@nerim.net><434D33CB.9050603@cola.iges.org><434D5216.2000405@nerim.net><434D6684.9020608@cola.iges.org><434E0441.1060706@nerim.net><1129188650.5150.18.camel@spinoza><434E52F5.5060106@cola.iges.org><1129235781.5150.57.camel@spinoza><742428727.20051014000232@kungzhi.org><1129247666.5150.95.camel@spinoza><434FACC8.90608@nerim.net><003a01c5d1dc$1ca1c020$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au><1129426250.8400.10.camel@localhost.localdomain><001901c5d209$8c12ad20$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au><002b01c5d2a0$8cea68e0$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au><1129511331.7820.4.camel@localhost.localdomain><1K30yQEVFwUDFwxh@clara.net><000601c5d32a$0f57d9f0$d0614e51@zen> <003f01c5d38f$97f38470$a3694e51@zen> Message-ID: <00c001c5d416$40504aa0$7dee6480@chass> How did we grow out of that one? Slavery became less profitable--we moved upwards and onwards to wage slavery, millions in prisons, hiroshima nagasaki and--some would say abortion on demand ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stephen Hodge" To: "Buddhist discussion forum" Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 7:25 PM Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism > Mike Austin wrote: > > > Ok, I will book myself in for one. I have had many discussions on this > > topic. People become dogmatic and try to convert each other. I explain my > > approach and leave it at that. I am happy when people are vegetarian > > because their intention is good. I don't eat very much meat, but when I > > do, I don't think my actions of body, speech and mind are bad. > > A couple of hundred years ago somebody might have written "I have had many > discussions on this topic. People become dogmatic and try to convert each > other. > I explain my approach and leave it at that. I am happy when people free > their slaves > because their intention is good. I don't keep very many slaves, but though I > do, I don't think my actions of body, speech and mind are bad." > > How did we grow out of that one ? > > Best wishes, > Stephen Hodge > > > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From horowitz at chass.utoronto.ca Tue Oct 18 13:05:51 2005 From: horowitz at chass.utoronto.ca (Gad Horowitz) Date: Tue Oct 18 10:00:13 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism References: <00a801c5ceb1$0c557eb0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <020801c5cf2c$84bc70e0$2c1b9c04@Dan><434D2A04.5090803@nerim.net> <434D33CB.9050603@cola.iges.org><434D5216.2000405@nerim.net> <434D6684.9020608@cola.iges.org><294991653.20051013194841@kungzhi.org> <434EA1EA.30109@cola.iges.org><14138687.20051015034940@kungzhi.org> <4351094F.5020309@nerim.net><1819706691.20051017214303@kungzhi.org> <435486EC.9060000@nerim.net> Message-ID: <00d001c5d416$f71eff60$7dee6480@chass> This is a great response Joy. I.read it after sending my own paltry crotchets. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joy Vriens" To: "Buddhist discussion forum" Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 10:23 PM Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism > Benito Carral wrote: > > >>An individual is only the sum of various coexisting > >>physical experiences, impulses and ideas at a given > >>moment, like a society is. > > > I don't usually like to ask, > > "What is it?," but, "How does it work?." I prefer to > > ask, "What is the function of an individual?", "What is > > a function of a society?" - keeping in mind that there > > are many kinds of individuals and societies. > > These are all questions that are guided by a certain idea. "What is the > function of an individual" suggests that an individual has a function. > It also suggests that whatever is their function lies outside that > individual. I don't have a problem with an individual who sets himself a > function outside of himself, it happens all the time. But I find it more > troublesome when the function of an individual is imposed from outside. > "Function" evokes the idea of usefulness and I start wondering whether > usefulness is a very useful idea. Useful regarding to what? > > > I think of an individual as someone who thinks, "I > > must pursue my own dreams, feelings, and ideas," and in > > doing so he remains alone, without taking care of > > others, unable of offering trust and loyalty, unable of > > commitment. > > I don't think that will ever happen. Even the Buddha couldn't keep his > own dreams, feelings, and ideas to himself and felt the need to bother > others with them. > > Individuals and societies are expansive little creatures. The West has > always wanted to impose their good ideas onto others: first it wanted > to christen them, then it wanted to civilise them (with its republican > and human right values), now it's the turn of democracy and freedom that > need to be imposed onto others. The history of colonisation is one of > infinite care of and commitment to others. > > > In the other hand, a society member is someone who > > doesn't think in those terms, but understands himself > > as part of a team, "I must pursue our dreams, our > > feelings, and our ideas." Someone who can offer trust > > and loyalty, and keep commitments. > > The advantage of an individual is that they can feel and experience > things directly in their bodies and minds. Societies don't feel > anything, they are blind. Individuals can say "this hurts", individuals > can die and are mortal. Thanks to that they know the value of life. > Societies don't and can sacrify as many lifes as they want. Therefore I > don't feel any need to pursue the ideas and dreams of societies that > don't respect the dreams, ideas or simply the physical integrety of > indivuals. > > Besides, Nirvana is only open to individuals not to societies. > > > So, for me, it's not a surprise that relationships > > are falling apart and individuals feeling miserable. > > That is because our society is sick of its own ideas and dreams and by > pursuing those ideas and dreams, individuals and their relationships > become sick too. > > > I > > think that if there is something that matters that is > > others, and that's why I would like to develop a family > > centered Buddhism. > > I think I see what you mean. What this world lacks is a stronger sense > of solidarity. It needs to reconnect with and listen more to individual > needs. The most fundamental need of individuals is love. Love is > something only individuals can feel. > > Joy > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From vajranatha at earthlink.net Tue Oct 18 09:28:16 2005 From: vajranatha at earthlink.net (Vaj) Date: Tue Oct 18 10:03:11 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] recommendations for books on Madhyamika In-Reply-To: <20051017144023.40801.qmail@web32604.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20051017144023.40801.qmail@web32604.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <42EFDFF7-A94F-4B34-A503-E3E69D220ECC@earthlink.net> On Oct 17, 2005, at 10:40 AM, Michael Paris wrote: > So Zen is connected with Madhyamika philosophy? > > Any recommendations for books on Madhyamika, preferably suitable for > one without much background? > > (Is there a Madhyamika For Dummies, or an Idiot's Guide to > Madhyamika?) > > > Michael > Mipham's Beacon of Certainty: Illuminating the View of Dzogchen, the Great Perfection http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0861711572/102-4451241-3127353? v=glance&n=283155&%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance "Lama Mipham was one of the most extraordinary thinkers and meditators of the Tibetan Buddhist tradition. In his Beacon of Certainty he illuminates some essential points of Madhyamika philosophy according to the view of the Great Perfection (Dzogchen). John Pettit's translation and in-depth presentation is a major contribution to the field of combining Madhyamika and Dzogchen studies, which that remains largely unexplored." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20051018/08d22d85/attachment.html From joy.vriens at nerim.net Tue Oct 18 10:12:11 2005 From: joy.vriens at nerim.net (Joy Vriens) Date: Tue Oct 18 10:19:35 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] on eating meat In-Reply-To: <4354F68E.1070001@virginia.edu> References: <200510172342.j9HNgDEM012214@ns1.swcp.com> <4354F68E.1070001@virginia.edu> Message-ID: <43551EDB.1070602@nerim.net> Alberto Todeschini wrote: > If you have never bought meat in your life and you have never visited a > supermarket and then, for the first time, you buy meat, perhaps you are > justified to think that that meat wasn't prepared for you. But the > moment you buy meat (or indeed anything else) you are as a matter of > fact asking your shop to stock up so that more meat will be ready for > your next visit. Instead of killing the animal by yourself when you need > it, you are paying someone to kill it and ship it to the store ready for > you to be bought again. I don't mean to engage in casuistry, but I was just wondering how far the economic/consumerist argument goes up for eating meat. Suppose that one could get hold of meat with a passed sell by date (e.g. of the day of the sell by date) that a supermarket wants to get rid of. I expect it is simply destructed, but imagine for a second it isn't. Would it be acceptable to eat that meat? I believe I read there was a period in Gandhi's life where he only ate overripe of rotten fruit that had be thrown away, but I could be wrong. Joy From curt at cola.iges.org Tue Oct 18 10:19:51 2005 From: curt at cola.iges.org (curt) Date: Tue Oct 18 10:29:32 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism In-Reply-To: References: <20051016043330.45126.qmail@web32602.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1129487062.6353.1.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4352B8CA.9000709@cola.iges.org> <1129497085.7117.35.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4355065C.2070300@cola.iges.org> Message-ID: <435520A7.5090902@cola.iges.org> I only call it "Christianizing" when it is done to the complete exclusion of taking seriously how the Dharma is applied in reality. Such appears, to me, to be the case with the "Buddhism is inherently pacifist" argument. "Taking seriously how the Dharma is applied in reality" would include, for instance, acknowledging that a nation run by Buddhist monks (Tibet) has never been pacifist, and that a nation in which Buddhism has been practiced for 1500 years (Korea) numbers among its national heroes a Zen Master who was the commander of a guerrilla insurgent army composed exclusively of Buddhist monks to fight against a foreign invasion. - Curt Richard Nance wrote: >>But all we get is quotations, and interpretations >>of Buddhist "ideas". This reveals a consistently "Christianizing" >>approach to Buddhism, which explains why people who hold this view are >>completely incapable of dealing with Buddhism as it actually exists and >>has existed throughout its history. >> >> > >This betrays a profound lack of knowledge of the Buddhist literary >corpus. Curt, I suggest that you put down the Schopen and go have a >look at the Pali commentaries, or Vasubandhu's Abhidharmako"sa, or >"Saantideva's "Sik.saasamuccaya, or or any of the suutra commentaries >preserved in Tibetan (most of which have been ignored by modern >scholars). Or, for that matter, any number of other primary sources -- >there are thousands to choose from. When you do, you'll find ample >evidence that attention to "quotations and interpretations of Buddhist >'ideas'" has long been a hallmark of Buddhism. Focusing on such things >is a thoroughly Buddhist thing to do; the notion that such an approach >to the tradition is somehow "Christianizing" is simply false. > >Best wishes, > >R. Nance > >_______________________________________________ >buddha-l mailing list >buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com >http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l > > > > From joy.vriens at nerim.net Tue Oct 18 10:32:07 2005 From: joy.vriens at nerim.net (Joy Vriens) Date: Tue Oct 18 10:39:32 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism In-Reply-To: <4355065C.2070300@cola.iges.org> References: <20051016043330.45126.qmail@web32602.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1129487062.6353.1.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4352B8CA.9000709@cola.iges.org> <1129497085.7117.35.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4355065C.2070300@cola.iges.org> Message-ID: <43552387.5050000@nerim.net> curt wrote: > I don't think we are talking about what Buddhists "ought to do". We are > trying to decide whether or not the Buddhist religion is inherently > pacifist. I see the Buddhist religion as a project or set of projects. I see kilesa nirodha, destruction of attachment, peace etc. as a project. Can you say that kilesa nirodha and destruction of attachment aren't Buddhism, because Buddhists aren't free of kilesa and attachment? As for peaceful, one only needs to throw a glance at this forum (on an individual level a Buddhist has to practice self-humility; on a group level this expresses itself in bashing and humiliating the forum one is a member of. My remark is purely ritualistic) ;-) Besides how many dead Christians have resurrected? And Christianity is inherently resurrectionist. Joy From junger at samsara.law.cwru.edu Tue Oct 18 09:48:48 2005 From: junger at samsara.law.cwru.edu (Peter D. Junger) Date: Tue Oct 18 10:49:41 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 18 Oct 2005 11:35:33 PDT." <004701c5d412$bb208e60$7dee6480@chass> Message-ID: <200510181548.j9IFmm0A008253@samsara.law.cwru.edu> "Gad Horowitz" writes: : "Left Hand" is not a good metaphor because it has no autonomy : (self-organization--do you know the Buddhist biologists Humberto Maturana : and Francisco Varela?) I never met them and both are dead, but are you sure that Maturana was a Buddhist? : Better would be--microrganism in the large intestine. : Perhaps someone could suggest a better metaphor. : "Body " is not a good metaphor for "society" insofar as the former is at a : much lower level of abstraction than the latter. The organic metaphor plays : a large part in the ideologies of corporatist and fascist Europe.Where does : the Old Fuys admonition to test things for yourself come in? Does the left : hand have its own (!) karma? Why not use the metaphor of Ant Hill from Hofstadler's _Goedel, Escher, Bach_. [The] Ant Hill is an individual without any concern for the individual ants who make up the hill. -- Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH EMAIL: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu URL: http://samsara.law.cwru.edu From leedillion at gmail.com Tue Oct 18 10:46:44 2005 From: leedillion at gmail.com (Lee Dillion) Date: Tue Oct 18 10:49:57 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism In-Reply-To: <435520A7.5090902@cola.iges.org> References: <20051016043330.45126.qmail@web32602.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1129487062.6353.1.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4352B8CA.9000709@cola.iges.org> <1129497085.7117.35.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4355065C.2070300@cola.iges.org> <435520A7.5090902@cola.iges.org> Message-ID: <435526F4.8010006@gmail.com> I suggest we just concede Curt's conclusion that, based on how "the Dharma as applied in reality", Buddhism is not pacifist. In fact, I think we should all agree that Buddhism is one friggin good religion for calming yourself before you go out and mindfully kill a few peasants and assorted minions. Booya Buddhism. Yeah, that's the ticket. curt wrote: > I only call it "Christianizing" when it is done to the complete > exclusion of taking seriously how the Dharma is applied in reality. Such > appears, to me, to be the case with the "Buddhism is inherently > pacifist" argument. "Taking seriously how the Dharma is applied in > reality" would include, for instance, acknowledging that a nation run by > Buddhist monks (Tibet) has never been pacifist, and that a nation in > which Buddhism has been practiced for 1500 years (Korea) numbers among > its national heroes a Zen Master who was the commander of a guerrilla > insurgent army composed exclusively of Buddhist monks to fight against a > foreign invasion. > - Curt From s.hodge at padmacholing.freeserve.co.uk Tue Oct 18 10:52:14 2005 From: s.hodge at padmacholing.freeserve.co.uk (Stephen Hodge) Date: Tue Oct 18 10:59:32 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] on eating meat References: <5.2.1.1.0.20051018083252.0120e5f8@mail.jcu.edu.au><43542E6A.2000403@cola.iges.org><004101c5d38f$998b8990$a3694e51@zen> <00ca01c5d416$97a88560$7dee6480@chass> Message-ID: <003901c5d404$8d2b73c0$18604e51@zen> Gad Horowitz wrote > Hitler was also very kind to his staff, loved children, identified himself > totally with the welfare of the German body (volk) ,and he was a great > dancer! You among others probably missed my all-important qualifier "supposedly". In fact, Hitler was not a vegetarian -- he regularly guzzled sausages and meat broth. The vegetarian image was fostered by Goebels to promote the myth that Hitler was a super-human ascetic. Best wishes, Stephen Hodge From stefan.detrez at gmail.com Tue Oct 18 11:02:26 2005 From: stefan.detrez at gmail.com (Stefan Detrez) Date: Tue Oct 18 11:09:33 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: recommendations for books on Madhyamika In-Reply-To: <20051018124523.49538.qmail@web32606.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <4526ba440510180043jc7ef1f0g@mail.gmail.com> <20051018124523.49538.qmail@web32606.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4526ba440510181002i2c01ae45s@mail.gmail.com> > > > What is one to do? 'Go wash your bowl!' Stefan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20051018/1974c50a/attachment.htm From alex at chagchen.org Tue Oct 18 10:25:04 2005 From: alex at chagchen.org (Alex Wilding) Date: Tue Oct 18 11:19:34 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] on eating meat References: <5.2.1.1.0.20051018083252.0120e5f8@mail.jcu.edu.au><43542E6A.2000403@cola.iges.org><004101c5d38f$998b8990$a3694e51@zen> <00ca01c5d416$97a88560$7dee6480@chass> Message-ID: <001f01c5d407$6f592560$eed4869f@m4k8m7> Gad Horowitz wrote: > Hitler was also very kind to his staff, loved children, identified > himself totally with the welfare of the German body (volk) ,and he > was a great dancer! > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Stephen Hodge" >> PS: Don't forget to get the bit in about Hitler (supposedly) being a >> vegetarian. (Yes, the snipping is messy, but..) when I was in Bavaria a few years ago as the guest, for a few days, of clients in a small town there, "white sausage" was served one lunchtime. I was introduced to it as a local speciality - I think they were rather hoping that I'd find it inedible, but I managed to down it - it was only later that I was told that its colour stems in part from being mainly constituted of brain. (Together with parsley.) Anyway, the story was that it was one of AH's favourite dishes and would often be served at banquets. This was said to be one reason some people dreaded invitations, as failure to be seen to eat it with relish could be hazardous to ones prospects. So where does that fit with the vegetarianism? How much is all just urban myth? (And I suppose: does it matter?) AW From rhayes at unm.edu Tue Oct 18 11:18:28 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Tue Oct 18 11:19:43 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism In-Reply-To: References: <20051016043330.45126.qmail@web32602.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1129487062.6353.1.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4352B8CA.9000709@cola.iges.org> <1129497085.7117.35.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4355065C.2070300@cola.iges.org> Message-ID: <1129655908.4563.44.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Tue, 2005-10-18 at 11:49 -0400, Richard Nance wrote: > Curt, I suggest that you put down the Schopen and go have a > look at the Pali commentaries, or Vasubandhu's Abhidharmako"sa, or > "Saantideva's "Sik.saasamuccaya, or or any of the suutra commentaries > preserved in Tibetan (most of which have been ignored by modern > scholars). Another thing that Curt might do to liberate himself from the spell of Saint Gregory The Protestant-Killer is to look at the rather large corpus of literature produced by Buddhists who had no interest at all in citing and interpreting scripture but felt that everything of value in Buddhism could be derived through careful reasoning. Admittedly, there were a few Protestants who held pretty much the same attitude (such as Hosea Ballou and Ralph Waldo Emerson), but it was their position that the Christian Fundamentalists rejected. And since it seems to amuse Curt most to tar some of his opponents with the brush of Fundamentalism, the school of rationalistic Buddhists (who existed both in Asia and in the modern West) leaves his brush pretty much without any tar. Curt has availed himself of many a well-known fallacy, but he has not yet exhausted the storehouse. There are dozens of excellent fallacies remaining that he has not yet tried. I think we should give him enough time to show us that he can use them all. -- Richard Hayes From rhayes at unm.edu Tue Oct 18 11:09:57 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Tue Oct 18 11:19:56 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism In-Reply-To: <43551A31.6090504@cola.iges.org> References: <20051016043330.45126.qmail@web32602.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1129487062.6353.1.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4352B8CA.9000709@cola.iges.org> <1129497085.7117.35.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4355065C.2070300@cola.iges.org> <1129648440.4563.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> <43551A31.6090504@cola.iges.org> Message-ID: <1129655397.4563.34.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Tue, 2005-10-18 at 11:52 -0400, curt wrote: > My argument all along has been quite simply that pacifism has never been > a part of Buddhism as it has actually been practiced in Asia for 2500 > years. There is no straw man there. I was trying to give your the benefit of the doubt, but you are obviously opposed to my letting you off the hook. I withdraw the accusation that you committed the straw man fallacy and replace it with the claim that you are saying something that is surely false and may be at odds with what you have stated elsewhere. A claim that you have made before is that there are many, perhaps even countless, approaches to Buddhism, one of which is Pacifist Buddhism. You now seem to be saying that during the past 2500 years no one has been a pacifist; I guess that's what you mean by saying that pacifism has never been a part of Asian Buddhism. That is simply false. But let us, for the same of discussion, pretend that it is true. If it is true, then we can only conclude that you think if Pacifist Buddhism exists at all, it exists only in the West and in Asian settings that has been influenced by the West. Even if, for the sake of argument, one were to grant that claim, you dismissal of modern Western pacifist Buddhism as somehow out of line with Asian tradition now seems potentially at odds with your claimed willingness not to be overly influenced by traditional teachings and interpretations. > Sometimes the "straw man argument" is the real straw man. You have misrepresented my position and attacked the misrepresentation. That is what is meant by the straw man fallacy. But that is a minor point. A more important point is that you seem to like to talk just to hear the wind whistle through your teeth. If you ever become interested in serious discussion, let me know. We'll talk. (I'm using the word "talk" figuratively to cover other forms of communication.) -- Richard Hayes From curt at cola.iges.org Tue Oct 18 11:25:16 2005 From: curt at cola.iges.org (curt) Date: Tue Oct 18 11:29:38 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism In-Reply-To: <435526F4.8010006@gmail.com> References: <20051016043330.45126.qmail@web32602.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1129487062.6353.1.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4352B8CA.9000709@cola.iges.org> <1129497085.7117.35.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4355065C.2070300@cola.iges.org> <435520A7.5090902@cola.iges.org> <435526F4.8010006@gmail.com> Message-ID: <43552FFC.4050604@cola.iges.org> This is a nice example of what bothers me. If Buddhism is not pacifist, then it must be pro-violence. That is a typical "pacifist" stance. Pacifists have no monopoly on opposition to violence. Buddhism has probably had a positive effect on Asian culture with respect to violence and many other social problems - but that is not due to pacifism, which has never been embraced by Asian Buddhists. Simply "conceding" that Buddhism is not pacifist in no way implies that Buddhism does not discourage violence, which it obviously does. The implication that one must be a pacifist in order to work against violence, or that a Religion must be pacifist in order to be a force for peace in human society only makes pacifists look arrogant and more concerned with their own moral purity than with actually alleviating suffering. - Curt Lee Dillion wrote: > I suggest we just concede Curt's conclusion that, based on how "the > Dharma as applied in reality", Buddhism is not pacifist. In fact, I > think we should all agree that Buddhism is one friggin good religion > for calming yourself before you go out and mindfully kill a few > peasants and assorted minions. > > Booya Buddhism. > > Yeah, that's the ticket. > > > > curt wrote: > >> I only call it "Christianizing" when it is done to the complete >> exclusion of taking seriously how the Dharma is applied in reality. >> Such appears, to me, to be the case with the "Buddhism is inherently >> pacifist" argument. "Taking seriously how the Dharma is applied in >> reality" would include, for instance, acknowledging that a nation run >> by Buddhist monks (Tibet) has never been pacifist, and that a nation >> in which Buddhism has been practiced for 1500 years (Korea) numbers >> among its national heroes a Zen Master who was the commander of a >> guerrilla insurgent army composed exclusively of Buddhist monks to >> fight against a foreign invasion. >> - Curt > > > > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l > > From rhayes at unm.edu Tue Oct 18 11:32:21 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Tue Oct 18 11:39:39 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] on eating meat In-Reply-To: References: <5.2.1.1.0.20051018083252.0120e5f8@mail.jcu.edu.au> <000b01c5d370$3d55acb0$9b00a8c0@whizzo> Message-ID: <1129656741.4563.53.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Tue, 2005-10-18 at 23:11 +0800, Wong Weng Fai wrote: > Isn't reading Buddha-L during your office hour stealing? Studies have shown that people who read buddha-l regularly go cheerfully into the world with almost superhuman energy. The average worker who spends ten minutes reading buddha-l can then do an hour's worth of work in the ten minutes immediately after reading buddha-l. So actually reading buddha-l on the boss's nickel is a way of giving daana back to the company. If this were not so, it would surely result in a law being passed in Singapore specifying the punishment of caning to anyone caught reading buddha-l on company time. > Wait, isn't thinking about your lunch while your boss pile up your work also stealing? Perhaps, but I make up for it by lying awake at night thinking about work. Now if the boss would just install a time clock in my bedroom.... > I think we have to recall the Buddha's advice in the Dhammacakkapavatana > Sutta: "avoid the two extremes (of self-indulgence and > self-mortification)" one should find one's "middle path". Probably so, and in so doing we might be mindful of the fact that the "middle" has shifted considerably toward the extreme of self-indulgence during the past 2500 years. -- Richard Hayes Department of Philosophy University of New Mexico From curt at cola.iges.org Tue Oct 18 11:34:14 2005 From: curt at cola.iges.org (curt) Date: Tue Oct 18 11:39:50 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism In-Reply-To: <1129655908.4563.44.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <20051016043330.45126.qmail@web32602.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1129487062.6353.1.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4352B8CA.9000709@cola.iges.org> <1129497085.7117.35.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4355065C.2070300@cola.iges.org> <1129655908.4563.44.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <43553216.4010503@cola.iges.org> I'm all ears. Lay it on me. I admit freely that most of what I know about Asian Buddhism is limited to the official versions that are tightly controlled by the Buddhist clergy. I am very interested in knowing more about any independent "lay" schools of thought - or free-thinking individual thinkers. Apropos to the current debate I would be especially interested to here tell of their detailed discourses promoting pacifism and condemning the warmongering policies of their respective governments (which I assume exist in large quantities and that everyone else is aware of but I have somehow missed). I am always interested in learning new things, and I anxiously await this new information. - Curt Richard P. Hayes wrote: >On Tue, 2005-10-18 at 11:49 -0400, Richard Nance wrote: > > > >>Curt, I suggest that you put down the Schopen and go have a >>look at the Pali commentaries, or Vasubandhu's Abhidharmako"sa, or >>"Saantideva's "Sik.saasamuccaya, or or any of the suutra commentaries >>preserved in Tibetan (most of which have been ignored by modern >>scholars). >> >> > >Another thing that Curt might do to liberate himself from the spell of >Saint Gregory The Protestant-Killer is to look at the rather large >corpus of literature produced by Buddhists who had no interest at all in >citing and interpreting scripture but felt that everything of value in >Buddhism could be derived through careful reasoning. Admittedly, there >were a few Protestants who held pretty much the same attitude (such as >Hosea Ballou and Ralph Waldo Emerson), but it was their position that >the Christian Fundamentalists rejected. And since it seems to amuse Curt >most to tar some of his opponents with the brush of Fundamentalism, the >school of rationalistic Buddhists (who existed both in Asia and in the >modern West) leaves his brush pretty much without any tar. > >Curt has availed himself of many a well-known fallacy, but he has not >yet exhausted the storehouse. There are dozens of excellent fallacies >remaining that he has not yet tried. I think we should give him enough >time to show us that he can use them all. > > > > From rhayes at unm.edu Tue Oct 18 11:43:08 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Tue Oct 18 11:49:35 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism In-Reply-To: <43552FFC.4050604@cola.iges.org> References: <20051016043330.45126.qmail@web32602.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1129487062.6353.1.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4352B8CA.9000709@cola.iges.org> <1129497085.7117.35.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4355065C.2070300@cola.iges.org> <435520A7.5090902@cola.iges.org> <435526F4.8010006@gmail.com> <43552FFC.4050604@cola.iges.org> Message-ID: <1129657388.4563.63.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Tue, 2005-10-18 at 13:25 -0400, curt wrote: > This is a nice example of what bothers me. If Buddhism is not pacifist, > then it must be pro-violence. That is a typical "pacifist" stance. Well, no. You are right that such an argument, if one were to make it, would commit the fallacy of false dichotomy, but you are wrong in suggesting it is "typical" of pacifists to commit this fallacy. It is also possible that you failed to detect the irony in Mr Dillion's message. -- Richard Hayes From leedillion at gmail.com Tue Oct 18 13:21:05 2005 From: leedillion at gmail.com (Lee Dillion) Date: Tue Oct 18 13:19:38 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism In-Reply-To: <43552FFC.4050604@cola.iges.org> References: <20051016043330.45126.qmail@web32602.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1129487062.6353.1.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4352B8CA.9000709@cola.iges.org> <1129497085.7117.35.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4355065C.2070300@cola.iges.org> <435520A7.5090902@cola.iges.org> <435526F4.8010006@gmail.com> <43552FFC.4050604@cola.iges.org> Message-ID: <43554B21.2000003@gmail.com> Geez. You try to please someone by agreeing with them and yet they still wish to argue. What is it you want us to believe, curt? That institutional religions, no matter their content, make pragmatic compromises? OK. That those compromises may be contrary to the scriptures/canon that inform the religion? OK. That you can find Buddhists throughout the ages who have supported governments that use violence? OK. Granted all this, what more is it you are arguing? By the way, you state that Buddhism obviously "discourages" violence. But "discourage" is far too lenient a word in my view as the early canon condemns violence repeatedly and never expressly approves of violence in any situation (other than the obvious approval of killing anger). If you are aware of a sutta or sutra that suggests otherwise, let me know, as my readings have been rather limited in scope. On the other hand, if you simply want to appeal to the pragmatism of Buddhism, I've seen those arguments before. Lee curt wrote: > This is a nice example of what bothers me. If Buddhism is not pacifist, > then it must be pro-violence. That is a typical "pacifist" stance. > Pacifists have no monopoly on opposition to violence. Buddhism has > probably had a positive effect on Asian culture with respect to violence > and many other social problems - but that is not due to pacifism, which > has never been embraced by Asian Buddhists. Simply "conceding" that > Buddhism is not pacifist in no way implies that Buddhism does not > discourage violence, which it obviously does. The implication that one > must be a pacifist in order to work against violence, or that a Religion > must be pacifist in order to be a force for peace in human society only > makes pacifists look arrogant and more concerned with their own moral > purity than with actually alleviating suffering. > - Curt From richard.nance at gmail.com Tue Oct 18 13:55:02 2005 From: richard.nance at gmail.com (Richard Nance) Date: Tue Oct 18 13:59:36 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddhist pacifism In-Reply-To: <4d1669b22c7b5409ae909bbf7ad731ab@earthlink.net> References: <00a801c5ceb1$0c557eb0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <020801c5cf2c$84bc70e0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <434D2A04.5090803@nerim.net> <434D33CB.9050603@cola.iges.org> <434D5216.2000405@nerim.net> <434D6684.9020608@cola.iges.org> <434E0441.1060706@nerim.net> <1129188650.5150.18.camel@spinoza> <4d1669b22c7b5409ae909bbf7ad731ab@earthlink.net> Message-ID: Adding to some of the sources Franz cited a few days back, sone on this list may be interested in the following article by Rupert Gethin: http://jbe.gold.ac.uk/11/geth0401.html ...and two articles by Mahinda Deegalle: http://jbe.gold.ac.uk/10/deegalle-sri-lanka-conf.html http://www.wcc-coe.org/wcc/what/interreligious/cd39-03.html Regarding Lee's comment: > If >you are aware of a sutta or sutra that suggests otherwise, let me know, >as my readings have been rather limited in scope. I'm not aware of a Pali text of this kind, but you might want to look at the Upaayakau"salyasuutra. The relevant story (which prompted much discussion on Buddha-L some years back) is summarized in section #4 of Iyanaga's paper; here's the link again: http://www.bekkoame.ne.jp/~n-iyanag/buddhism/buddhism_war.html Best wishes, R. Nance From msteele at uwf.edu Wed Oct 19 13:09:00 2005 From: msteele at uwf.edu (Dr. Michael E. Steele) Date: Tue Oct 18 15:17:14 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] on eating meat References: <5.2.1.1.0.20051018083252.0120e5f8@mail.jcu.edu.au><43542E6A.2000403@cola.iges.org><004101c5d38f$998b8990$a3694e51@zen><00ca01c5d416$97a88560$7dee6480@chass> <001f01c5d407$6f592560$eed4869f@m4k8m7> Message-ID: <004d01c5d4e0$aa011e50$6402a8c0@gatewaycompute> A few quotes from the Dalai Lama. They make his position abundantly clear. "Vegetarianism is very admirable. In the case of those living in Tibet in the past, because of the climatic conditions and the scarcity of green vegetables, it is perhaps understandable that people generally adopted a non-vegetarian diet. Now, however, particularly in countries where there is an abundance of fresh vegetables and fruits, it is far better to reduce our consumption of non-vegetarian food as much as possible." The World of Tibetan Buddhism, page 111. ""I think that from a Buddhist point of view it is very important to be vegetarian. I always say that even if on an individual level one does not always manage to stick to a vegetarian diet, when large numbers meet for a party, a conference, or any other gathering, it is indispensable that the group avoids eating meat. As for myself, I have tried my best to introduce vegetarianism to Tibetan society." Beyond Dogma, pg. 28. For those people who can practice strict vegetarianism, that is best. I was deeply impressed the other day when I heard on the BBC radio that the number of vegetarians in this country (Great Britain) is growing. This is good news." The Meaning of Life from a Buddhist Perspective, page 72-73. "The suffering of animals is immediately apparent, for example, in goats and lambs slaughtered by the butcher, unable to save their own lives. Animals are harmless, they are totally powerless, possessing nothing but the bit of water and food we give them. They are so simple, so stupid, ignorant, and defenseless, that men really have no right to hunt and kill them for food. Cows, horses, mules and other animals have a dismal life and a dismal fate." Essential Teachings, page 43. According to Buddhism the life of all beings--human, animal or otherwise--is precious, and all have the same right to happiness. For this reason, I find it disgraceful that animals are used without being shown the slightest compassion, and that they are used for scientific experiments. ...I have also noticed that those who lack any compassion for animals and who do not hesitate to kill them are also those who, sooner or later, show a lack of compassion toward human beings. Inversely, the more compassion we have toward animals, the more we regard their lives as precious, then the more respect we have for human life. Beyond Dogma, pg. 28. Although from a spiritual point of view, we can say that human beings are the most precious of all living beings, seen from other angles we are the most destructive species our planet has known. Not only do we create pain for other species-- the millions of fish, chickens, cows and others we consider to be our righful food -- but we use our intelligence even to plan the total destruction of the planet on which we live! The Dalai Lama on Money, Politics, and Life As It Could Be, pages 29-30. If you adopt questionable methods to become richer, such as selling arms or building poultry farms, then your livelihood becomes a source of negative energy and karma. By investing your money in the poultry industry, for example, you may become richer but at the expense of other beings' lives The Dalai Lama on Money, Politics, and Life As It Could Be, page 15. From marshallarts at bigpond.com Tue Oct 18 15:38:20 2005 From: marshallarts at bigpond.com (Kate) Date: Tue Oct 18 15:49:39 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddhism & Alcohol References: <001901c5d3d2$a648a9e0$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> Message-ID: <008901c5d42c$42f30700$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> Hi Mike, >Also I couldn't find what I was looking for on the Dalai Lama and wine. (I've got stacks of folders and files to go through.) So its probably best to ignore my comments on this until I can confirm in case I got it wrong in any way.< I found the reference on this that I was looking for. The comment on the Dalai Lama and wine is ambiguous. Re-reading it, the "he" mentioned could refer to a number of the persons mentioned in the same para. So I asked the teacher who made this comment for clarification. His answer is that as far as he knows His Holiness does NOT drink any kind of alcohol. It is strictly forbidden. Everyone please disregard my previous comment on this. It was totally incorrect. My apologies to all, especially the Dalai Lama. Regards Kate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20051019/eb875e74/attachment.htm From laura.castell at jcu.edu.au Tue Oct 18 16:51:59 2005 From: laura.castell at jcu.edu.au (Laura Castell) Date: Tue Oct 18 16:59:39 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re:on eating meat In-Reply-To: <200510181643.j9IGhSxV028433@ns1.swcp.com> Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.0.20051019083735.010f9218@mail.jcu.edu.au> > >I don't mean to engage in casuistry, but I was just wondering how far >the economic/consumerist argument goes up for eating meat. Suppose that >one could get hold of meat with a passed sell by date (e.g. of the day >of the sell by date) that a supermarket wants to get rid of. I expect it >is simply destructed, but imagine for a second it isn't. Would it be >acceptable to eat that meat? I believe I read there was a period in >Gandhi's life where he only ate overripe of rotten fruit that had be >thrown away, but I could be wrong. > >Joy Although the principle behind eating (or using) meat (or something else) that otherwise would be thrown away is good, I think it would still not be acceptable because with that attitude we will never be able to break the vicious circle. I really believe the consumer has the ultimate power to decide what the companies ultimately do and in this case it would have to be to reduce drastically our buying of meat (in supermarkets, in restaurants). It would unavoidable result in a long period of tremendous waste while the producers realise the change and adapt to it. I wish we all had the strength to do it! (I am guilty I confess). The case of fruit is different because you can argue you are not killing the plant producing it, in fact, eating it may be one of the fruit's strategy for propagation. Best, Laura -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20051019/634e682c/attachment.html From parisjm2004 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 18 17:15:57 2005 From: parisjm2004 at yahoo.com (Michael Paris) Date: Tue Oct 18 17:19:38 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] on eating meat In-Reply-To: <004d01c5d4e0$aa011e50$6402a8c0@gatewaycompute> Message-ID: <20051018231557.94996.qmail@web32613.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Whilst mall-walking today, I noted another fast-food establishment (Cajun something-or-other) that now has vegetarian offerings. Apparently there's a growing demand. I'm pleased, and surprised. Oddly, after I started practicing meditation (finally got a Vipassana teacher - hard to find around here), I lost my taste for red meat. I used to love a lean, juicy sirloin. Not anymore. Chicken and fish, on occasion, are palatable, but my wife fixes soy and tofu dishes that are just delightful. (She has cholesterol problems, so the diet change is good for both of us.) Michael --- "Dr. Michael E. Steele" wrote: > For those people who can practice strict vegetarianism, that is best. I was deeply impressed the other day when I heard on the BBC radio that the number of vegetarians in this country (Great Britain) is growing. This is good news." > The Meaning of Life from a Buddhist Perspective, page 72-73. > __________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page! http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From parisjm2004 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 18 16:56:44 2005 From: parisjm2004 at yahoo.com (Michael Paris) Date: Tue Oct 18 17:19:45 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: recommendations for books on Madhyamika In-Reply-To: <1129647865.4563.12.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20051018225644.11697.qmail@web32606.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Not listen to podcasts? That's the trend nowadays, it seems. Regardless, TV has its uses, especially if one has a decent satellite or cable provider. TV Japan / NHK has been a delicious vice (esp. during Sumo tournaments - my wife is an avid fan)! And The Weather Channel has live hurricane coverage (those people are crazy). I don't understand how people can want constant sound. I require periods of quiet to maintain a shred or two of sanity. Constant chatter bothers me. In fact, noise is preferable. At my previous job, the person in the next cubicle would talk for hours about the latest episode of Survivor. Aack! I put on full-muff headphones and played music in self-defense. On the other hand, perhaps I could find Madhyamika MP3s online. That'd be worth buying an iPodish thing. Michael --- "Richard P. Hayes" wrote: > On Tue, 2005-10-18 at 05:45 -0700, Michael Paris wrote: > > > What is one to do? > > Watch TV. __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From parisjm2004 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 18 17:07:33 2005 From: parisjm2004 at yahoo.com (Michael Paris) Date: Tue Oct 18 17:29:38 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: recommendations for books on Madhyamika In-Reply-To: <005501c5d414$78136aa0$7dee6480@chass> Message-ID: <20051018230733.85237.qmail@web32604.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Dare I ask for any recommendations on books about hua-yen? --- Gad Horowitz wrote: > Actually hua-yen would be a great sorce of metaphors for the > individual-society relation. [snip] __________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page! http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From marshallarts at bigpond.com Tue Oct 18 17:29:33 2005 From: marshallarts at bigpond.com (Kate) Date: Tue Oct 18 17:39:38 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re:on eating meat References: <5.2.1.1.0.20051019083735.010f9218@mail.jcu.edu.au> Message-ID: <001701c5d43b$cc5f8c20$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> Hi Laura, >we will never be able to break the vicious circle< I think "breaking the vicious circle" is a very important factor. In Mozambique the locals catch little yellow weaver birds and sell them in wicker work cages. I nearly bought some of the birds just to set them free. I stopped myself from doing so when I realised I'd be creating more demand for caged birds. I am a lapsed vegetarian and while I'm not Buddhist, the posts here have made me re-think about this issue and why I was vegetarian in the first place. Thanks everyone. Regards Kate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20051019/1a3a1c47/attachment.htm From at8u at virginia.edu Tue Oct 18 18:05:55 2005 From: at8u at virginia.edu (Alberto Todeschini) Date: Tue Oct 18 18:09:40 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] on eating meat In-Reply-To: <200510181643.j9IGhSxS028433@ns1.swcp.com> References: <200510181643.j9IGhSxS028433@ns1.swcp.com> Message-ID: <43558DE3.1090407@virginia.edu> Dear Joy, You wrote: > Suppose that one could get hold of meat with a passed sell by date (e.g. of the day of the sell by date) that a supermarket wants to get rid of. I expect it is simply destructed, but imagine for a second it isn't. Would it be acceptable to eat that meat?< As far as I am concerned, yes, it would. I don't see anything inherently bad in eating meat. I grew up in a town in the Alps. At night we often see deer crossing roads and sometimes people run over them, accidentally, of course. Why should there be anything wrong about eating that meat? When I lived in London I knew that some homeless people would go and look for food in the big skips where supermarkets throw their rubbish. If they found meat I think they were perfectly right in eating it. But I don't buy meat. Apart from the obvious fact of not wanting to have animals killed for me, I also don't want to give my financial support to one of the worst industries on earth. Alberto Todeschini From rhayes at unm.edu Tue Oct 18 18:30:14 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Tue Oct 18 18:39:38 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: recommendations for books on Madhyamika In-Reply-To: <20051018225644.11697.qmail@web32606.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20051018225644.11697.qmail@web32606.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1129681814.4344.0.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Tue, 2005-10-18 at 15:56 -0700, Michael Paris wrote: > Not listen to podcasts? That's the trend nowadays, it seems. What on earth is a podcast? Throwing a handful of peas? -- Richard Hayes From franzmetcalf at earthlink.net Tue Oct 18 18:57:24 2005 From: franzmetcalf at earthlink.net (Franz Metcalf) Date: Tue Oct 18 18:59:38 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Lin-chi Lu/Rinzai-roku In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Steve, For my money, Burton Watson's translation of the Record of Linji has the most life. Watson's humor and his lack of fussiness match well with Linji's. (And with Chuang Tzu's as well, which is why I also very much enjoy his version of the Chuang Tzu.) Franz From rhayes at unm.edu Tue Oct 18 18:58:51 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Tue Oct 18 19:00:49 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat In-Reply-To: <20051018231557.94996.qmail@web32613.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20051018231557.94996.qmail@web32613.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1129683531.4344.28.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Tue, 2005-10-18 at 16:15 -0700, Michael Paris wrote: > Whilst mall-walking today, I noted another fast-food establishment > (Cajun something-or-other) that now has vegetarian offerings. Damn, Michael, you made me drool on my mouse pad. > Oddly, after I started practicing meditation (finally got a Vipassana > teacher - hard to find around here), I lost my taste for red meat. I > used to love a lean, juicy sirloin. Not anymore. That was also my experience. One thing led to another and before long I was a vegan. Following a vegan diet had a very bad effect on me. The rigors of following the diet made me fanatical (by which I mean even more fanatical than I usually am). The day I found myself chiding a gentle vegetarian student and accusing him of murder for putting a dab of milk in his tea was the day I knew it was probably time to go back to eating live chickens, just until I could handle a vegetarian diet without harboring murderous resentment of those who had made other choices than I. > Chicken and fish, on occasion, are palatable, but my wife fixes soy and > tofu dishes that are just delightful. (She has cholesterol problems, so > the diet change is good for both of us.) A couple of years ago I discovered that my triglyceride and HDL levels were way out of whack. Both are symptoms of getting too little exercise, but both can be exacerbated by eating too much carbohydrate. I also had high uric acid levels, probably from eating too many legumes. I resumed an exercise program and that helped quite a bit, but the HDL was still too low and the triglyceride levels still too high. A doctor quietly suggested that eating fish once a week and a small amount of chicken once a month might help. I hesitated and then remembered that the Buddha recommended eating meat or meat broth when one is ill, so I abused that piece of advice and ate some fish for the first time in about twenty years. After a few months of doing that, I found my blood chemistry approved again. Damn! So this left me having to figure out whether my health is worth more than the health of the fish whose death seems to promote my well-being. Clearly to me, the answer is no, but I can see how one might offer a different answer. Even though I have thought this through to my own satisfaction, my behaviour has not caught up to my thinking. (I'm an intellectual, not a practitioner.) This discussion on buddha-l has helped quite a bit, and I'm pretty confident it will launch me back into vegetarianism. Maybe even veganism. (And if I EVER catch any buddha-l subscribers tasting honey or wearing wool stockings, rest assured you'll never be allowed to post again!) -- Richard From rhayes at unm.edu Tue Oct 18 19:01:47 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Tue Oct 18 19:09:39 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat In-Reply-To: <43558DE3.1090407@virginia.edu> References: <200510181643.j9IGhSxS028433@ns1.swcp.com> <43558DE3.1090407@virginia.edu> Message-ID: <1129683707.4344.30.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Tue, 2005-10-18 at 17:05 -0700, Alberto Todeschini wrote: > I also don't want to give my financial support to one of the worst > industries on earth. Do you refuse to pay taxes, then? -- Richard Hayes From franzmetcalf at earthlink.net Tue Oct 18 19:01:36 2005 From: franzmetcalf at earthlink.net (Franz Metcalf) Date: Tue Oct 18 19:09:50 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddhist pacifism In-Reply-To: References: <00a801c5ceb1$0c557eb0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <020801c5cf2c$84bc70e0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <434D2A04.5090803@nerim.net> <434D33CB.9050603@cola.iges.org> <434D5216.2000405@nerim.net> <434D6684.9020608@cola.iges.org> <434E0441.1060706@nerim.net> <1129188650.5150.18.camel@spinoza> <4d1669b22c7b5409ae909bbf7ad731ab@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <7e66f60e38f0c59546a42a590cc3a0bd@earthlink.net> Richard N. et al., Many thanks for the Rupert Gethin and Mahinda Deegalle articles. Mahinda is a friend of mine, but I didn't realize he had published anything on this subject. I'm eager to see if he's on the good guys' side or if I will have to chide him mercilessly and further darken my karmic prospects. Thanks also for the Griffiths reference. As it turns out, since the article is from 1981 I have it here in my home. Who knew? Good wishes, Franz M. From horowitz at chass.utoronto.ca Tue Oct 18 22:17:26 2005 From: horowitz at chass.utoronto.ca (Gad Horowitz) Date: Tue Oct 18 19:10:02 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism References: <200510181548.j9IFmm0A008253@samsara.law.cwru.edu> Message-ID: <00ad01c5d464$04eebca0$7dee6480@chass> yes maturana was a buddhist though possibly not an organized buddhist ant hill is good as metaphor of totalitarianism--no concern for any individuals EXCEPT insofar as they are "members" ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter D. Junger" To: "Buddhist discussion forum" Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 8:48 AM Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism > "Gad Horowitz" writes: > > : "Left Hand" is not a good metaphor because it has no autonomy > : (self-organization--do you know the Buddhist biologists Humberto Maturana > : and Francisco Varela?) > > I never met them and both are dead, but are you sure that Maturana > was a Buddhist? > > : Better would be--microrganism in the large intestine. > : Perhaps someone could suggest a better metaphor. > : "Body " is not a good metaphor for "society" insofar as the former is at a > : much lower level of abstraction than the latter. The organic metaphor plays > : a large part in the ideologies of corporatist and fascist Europe.Where does > : the Old Fuys admonition to test things for yourself come in? Does the left > : hand have its own (!) karma? > > Why not use the metaphor of Ant Hill from Hofstadler's _Goedel, > Escher, Bach_. [The] Ant Hill is an individual without any > concern for the individual ants who make up the hill. > > -- > Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH > EMAIL: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu URL: http://samsara.law.cwru.edu > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From horowitz at chass.utoronto.ca Tue Oct 18 22:24:17 2005 From: horowitz at chass.utoronto.ca (Gad Horowitz) Date: Tue Oct 18 19:19:43 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: recommendations for books on Madhyamika References: <20051018230733.85237.qmail@web32604.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <010e01c5d464$fa03d360$7dee6480@chass> I'll mention the two books that I know of tomorrow. They were borrowed by a Baptist two years ago and Ill have to phone her for the titles. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Paris" To: "Buddhist discussion forum" Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 4:07 PM Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] Re: recommendations for books on Madhyamika > Dare I ask for any recommendations on books about hua-yen? > > --- Gad Horowitz wrote: > > > Actually hua-yen would be a great sorce of metaphors for the > > individual-society relation. > > [snip] > > > > > __________________________________ > Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page! > http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From franzmetcalf at earthlink.net Tue Oct 18 19:23:24 2005 From: franzmetcalf at earthlink.net (Franz Metcalf) Date: Tue Oct 18 19:29:45 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Vipassana? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3c4466e0062f65b0a4749cabee3e3d28@earthlink.net> Dylan et al., You wrote that contemporary Zen mindfulness meditation "might be a later addition to Zen meditation -- (or perhaps, as you suggest, this is more Soto style as opposed to Rinzai)." It *is* a bit more Soto than Rinzai, as Mitchell Ginsberg and I suggested, but I don't think it's a later addition. Without picking up my Bodhidharma (and therefore with a good chance of being wrong), I recall his meditation style to have been pretty balanced as well. And Huineng's "formless meditation" in the Platform Sutra sounds very much like mindfulness meditation as well. (BTW: though both these figures are legendary, the very fact the Chan tradition needed to create them and put treatises [even "sutras"] in their mouths demonstrates the centrality of the ideas in those works.) But, in contrast, you also wrote, > Is it possible that in America, Zen meditation has begun to adopt some > aspects of Theravada Vipassana technique, as a way of making it easier > for beginners to start meditating? And I have to agree. There is considerable cross-pollination going on, explicitly and tacitly, in American Buddhist meditation centers. I can't prove that, of course, but I believe it wholeheartedly. Few or no Zen priests in Japan get instructed to count their breaths and let thoughts arise and pass away and so on when they begin meditating. Of course hardly any of them ever *do* begin meditating, so this is not a big issue. But it shows that *some* new influences on the practice have had an effect. Hey, Zen needed it, and why not from vipassana? Though I know less about it, one comment on vipassana. The particular vipassana technique that has swept this country and much of the Western world is only one technique (the Burmese method) among many rooted in Buddhaghosa and the Pali Canon. It's just that essentially none of the other techniques have hit it big here in the land of the free. So we need to be careful to distinguish between vipassana meaning "insight meditation," and vipassana meaning "Insight Meditation?", if you know what I mean. This is one reason I like Gunaratana (and second Richard's recommendation of his work): he doesn't buy the whole Insight Mediation Society package. I'd love it if someone from that tradition showed I'm incorrect about this and set me straight. It would be reassuring to think IMS and Goenka's folks and other groups using the Burmese method have other arrows in their quivers. Best, Franz From laura.castell at jcu.edu.au Tue Oct 18 19:33:26 2005 From: laura.castell at jcu.edu.au (Laura Castell) Date: Tue Oct 18 19:39:40 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: thanks for the thoughts In-Reply-To: <200510190122.j9J1MR81007135@ns1.swcp.com> Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.0.20051019112934.01226d00@mail.jcu.edu.au> >Hi Kate, > >we will never be able to break the vicious circle< > >I think "breaking the vicious circle" is a very important factor. In >Mozambique the locals catch little yellow weaver birds and sell them in >wicker work cages. I nearly bought some of the birds just to set them >free. I stopped myself from doing so when I realised I'd be creating more >demand for caged birds. >I am a lapsed vegetarian and while I'm not Buddhist, the posts here have >made me re-think about this issue and why I was vegetarian in the first >place. Thanks everyone.< > > >Regards >Kate I feel the same, many thanks to all too! if we all do our little bit it will still be better than not doing anything! All the best, Laura From bcarral at kungzhi.org Tue Oct 18 19:37:06 2005 From: bcarral at kungzhi.org (Benito Carral) Date: Tue Oct 18 19:40:51 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism In-Reply-To: <435486EC.9060000@nerim.net> References: <00a801c5ceb1$0c557eb0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <020801c5cf2c$84bc70e0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <434D2A04.5090803@nerim.net> <434D33CB.9050603@cola.iges.org> <434D5216.2000405@nerim.net> <434D6684.9020608@cola.iges.org> <294991653.20051013194841@kungzhi.org> <434EA1EA.30109@cola.iges.org> <14138687.20051015034940@kungzhi.org> <4351094F.5020309@nerim.net> <1819706691.20051017214303@kungzhi.org> <435486EC.9060000@nerim.net> Message-ID: <1015413192.20051019033706@kungzhi.org> On Tuesday, October 18, 2005, Joy Vriens wrote: > "What is the function of an individual" suggests that > an individual has a function. It also suggests that > whatever is their function lies outside that > individual. I don't have a problem with an individual > who sets himself a function outside of himself, it > happens all the time. But I find it more troublesome > when the function of an individual is imposed from > outside. "Function" evokes the idea of usefulness and > I start wondering whether usefulness is a very useful > idea. Useful regarding to what? I was thinking in a Buddhist line. Everything is cause and condition. What I was asking myself was, "What is the cause of individuality?" (How does it work?) and "What is individuality a condition for?" (What is its function). An individual will always be a social being, given than individuality is an idea. The individual has learnt his language, dreams, views... from society. As the Old Guy said, "Individuality is a delusion." >> I think of an individual as someone who thinks, "I >> must pursue my own dreams, feelings, and ideas," and >> in doing so he remains alone, without taking care of >> others, unable of offering trust and loyalty, unable >> of commitment. > I don't think that will ever happen. Even the Buddha > couldn't keep his own dreams, feelings, and ideas to > himself and felt the need to bother others with them. The Old Gay was everything but an individual. > The advantage of an individual is that they can feel > and experience things directly in their bodies and > minds. What an individual feels is socially mediated. > Societies don't feel anything, they are blind. Are you sure? > Individuals can say "this hurts", individuals can die > and are mortal. Can't societies? > Thanks to that they know the value of life. How do individuals know it? What's the value of life? > Societies don't and can sacrify as many lifes as they > want. Can't individuals? > Besides, Nirvana is only open to individuals not to > societies. Maybe because individuals are the problem. >> So, for me, it's not a surprise that relationships >> are falling apart and individuals feeling miserable. > That is because our society is sick of its own ideas > and dreams and by pursuing those ideas and dreams, > individuals and their relationships become sick too. Our society is sick, of course, of the individuality disease. >> I think that if there is something that matters that >> is others, and that's why I would like to develop a >> family centered Buddhism. > I think I see what you mean. What this world lacks is > a stronger sense of solidarity. It needs to reconnect > with and listen more to individual needs. The most > fundamental need of individuals is love. Love is > something only individuals can feel. Love is a social thing. I'm going to quote Hsing Yun here: Human beings are social animals; we cannot live apart from community. As Buddhists, we are told to seek the Dharma among the people, for the Dharma does not exist in some other world or faraway place; the Dharma is here among us, emboided un each and every being. [...] When we understand that human society is nothing other than a web of human relationships, we will understand just how crucial our relationships are. Each link in the web, or each person in a community, affects the whole. [...] Once we see how the repercusions of even one relationship can impact an entire community, we wil learn to treasure each in creating relationships that are healthy and benefical. [...] It is important for us to remember that we all have a key role to play in maintaining the health and well-being of this interlocking web. We also need to understand that human relationships, like all phenomena, develop the truth that, as the _Treatise on the Perfection of Great Wisdom_ says, "All wordly phenomena arise out of causes and conditions; all wordly phenomena cease because causes and conditions." What this means is that the world is the culmination of our collective karma and conditions for being [...] Each one of us is born into this world because of our own individual causes and conditions, but the fact that we all live in this world together means that we share some common causes and conditions. How you conduct yourself within relationships will have immeasurable influence on the lives of others, and vice versa, for relationships actually create the conditions of life that we all share. Because of our collective karma and conditions, it is impossible for us to think simply in terms of our own individual happiness and peace. We may try to exist within a community under such personal and self-serving terms, but this inevitably leads to suffering and impedes the nourishment of affinity. [...] Social harmony stems from handling relationships and communal living with skill, effort, and a spirit of cooperation. We can learn a lot about keeping peace in social living from the six points of reverent harmony that the monastic sangha observes. _Sangha_ is a Sanskrit word that can be interpreted on many different levels. In its widest interpretation, it refers to all thos who have the common purpose of following the Dharma. The six points of harmony, or unity, in Buddhist monastic life are: doctrinal unity in views, economic unity in communal use of gods, moral unity through upholding the precepts, mental unity through shared joy, verbal unity through loving speech and refraining from criticisms and discord, and physical unity by living harmoniously in the same community. [...] Harmony and beauty within our lives and within our communities often fail due to our insistence on the duality of self and others. The ultimate solution for generating peace and accord in our relationships and in our world, therefore, lies in seeing that we all are one. (Living Affinity) Best wishes, Beni From s.hodge at padmacholing.freeserve.co.uk Tue Oct 18 20:03:25 2005 From: s.hodge at padmacholing.freeserve.co.uk (Stephen Hodge) Date: Tue Oct 18 20:09:44 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] on eating meat References: <200510181643.j9IGhSxS028433@ns1.swcp.com> <43558DE3.1090407@virginia.edu> Message-ID: <001601c5d451$67153610$2d6b4e51@zen> Dear Alberto, > At night we often see deer crossing roads and sometimes people run over > them, accidentally, of course. Why should there be anything wrong about > eating that meat? I agree with you -- if one really wants to eat meat, then fresh road-kill would be acceptable. Myself, I just don't want to eat meat anyway -- the aesthetics don't appeal too much besides all the other factors. >Apart from the obvious fact of not wanting to have animals killed for me, I >also don't want to give my financial support to one of the worst industries >on earth. Our unrepentent carnivorous USAn colleagues might find the pdf (Our Worldwide Meat Crisis) at this web address sobering food for thought: http://remnantprophecy.sdaglobal.org/Librarypdf/Health/Meat-Dangers.pdf If the idea of the suffering and exploitation inflicted upon animals (speciesism) does not sway, then the health risks to themselves might be worrying -- and I do not mean the danger of increased cholesterol, but things like the presence of fecal matter (shit) in 78% of USAn ground meat (for beefburgers), the way in which the spread of vCJD there is being concealed as Alzheimer's, etc. Athough the situation is a bit better in Western Europe, I imagine that much of the information still applies. Note also George Monbiot's article in todays' Guardian (18/10/05) about the problems with Brazilian beef -- apart from the obvious issue, it also involves slavery, destruction of the rain-forest, murder etc etc. Best wishes, Stephen Hodge From bcarral at kungzhi.org Tue Oct 18 20:08:52 2005 From: bcarral at kungzhi.org (Benito Carral) Date: Tue Oct 18 20:09:51 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: recommendations for books on Madhyamika In-Reply-To: <697c8217e913dcffa9acd5db6d248da6@earthlink.net> References: <20051017144023.40801.qmail@web32604.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4353C0DF.5000404@cola.iges.org> <1289233492.20051018000855@kungzhi.org> <697c8217e913dcffa9acd5db6d248da6@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <53377248.20051019040852@kungzhi.org> On Tuesday, October 18, 2005, Franz Metcalf wrote: > I wouldn't say that Curt's and Richard's caricatures > of Zen practice are "plain nonsense." Stereotypes, > yes, but not nonsense. I think they are off the mark > these days at most Zen centers in the West, but I > think that's because Western Zen has grown much more > comfortable with its intellectual heritage in these > last ten years or so. Before that things were pretty > darn anti-intellectual, at least here in California. The question is that Californian Zen was not a faithful to of Zen, at least not to Chinese Zen. Californian Zen was what Westerners wanted then. They were entertained trying to be dharma bums, laughing with Alan Watt's jokes. And they created (supported) such kind of Zen. If someone wants to learn something interesting about Zen, I would suggest to read Daoxin's _The Fundamental Expedient Teachings for Calming the Mind Wich Attains Enlightenment,_ where one can read, for example: When you are first beginning to practice sitting meditation, dwell in a quite place and directly contemplate your body and mind. You should contemplate the four elements and the five skandhas, [the six sense organs, viz.] the eye, ear, nose, tongue, boy and mind, and [the three poisons of] desire, anger, and delusion, whether they are good or evil, whether they are enemies or allies, whether they are profane or sacred, and so on through all the various items (fa) [of existence]. From the very beginning they are non-substantial and tranquil, neither arising nor disappearing, being equal and non-dual. From the very beginning they have never existed, but ultimately are utterly tranquil. From the very beginning are totally pure and free. What some people see as Western innovations in Zen practice are really something as old as Zen is. Best wishes, Beni From bcarral at kungzhi.org Tue Oct 18 20:18:49 2005 From: bcarral at kungzhi.org (Benito Carral) Date: Tue Oct 18 20:19:40 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism In-Reply-To: <004701c5d412$bb208e60$7dee6480@chass> References: <00a801c5ceb1$0c557eb0$2c1b9c04@Dan><020801c5cf2c$84bc70e0$2c1b9c04@Dan><434D2A04.5090803@nerim.net><434D33CB.9050603@cola.iges.org><434D5216.2000405@nerim.net><434D6684.9020608@cola.iges.org><294991653.20051013194841@kungzhi.org><434EA1EA.30109@cola.iges.org><14138687.20051015034940@kungzhi.org><00a901c5d1c5$58511b00$7dee6480@chass> <1024688094.20051017233841@kungzhi.org> <004701c5d412$bb208e60$7dee6480@chass> Message-ID: <1398201134.20051019041849@kungzhi.org> On Tuesday, October 18, 2005, Gad Horowitz wrote: > "Left Hand" is not a good metaphor because it has no > autonomy (self-organization--do you know the Buddhist > biologists Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela?) Yes, I have read something about _autopoiesis._ > The organic metaphor plays a large part in the > ideologies of corporatist and fascist Europe. Tools can be used in many different ways. > Where does the Old Fuys admonition to test things for > yourself come in? But if monks tested some things, they were expelled from the sangha. :-) Best wishes, Beni From bcarral at kungzhi.org Tue Oct 18 20:41:18 2005 From: bcarral at kungzhi.org (Benito Carral) Date: Tue Oct 18 20:39:40 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: recommendations for books on Madhyamika In-Reply-To: <20051018230733.85237.qmail@web32604.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <005501c5d414$78136aa0$7dee6480@chass> <20051018230733.85237.qmail@web32604.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <117307651.20051019044118@kungzhi.org> On Wednesday, October 19, 2005, Michael Paris wrote: > Dare I ask for any recommendations on books about > hua-yen? I really like: _Hua-yen Buddhism: The Jewel Net of Indra_ by Francis H. Cook. Best wishes, Beni From bcarral at kungzhi.org Tue Oct 18 20:35:15 2005 From: bcarral at kungzhi.org (Benito Carral) Date: Tue Oct 18 20:39:55 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat In-Reply-To: <001601c5d451$67153610$2d6b4e51@zen> References: <200510181643.j9IGhSxS028433@ns1.swcp.com> <43558DE3.1090407@virginia.edu> <001601c5d451$67153610$2d6b4e51@zen> Message-ID: <919427590.20051019043515@kungzhi.org> An interesting quote from Ven. Xu-yun's autobiography: During my trek from Sichuan Province to Tibet wich took a year, I walked by day and rested at night. [...] The birds and beasts differed from those in China and the customs also differed from ours. The Sangha did not observe the Monastic code and most of the monks ate beef and mutton. They were divided into sects distinguishable by their read and yellow hats. I thought of the days of the Jetavana Assembly and could no refrain from tears.(3) (3) [Note by Charles Luk] Xu-yun's observations about the status of Tibetan Buddhism seem less than salutary at this point, though his account is otherwise generous towards the Tibetan tradition. Special circumstances need to be taken into account here. The Buddhist Sangha generally prohibits meat-eating and Xu-yun introduced rigorous reforms in the Chinese monasteries when and where he found meat-eating going on. Consequently, he was shocked to discover that it is fairly common for Tibetan Buddhists to eat meat as a matter of course. The Tibetan climate and terrain does not readily yield up vegetable crops and cereals are often scarce. Thus out of sheer necessity, the Tibetan monks often live on meat. Barley and millet are sometimes available, but rarely in quantities sufficient to meet all needs. Having said that, Xu-yun was a strict vegetarian throughout his stay in Tibet and obviously found sufficient food to sustain himself. Strangely enough, the Vinaya code does not explicitly rule out meat-eating, largely because monks are supposed to beg or eat what their patrons offer. In China, the Vinaya code is linked with the _Brahmajala-sutra,_ which does rule out meat eating, like the _Lankavatara Sutra._ Thus in china, the precepts do explicitly prohibit meat-eating. [...] Best wishes, Beni From parisjm2004 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 18 20:49:22 2005 From: parisjm2004 at yahoo.com (Michael Paris) Date: Tue Oct 18 20:49:44 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] podcasting - was: recommendations for books on Madhyamika In-Reply-To: <1129681814.4344.0.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20051019024922.33532.qmail@web32603.mail.mud.yahoo.com> iPods and similar music players use the small-but-efficient MP3 file format. Any audio file can be recorded (or changed) to MP3 format. Thus one can carry audio books, lectures, chats - anything verbal - on one's iPod (or equivalent). Of course, MP3s can also be played on PCs. So anyone can put her/his thoughts on an MP3 file and place it on the Internet, usually a web site, for the world to download. This became known as "podcasting" (as opposed to broadcasting) -- widespread dissemination of verbal information. Presumably, with the advent of the video iPod, small video files will soon be 'cast also. There are many thousands of podcasts on the web. I enjoy one - Amy Chavez's Japan Lite. (Japan has _such_ a strange culture.) Incidentally, since we're discussion broadcasting, there are a few Buddhist Internet radion stations - LamRim and WZEN come to mind. Details upon request, either in a post or private. Michael --- "Richard P. Hayes" wrote: > On Tue, 2005-10-18 at 15:56 -0700, Michael Paris wrote: > > > Not listen to podcasts? That's the trend nowadays, it seems. > > What on earth is a podcast? Throwing a handful of peas? > > -- > Richard Hayes __________________________________ Yahoo! Music Unlimited Access over 1 million songs. Try it free. http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/ From parisjm2004 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 18 20:57:49 2005 From: parisjm2004 at yahoo.com (Michael Paris) Date: Tue Oct 18 20:59:41 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: thanks for the thoughts In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.0.20051019112934.01226d00@mail.jcu.edu.au> Message-ID: <20051019025750.15726.qmail@web32609.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I'm not sure living meat-free is the answer for everyone. But certainly decreasing the amount of meat intake and compensating with a better diet is worth the effort. On the other hand, a low-meat lifestyle can be difficult if you don't prepare you own food (or aren't blessed with a talented spouse int that regard). I'm hopeless in the kitchen. I can make tea and use a microwave, but that's about it. No patience whatsoever. It's possible to eat meat-free in restaurants (even in steak houses), but a challenge, and one is not likely to get sufficient protein without a lot of effort. Incidentally, the Seventh-Day Adventists were vegetarians long ago. I used to work in an SDA hospital. Not an ounce of meat was served in the cafeteria. Interesting experience, that. Michael __________________________________ Yahoo! Music Unlimited Access over 1 million songs. Try it free. http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/ From parisjm2004 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 18 21:03:47 2005 From: parisjm2004 at yahoo.com (Michael Paris) Date: Tue Oct 18 21:09:41 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: recommendations for books on Madhyamika In-Reply-To: <53377248.20051019040852@kungzhi.org> Message-ID: <20051019030347.98805.qmail@web32607.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Where might I find this? Michael --- Benito Carral wrote: [snip] > If someone wants to learn something interesting > about Zen, I would suggest to read Daoxin's _The > Fundamental Expedient Teachings for Calming the Mind > Wich Attains Enlightenment... [snip] __________________________________ Yahoo! Music Unlimited Access over 1 million songs. Try it free. http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/ From parisjm2004 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 18 21:12:27 2005 From: parisjm2004 at yahoo.com (Michael Paris) Date: Tue Oct 18 21:20:55 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat In-Reply-To: <1129683531.4344.28.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20051019031227.38051.qmail@web32603.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Replies below. --- "Richard P. Hayes" wrote: > On Tue, 2005-10-18 at 16:15 -0700, Michael Paris wrote: > > > Whilst mall-walking today, I noted another fast-food establishment > > (Cajun something-or-other) that now has vegetarian offerings. > > Damn, Michael, you made me drool on my mouse pad. I'm impressed my message had such an effect. You like that sort of food? > > Oddly, after I started practicing meditation (finally got a Vipassana teacher - hard to find around here), I lost my taste for red meat. I used to love a lean, juicy sirloin. Not anymore. > > > That was also my experience. One thing led to another and before long > I was a vegan. Following a vegan diet had a very bad effect on me. The > rigors of following the diet made me fanatical (by which I mean even > more fanatical than I usually am). The day I found myself chiding a > gentle vegetarian student and accusing him of murder for putting a > dab of milk in his tea was the day I knew it was probably time to go > back to > eating live chickens, just until I could handle a vegetarian diet > without harboring murderous resentment of those who had made other > choices than I. > Veganism does take things rather far. So how do live chickens taste? > A couple of years ago I discovered that my triglyceride and HDL levels > were way out of whack. Both are symptoms of getting too little > exercise, > but both can be exacerbated by eating too much carbohydrate. I also > had high uric acid levels, probably from eating too many legumes. I > resumed > an exercise program and that helped quite a bit, but the HDL was > still > too low and the triglyceride levels still too high. A doctor quietly > suggested that eating fish once a week and a small amount of chicken > once a month might help. I hesitated and then remembered that the > Buddha recommended eating meat or meat broth when one is ill, so I > abused that > piece of advice and ate some fish for the first time in about twenty > years. After a few months of doing that, I found my blood chemistry > approved again. Damn! Improved, I assume you mean. Interesting, isn't it? I suspect some people tolerate vegetarian or vegan diets better than others. Metabolically we seem to differ somewhat. > So this left me having to figure out whether my health is worth more > than the health of the fish whose death seems to promote my > well-being. > Clearly to me, the answer is no, but I can see how one might offer a > different answer. Even though I have thought this through to my own > satisfaction, my behaviour has not caught up to my thinking. (I'm an > intellectual, not a practitioner.) This nicely dovetails with the discussion on animal rights on tonight's No Dogs Or Philosophers Allowed TV show. Serendipity... Michael __________________________________ Yahoo! Music Unlimited Access over 1 million songs. Try it free. http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/ From parisjm2004 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 18 21:21:34 2005 From: parisjm2004 at yahoo.com (Michael Paris) Date: Tue Oct 18 21:29:40 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Vipassana? In-Reply-To: <3c4466e0062f65b0a4749cabee3e3d28@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <20051019032134.39806.qmail@web32603.mail.mud.yahoo.com> replies below... --- Franz Metcalf wrote: [snip] > Though I know less about it, one comment on vipassana. The particular vipassana technique that has swept this country and much of the Western world is only one technique (the Burmese method) among many rooted in Buddhaghosa and the Pali Canon. It's just that essentially none of the other techniques have hit it big here in the land of the free. So we need to be careful to distinguish between vipassana meaning "insight meditation," and vipassana meaning "Insight Meditation?", if you know what I mean. This is one reason I like Gunaratana (and second Richard's recommendation of his work): he doesn't buy the whole Insight Mediation Society package. > Hmm.... Please explain the last sentence. I've been reading Larry Rosenberg's Breath By Breath for some time, and have made it halfway through Wendy Cadge's Heartwood (which I heartily recommend). Cadge goes into the IMS quite a bit, including the styles of the three main teachers (Rosenberg and two others). So I'm intrigued and curious by your statement. > I'd love it if someone from that tradition showed I'm incorrect about > this and set me straight. It would be reassuring to think IMS and > Goenka's folks and other groups using the Burmese method have other > arrows in their quivers. Goenka certainly teaches a somewhat different style than IMS and Mahasi Sayadaw, from what little I know. Good question about the types of arrows. So few are as well-prepared as Green Arrow. > Best, > > Franz Michael __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From srhodes at boulder.net Tue Oct 18 22:08:50 2005 From: srhodes at boulder.net (Steven Rhodes) Date: Tue Oct 18 22:09:40 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] St. Petersburg University Link Message-ID: <4355C6D2.6030402@boulder.net> Dear List Members, Several months ago someone, somewhere posted a link to a website within St. Petersburg University's general website for their Tibetan collections and programs. Would someone please post that link again? Thanks, Steven Rhodes From brburl at mailbag.com Tue Oct 18 22:04:05 2005 From: brburl at mailbag.com (Bruce Burrill) Date: Tue Oct 18 22:09:47 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Vipassana? In-Reply-To: <3c4466e0062f65b0a4749cabee3e3d28@earthlink.net> References: <3c4466e0062f65b0a4749cabee3e3d28@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20051018230233.01efc888@mailbag.com> At 08:23 PM 10/18/2005,Franz wrote: >I'd love it if someone from that tradition showed I'm incorrect >about this and set me straight. It would be reassuring to think IMS >and Goenka's folks and other groups using the Burmese method have >other arrows in their quivers. I cannot speak to Goenka, but I'd like to know a bit more about how you see what is going at IMS before I can respond to this question. From rhayes at unm.edu Tue Oct 18 22:57:19 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Tue Oct 18 22:59:42 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Vipassana? In-Reply-To: <3c4466e0062f65b0a4749cabee3e3d28@earthlink.net> References: <3c4466e0062f65b0a4749cabee3e3d28@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <1129697840.5190.16.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Tue, 2005-10-18 at 18:23 -0700, Franz Metcalf wrote: > > Is it possible that in America, Zen meditation has begun to adopt some > > aspects of Theravada Vipassana technique, as a way of making it easier > > for beginners to start meditating? > > And I have to agree. There is considerable cross-pollination going on, > explicitly and tacitly, in American Buddhist meditation centers. My own experience in a community run by a Korean Son teacher certainly illustrates this. He invited Theravada monks to give weekend workshops on mettaa-bhaavanaa and the four foundations of mindfulness, and he encouraged all of us to go to as many Buddhist temples as we could find in order to get exposed to the full range of Buddhism. He saw the availability of a rich variety of styles and approaches as one of the best aspects of Buddhism in the west. The cross-pollination of all these Buddhist cultures has worked in both directions. Zen teachers learned about all the many exercises included in the four foundations of mindfulness, and the Goenka outfit has learned from Zen and Tibetan Buddhism the marketing value of claiming to have an unbroken secret lineage of uniquely pure practice going all the way back to the Buddha. > I can't prove that, of course, but I believe it wholeheartedly. We'll make a Catholic of you yet. Or at least a Christian Scientist. > Though I know less about it, one comment on vipassana. The particular > vipassana technique that has swept this country and much of the Western > world is only one technique (the Burmese method) among many rooted in > Buddhaghosa and the Pali Canon. It's just that essentially none of the > other techniques have hit it big here in the land of the free. It's just that it's so difficult to find a decently rotting corpse lying on the streets, unless you happen to live in New Orleans. -- Richard From brburl at mailbag.com Tue Oct 18 23:20:11 2005 From: brburl at mailbag.com (Bruce Burrill) Date: Tue Oct 18 23:29:41 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Vipassana? In-Reply-To: <1129697840.5190.16.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <3c4466e0062f65b0a4749cabee3e3d28@earthlink.net> <1129697840.5190.16.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20051019001745.03891bc0@mailbag.com> At 11:57 PM 10/18/2005, you wrote: >The cross-pollination of all these Buddhist cultures has worked in both >directions. Zen teachers learned about all the many exercises included >in the four foundations of mindfulness, and the Goenka outfit has >learned from Zen and Tibetan Buddhism the marketing value of claiming to >have an unbroken secret lineage of uniquely pure practice going all the >way back to the Buddha. I don't know if it fair to pick on poor Goenka for holding to a literaist belief about the purity of his tradition, but Goenka is only one aspect of the vipassana tradition in the US. At IMS they have been very open to teachers of other traditions. From joy.vriens at nerim.net Wed Oct 19 00:04:06 2005 From: joy.vriens at nerim.net (Joy Vriens) Date: Wed Oct 19 00:09:45 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re:on eating meat In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.0.20051019083735.010f9218@mail.jcu.edu.au> References: <5.2.1.1.0.20051019083735.010f9218@mail.jcu.edu.au> Message-ID: <4355E1D6.8060800@nerim.net> Hi Laura, > Although the principle behind eating (or using) meat (or something else) > that otherwise would be thrown away is good, I think it would still not > be acceptable because with that attitude we will never be able to break > the vicious circle.... I wish we > all had the strength to do it! (I am guilty I confess). Yes, I felt it didn't really make a difference either as far as the ethical aspect of eating meat is concerned. But then I think the argument of breaking the vicious circle would also apply to bikkhus begging for food. There are situations in which eating meat was necessary and still is necessary, but in the affluent West, that is less and less true, which means the ethical aspect becomes more and more evident. As Stephen suggested I believe, one day we will consider eating meat like we considered slavery etc. That is when the pendulum swings forward again. Devadatta didn't eat diary products, perhaps that means he was a vegetarian too. Perhaps he will have an awesome comeback and become mainstream Buddhism one day. ;-) Joy From mike at lamrim.org.uk Wed Oct 19 00:28:32 2005 From: mike at lamrim.org.uk (Mike Austin) Date: Wed Oct 19 00:29:42 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] on eating meat In-Reply-To: <004d01c5d4e0$aa011e50$6402a8c0@gatewaycompute> References: <5.2.1.1.0.20051018083252.0120e5f8@mail.jcu.edu.au> <43542E6A.2000403@cola.iges.org> <004101c5d38f$998b8990$a3694e51@zen> <00ca01c5d416$97a88560$7dee6480@chass> <001f01c5d407$6f592560$eed4869f@m4k8m7> <004d01c5d4e0$aa011e50$6402a8c0@gatewaycompute> Message-ID: In message <004d01c5d4e0$aa011e50$6402a8c0@gatewaycompute>, Dr. Michael E. Steele writes >A few quotes from the Dalai Lama. They make his position abundantly clear. I am not entering the debate here, but can you cite a reference - or a quote from His Holiness - that says eating meat, or buying meat, is bad karma? This was the original question that started this spate of posts. It is quite difficult to get a straight answer to this question without getting bogged down in peripheral points of view and getting accused of all sorts of wrongs. -- Metta Mike Austin From mike at lamrim.org.uk Wed Oct 19 00:37:42 2005 From: mike at lamrim.org.uk (Mike Austin) Date: Wed Oct 19 00:39:42 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re:on eating meat In-Reply-To: <001701c5d43b$cc5f8c20$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> References: <5.2.1.1.0.20051019083735.010f9218@mail.jcu.edu.au> <001701c5d43b$cc5f8c20$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> Message-ID: In message <001701c5d43b$cc5f8c20$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au>, Kate writes >I think "breaking the vicious circle" is a very important factor.??In >Mozambique the locals catch little yellow weaver birds and sell them in >wicker work cages.? I?nearly bought some of the birds just to set them >free.? I stopped myself from doing so when I realised I'd be creating >more demand for caged birds. Only last week, our resident Geshe told of a place in India near to a lake where the locals caught fish and sold them live. Tibetans in the area bought these fish to release into the lake again. The circle of events continues - perhaps not so 'vicious' as the circle of life and death, but a suffering circle for the fish even within one lifetime. -- Metta Mike Austin From joy.vriens at nerim.net Wed Oct 19 00:33:39 2005 From: joy.vriens at nerim.net (Joy Vriens) Date: Wed Oct 19 00:39:55 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] on eating meat In-Reply-To: <43558DE3.1090407@virginia.edu> References: <200510181643.j9IGhSxS028433@ns1.swcp.com> <43558DE3.1090407@virginia.edu> Message-ID: <4355E8C3.7040503@nerim.net> Hi Alberto, > As far as I am concerned, yes, it would. I don't see anything inherently > bad in eating meat. I grew up in a town in the Alps. At night we often > see deer crossing roads and sometimes people run over them, > accidentally, of course. Why should there be anything wrong about eating > that meat? Richard once, or twice or thrice said "I don't eat my friends". Animals are not my friends (I am not one of those sad people who can only trust Bambi because people are so treacherous), but I can sense what that statement is aiming at. Still this somehow reminds me of the argument that killing someone to defend our beloved ones is right and that once having accepted that killing can be right, one can find oneself on a slippery slope and one doesn't think the same about others. It changes our perception of them, they can be killed if... The lock is off. And therefore it changes the perception of ourselves too. I feel it degrades myself to think of it that way. And not in the sense of loosing a holier-than-thou-and-others purity. But in the sense of losing an essential guideline to living my life well. > When I lived in London I knew that some homeless people would go and > look for food in the big skips where supermarkets throw their rubbish. > If they found meat I think they were perfectly right in eating it. > But I don't buy meat. Apart from the obvious fact of not wanting to > have animals killed for me, I also don't want to give my financial > support to one of the worst industries on earth. I actually see the problem I brought up as two different attitudes. Eating meat is wrong, although I am a meat eater myself (I have been a vegetarian in the past and could become one again in the future). But I don't want to get rid of the thought that it isn't right (as a guideline), because it changes the way I perceive eating meat, the frequency of meat eating etc. It has the power to gradually change my attitude towards eating meat. The second attitude is about consumerism, which is basically motivated by greed. It is more ethical to live on recuperated food and to use stuff that people got rid of. I don't mean that we all have to live as saints, but again it is a guideline that keeps us thinking and aware of our greed and it can thus change our attitudes. Joy Man: Um, excuse me, is this the Undertakers? Undertaker: Yep that's right, what can I do for you squire? M: Um, well, I wonder if you can help me. Uh, my mother has just died and I'm not quite sure what I should do. U: Oh well, we can help you. We deal with stiffs. M: Stiffs. U: Now there's three things we can do with your mum. We can bury her, burn her, or dump her. M: Dump her? U: Dump her in the Thames. M: What? U: Oh, did you like her? M: Yes! U: Oh well we won't dump her then. Well, what do you think. Burn her or bury her. M: Well, um, which would you recommend? U: Well, they're both nasty. If we burn her she gets stuffed in the flames; crackle, crackle, crackle; which is a bit of a shock if she's not quite dead, but quick. And then you get a box of ashes which you can pretend are hers. M: Oh. U: Or, if you don't want to fry her, you can bury her, and then she'll get eaten up by maggots and weevels; nibble, nibble, nibble; which isn't so hot, if as I said, she's not quite dead. M: I see, um, well, I'm not very sure she's definately dead. U: Where is she? M: She's in this sack. U: Let's have a look. Umm, she looks quite young. M: Yes, she was. U: (calling) Fred. Fred: Yes? U: I think we've got an eater. F: I'll get the oven on. M: Um, uh, excuse me. Um, are you suggesting we should eat my mother? U: Yeah, not raw, we'd cook her. She'd be delicious with a few french fries, a bit of brautaline stuffing, delicious! M: What? Well, actually I do feel a little bit peckish. No, I can't. U: Look, we'll eat your mum and if you feel a bit guility about it afterward we can dig a grave and you can throw up in it. M: Alright. Mont Python From mike at lamrim.org.uk Wed Oct 19 00:44:21 2005 From: mike at lamrim.org.uk (Mike Austin) Date: Wed Oct 19 00:49:43 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re:on eating meat In-Reply-To: <4355E1D6.8060800@nerim.net> References: <5.2.1.1.0.20051019083735.010f9218@mail.jcu.edu.au> <4355E1D6.8060800@nerim.net> Message-ID: In message <4355E1D6.8060800@nerim.net>, Joy Vriens writes >Devadatta didn't eat diary products, perhaps that means he was a >vegetarian too. Perhaps he will have an awesome comeback and become >mainstream Buddhism one day. ;-) Maybe there will be a day when vegans harangue vegetarian Buddhists for causing suffering to animals by eating their produce. Then maybe there will be a day when people who do not eat root vegetables harangue those who do because of the suffering it causes to creatures in the earth. So geht es immer weiter. -- Metta Mike Austin From marshallarts at bigpond.com Wed Oct 19 01:40:23 2005 From: marshallarts at bigpond.com (Kate) Date: Wed Oct 19 01:49:45 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re:on eating meat References: <5.2.1.1.0.20051019083735.010f9218@mail.jcu.edu.au><001701c5d43b$cc5f8c20$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> Message-ID: <001201c5d480$5d6c2cc0$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> > Only last week, our resident Geshe told of a place in India near to a > lake where the locals caught fish and sold them live. Tibetans in the > area bought these fish to release into the lake again. The circle of > events continues - perhaps not so 'vicious' as the circle of life and > death, but a suffering circle for the fish even within one lifetime. What a sad tale, Mike. I sometimes wonder if I made the right choice in not buying any of the birds. Guess there isn't an easy answer to all this. Regards Kate From joy.vriens at nerim.net Wed Oct 19 03:36:36 2005 From: joy.vriens at nerim.net (Joy Vriens) Date: Wed Oct 19 03:39:48 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism In-Reply-To: <1015413192.20051019033706@kungzhi.org> References: <00a801c5ceb1$0c557eb0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <020801c5cf2c$84bc70e0$2c1b9c04@Dan> <434D2A04.5090803@nerim.net> <434D33CB.9050603@cola.iges.org> <434D5216.2000405@nerim.net> <434D6684.9020608@cola.iges.org> <294991653.20051013194841@kungzhi.org> <434EA1EA.30109@cola.iges.org> <14138687.20051015034940@kungzhi.org> <4351094F.5020309@nerim.net> <1819706691.20051017214303@kungzhi.org> <435486EC.9060000@nerim.net> <1015413192.20051019033706@kungzhi.org> Message-ID: <435613A4.6010204@nerim.net> Benito Carral wrote: > I was thinking in a Buddhist line. Everything is > cause and condition. What I was asking myself was, > "What is the cause of individuality?" (How does it > work?) and "What is individuality a condition for?" > (What is its function). I personally like to think like Buddhadasa that interconnectedness (idappaccayataa) is what Buddhism is (or ought to be) about. Thinking about causes is endless and can lead to controlfreakism, which consolidates the grip of self. Indiduality doesn't come with a function, it simply appears. It's not like it shouldn't be there and that we should wonder what can we do to prevent individuality to appear IMO. > An individual will always be a social being, given > than individuality is an idea. The individual has > learnt his language, dreams, views... from society. As > the Old Guy said, "Individuality is a delusion." Isn't any -ity? An individual is a combination of factors. Without those factors, no individual. A society is a combination of individuals. Without individuals no society. >>I don't think that will ever happen. Even the Buddha >>couldn't keep his own dreams, feelings, and ideas to >>himself and felt the need to bother others with them. > The Old Gay was everything but an individual. It never occurred to me that he was, but he could have been of course. After all he did leave his harem to live among a bunch of guys. As for not being an individual, I think you should explain what you understand by individual and in what ways the Buddha wasn't one. >>The advantage of an individual is that they can feel >>and experience things directly in their bodies and >>minds. > > > What an individual feels is socially mediated. I assure you that when I am having root canal work being done on me, what I feel is not socially mediated. I expect that collateral damage being done on one even hurts more. >>Societies don't feel anything, they are blind. > > > Are you sure? Yes, the individuals in that society can see things and convince other individuals that some things in society ought to change, but the societies themselves don't see a thing. A society is a collective project of individuals. >>Individuals can say "this hurts", individuals can die >>and are mortal. > > > Can't societies? Societies as collective projects can change, but they don't die. >>Thanks to that they know the value of life. > > > How do individuals know it? What's the value of > life? Since individuals feel things in their flesh and minds they can know when something feels good or wrong. That gives them a sense of value. And being able to feel those things individually, they can than extend those values to others. through empathy. Life is a given and as such has no value. But individuals can attribute values to the things that are experienced during the experience called life. >>Societies don't and can sacrify as many lifes as they >>want. > > > Can't individuals? No because there are laws made by individuals themselves prohibiting that individuals kill on their own account. Societies on the other hand have the right to kill and exploit if they think it is in their interest. Societies are collective projects of individuals. If some individuals hijack the collective project in order to fulfill their own interests and thereby neglect the interests of most individuals then there is a divorce with the individual values that should feed the collective project. >>Besides, Nirvana is only open to individuals not to >>societies. > Maybe because individuals are the problem. One can't blame individuals for behaving like individuals. "Who" thinks that individuals are a problem and what are "its" expectations of whatever "it" wishes? >>That is because our society is sick of its own ideas >>and dreams and by pursuing those ideas and dreams, >>individuals and their relationships become sick too. > Our society is sick, of course, of the individuality > disease. This is very ironic because at the same time indivuals have less and less to say and are less and less implicated in decision making and democratic processes (apart from some formal expressions like showing you inky finger to a tv camera). Projects don't come from downwards to go upwards, but are more and more imposed by "those in power". The main project of those in power is to stay in power. If individuals don't follow their projects and express their dissent, then it is said that those individuals don't understand the project properly and that further explaining is needed. Individuals are blinded by masses of futile information, misinformation, "polls", propaganda, advertising to disconnect them from their individual intuitions. >>I think I see what you mean. What this world lacks is >>a stronger sense of solidarity. It needs to reconnect >>with and listen more to individual needs. The most >>fundamental need of individuals is love. Love is >>something only individuals can feel. > > > Love is a social thing. > > I'm going to quote Hsing Yun here: And Hsing Yun reconciles us. ;-) From mike at lamrim.org.uk Wed Oct 19 01:32:43 2005 From: mike at lamrim.org.uk (Mike Austin) Date: Wed Oct 19 03:59:45 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Fw: Buddhism & Alcohol In-Reply-To: <001901c5d3d2$a648a9e0$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> References: <001901c5d3d2$a648a9e0$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> Message-ID: In message <001901c5d3d2$a648a9e0$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au>, Kate writes >Contrary to what one may assume, the monastic rules were not set down >beforehand by the Buddha, but were developed from the living experience >of the monks themselves. Yes. In recent conversations I have had with our resident Geshe, this is a subject that has occasionally come up. It indicates to me that no rule was absolute but that they arose contingently with monks' behaviour that the Buddha deemed inappropriate. I tend to see the majority of teachings in this way - antidotal rather than prescriptive. First, one appreciates the problem (or perhaps experiences it). Then one takes the appropriate countermeasure. -- Metta Mike Austin From joy.vriens at nerim.net Wed Oct 19 04:16:24 2005 From: joy.vriens at nerim.net (Joy Vriens) Date: Wed Oct 19 04:19:47 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re:on eating meat In-Reply-To: References: <5.2.1.1.0.20051019083735.010f9218@mail.jcu.edu.au> <4355E1D6.8060800@nerim.net> Message-ID: <43561CF8.3050005@nerim.net> Mike Austin wrote: > In message <4355E1D6.8060800@nerim.net>, Joy Vriens > writes > >> Devadatta didn't eat diary products, perhaps that means he was a >> vegetarian too. Perhaps he will have an awesome comeback and become >> mainstream Buddhism one day. ;-) > > > Maybe there will be a day when vegans harangue vegetarian Buddhists for > causing suffering to animals by eating their produce. Then maybe there > will be a day when people who do not eat root vegetables harangue those > who do because of the suffering it causes to creatures in the earth. > > So geht es immer weiter. Da hast du recht mein Freund. Until one has no life anymore and decides that paranibbana may be the best thing left to do. The law of Eternal nagging. First one needs to get rid of some of one's friends, then one shouldn't put one's feet on the table when watching telly, then one shouldn't watch telly, then one should spend less time behind one's computer etc etc until one is a model husband. From mike at lamrim.org.uk Wed Oct 19 04:32:55 2005 From: mike at lamrim.org.uk (Mike Austin) Date: Wed Oct 19 04:39:45 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re:on eating meat In-Reply-To: <001201c5d480$5d6c2cc0$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> References: <5.2.1.1.0.20051019083735.010f9218@mail.jcu.edu.au> <001701c5d43b$cc5f8c20$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> <001201c5d480$5d6c2cc0$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> Message-ID: In message <001201c5d480$5d6c2cc0$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au>, Kate writes >> Only last week, our resident Geshe told of a place in India near to a >> lake where the locals caught fish and sold them live. Tibetans in the >> area bought these fish to release into the lake again. The circle of >> events continues - perhaps not so 'vicious' as the circle of life and >> death, but a suffering circle for the fish even within one lifetime. > >What a sad tale, Mike. I sometimes wonder if I made the right choice in not >buying any of the birds. Guess there isn't an easy answer to all this. Well, yes - but that's samsara folks. Of course, the action to save life is commendable. One could remain by the side of the lake and do this for ever. But one needs to ask oneself if it is the best use one can make of this life. That is where bodhicitta - the mind of enlightenment - comes in. One should think beyond the immediate situation and see if there is something that could be done to stop it entirely - to stop the situation even arising. So here is a quandary that any Mahayana practitioner needs to sort out for his/her self - how much time to devote to immediate good works and how much time to devote to achieving an improved position from which one can do better. Whatever one does, I think the priority is one's own state of mind. Lose that, and everything is lost. This means maintaining the best attitude, or nature, that one can. I like the following tale: The Scorpion and the Monk - a Zen Tale Two monks were washing their bowls in the river when they noticed a scorpion that was drowning. One monk immediately scooped it up and set it upon the bank. In the process he was stung. He went back to washing his bowl and again the scorpion fell in. The monk saved the scorpion and was again stung. The other monk asked him, "Friend, why do you continue to save the scorpion when you know it's nature is to sting?" "Because," the monk replied, "to save it is my nature." -- Metta Mike Austin From mike at lamrim.org.uk Wed Oct 19 04:39:58 2005 From: mike at lamrim.org.uk (Mike Austin) Date: Wed Oct 19 04:49:46 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re:on eating meat In-Reply-To: <43561CF8.3050005@nerim.net> References: <5.2.1.1.0.20051019083735.010f9218@mail.jcu.edu.au> <4355E1D6.8060800@nerim.net> <43561CF8.3050005@nerim.net> Message-ID: In message <43561CF8.3050005@nerim.net>, Joy Vriens writes >The law of Eternal nagging. Haha! I like this one! Nagging me is my own responsibility - otherwise known as Thought Transformation. And when I can stop that, I will be an enlightened being. -- Metta Mike Austin From skiltonat at Cardiff.ac.uk Wed Oct 19 06:58:29 2005 From: skiltonat at Cardiff.ac.uk (Andrew Skilton) Date: Wed Oct 19 06:59:49 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat Message-ID: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 "Dr. Michael E. Steele" wrote: >A few quotes from the Dalai Lama. They make his position abundantly clear. [snip] "They [animals] are so simple, so stupid, ignorant, and defenseless, that men really have no right to hunt and kill them for food." I, like various others, have appreciated the discussion of vegetarianism, not least because I thought the case for it has been made so well by various contributors. The quotations that Michael has collected for us should surely put paid to the arguments of those who like to rely on 'authority' in determining their decisions? There are two angles to justifying vegetarianism that I have not noticed here (sorry if I missed them). One is that no-one has particularly emphasised the role of cultural conditioning (rather than environmental circumstances) in making people dependent on meat eating - mainly to do with identity construction and status? (in the UK, "I need my meat and two veg!") Also, and here my reason for snipping out that particular sentence from the DL, I have not noticed much about the 'sentience' of other species. This has obviously been implicit in the arguments that mention their suffering, but I wonder how much attention in general we give to the independent otherness of individual representatives of other species. (I am not a member of the Bambi Brigade, Joy.) After a gap of almost 25 years, I have for the last 8 or so enjoyed the company of a couple of dogs in the house. I have found the experience of once again sharing my living space with members of another species moving and salutary, not least in realising the extent to which, during that interim quarter century, I had become marginally seduced by the (Judeo-Xtian?) view that animals are soul-less machines. And that even while being vegetarian! My reading of Buddhist literature is that it assumes a continuity of consciousness between species and is well illustrated by stories that allow agency and a number of 'human' characteristics to critters. (...and also seems to conflict with the characterisation offered by the DL above?) Andrew From richard.nance at gmail.com Wed Oct 19 07:49:36 2005 From: richard.nance at gmail.com (Richard Nance) Date: Wed Oct 19 07:50:59 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Michael Steele wrote: >A few quotes from the Dalai Lama. They make his position abundantly clear. [snip] "They [animals] are so simple, so stupid, ignorant, and defenseless, that men really have no right to hunt and kill them for food." Andrew Skilton responded: > My reading of Buddhist literature is that it assumes a continuity of > consciousness between species and is well illustrated by stories that allow > agency and a number of 'human' characteristics to critters. (...and also seems > to conflict with the characterisation offered by the DL above?) Andrew is quite right about this (and I hope he'll allow me to use this opportunity to thank him for his work; I've greatly benefited from it). But the point made by the Dalai Lama is one that echoes a ways of thinking about animals that has a long tradition in Buddhist thought. Consider for example, the following excerpt from one of Kamala"siila's Bhaavanaakrama-s (late 8th c.). Kamala'siila is here detailing a technique of meditative cultivation in which the practitioner is asked to concentrate on the suffering of beings in various world realms: "Now the compassion [of the bodhisattva] grows through an increasing concern for beings who suffer; and thus he should meditate upon these beings... we ourselves can see how animals suffer many pains, maiming and slaughtering each other in mutual rage; how some are bound and beaten, their noses split for rings, their bodies castrated, tormented on all sides; how they weary, their reluctant bodies exhausted in bearing their hard and heavy loads..." (Stephan Beyer, trans.) More than a thousand years later, dPal sprul O rgyan 'jigs med chos kyi dbang po's *Kun bzang bla ma'i zhal lung* echoes this and renders it more vivid. "The wild animals that share our human world, in particular, live in constant fear. They cannot eat a single mouthful of food without being on their guard. They have many mortal enemies, for all animals prey on each other and there are always hunters, beasts of prey and other threats to life. Hawks kill small birds, small birds kill insects, and so on, continually amassing evil actions in an endless round of killing and being killed. Hunters are expert in all methods of torturing and killing these animals. They threaten their lives with all sorts of vicious devices--nets, snares, traps and guns. Some animals are killed for their horns, fur, skins and other products of their body. Oysters are killed for their pearls; elephants for their tusks and bones; tigers, leopards, otters and foxes for their fur; musk-oxen for their musk; wild asses and yaks for their flesh and blood. It is a terrible affliction that the very body with which they are born is the reason for their being killed. As for those animals domesticated by man, they are so stupid that when their executioner approaches, knife in hand, they can only stare wide-eyed, not even thinking of escape. They are milked, loaded down, castrated, pierced through the nose and yoked to the plough. Not one of them escapes this continual round of slavery. Horses and yaks continue to be loaded and ridden even when their backs are nothing but one big sore. When they can go no further, they are whipped and pelted with stones. The fact that they could be in distress or ill never seems to cross their owners' minds. Cattle and sheep are exploited until they die. Once they are too old, they are sold off or killed by the owners themselves. Whatever the case, they are destined for the butcher and a natural death is unknown to them. Animals, then, experience inconceivable torments. Whenever you see animals tortured in this way, put yourself in their place and imagine in detail all they have to undergo. Meditate with fierce compassion upon all those reborn as animals. In particular, if you have animals of your own, treat them with kindness and love. Since all animals, right down to the smallest insect, have feelings of pleasure and pain, and since they have all been our fathers and mothers, develop love and compassion towards them..." (trans. Padmakara Translation Group) Best wishes, R. Nance From c.ward at btinternet.com Wed Oct 19 02:42:45 2005 From: c.ward at btinternet.com (Chris Ward) Date: Wed Oct 19 08:04:01 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Pali for Teacher Message-ID: <001c01c5d489$1410caa0$9d00a8c0@CHRIS> Acariya is mentioned in some forest sangha sources as pali for 'teacher' and seems to be linked with 'achan' and 'ajahn', honorifics for longer term monastics. However, acariya is not in the pali- English dictionary (Rhys Davids and Stede). If acariya does not mean teacher, what pali word does? Chris Ward -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.12.0/134 - Release Date: 14/10/2005 From horowitz at chass.utoronto.ca Wed Oct 19 11:33:44 2005 From: horowitz at chass.utoronto.ca (Gad Horowitz) Date: Wed Oct 19 08:29:50 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: recommendations for books on Madhyamika References: <20051018230733.85237.qmail@web32604.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <000a01c5d4d3$43002c80$7dee6480@chass> The Buddhist Teaching of Totality: The Philosophy of Hua Yen Buddhism, by Garma C.C. Chang Hua Yen Buddhism:The Jewel Net of Indra, by7 Francis H. Cook ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Paris" To: "Buddhist discussion forum" Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 4:07 PM Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] Re: recommendations for books on Madhyamika > Dare I ask for any recommendations on books about hua-yen? > > --- Gad Horowitz wrote: > > > Actually hua-yen would be a great sorce of metaphors for the > > individual-society relation. > > [snip] > > > > > __________________________________ > Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page! > http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From stefan.detrez at gmail.com Wed Oct 19 08:27:48 2005 From: stefan.detrez at gmail.com (Stefan Detrez) Date: Wed Oct 19 08:31:01 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Pali for Teacher In-Reply-To: <001c01c5d489$1410caa0$9d00a8c0@CHRIS> References: <001c01c5d489$1410caa0$9d00a8c0@CHRIS> Message-ID: <4526ba440510190727m5d990d03l@mail.gmail.com> Hi CHris, A.P. Buddhadata Mahathera's English-Pali dictionary has for 'teacher': 'Acariya' and 'sikkhetu'. Please remark that the first 'a' of acariya is a long 'a'. Stefan 2005/10/19, Chris Ward : > > Acariya is mentioned in some forest sangha sources as pali for 'teacher' > and seems to be linked with 'achan' and 'ajahn', honorifics for longer > term > monastics. However, acariya is not in the pali- English dictionary (Rhys > Davids and Stede). If acariya does not mean teacher, what pali word does? > > Chris Ward > > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.12.0/134 - Release Date: 14/10/2005 > > > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20051019/331513dd/attachment-0001.html From rhayes at unm.edu Wed Oct 19 08:47:10 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Wed Oct 19 08:49:49 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] on eating meat In-Reply-To: References: <5.2.1.1.0.20051018083252.0120e5f8@mail.jcu.edu.au> <43542E6A.2000403@cola.iges.org> <004101c5d38f$998b8990$a3694e51@zen> <00ca01c5d416$97a88560$7dee6480@chass> <001f01c5d407$6f592560$eed4869f@m4k8m7> <004d01c5d4e0$aa011e50$6402a8c0@gatewaycompute> Message-ID: <1129733231.4522.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Wed, 2005-10-19 at 07:28 +0100, Mike Austin wrote: > I am not entering the debate here, but can you cite a reference - or a > quote from His Holiness - that says eating meat, or buying meat, is bad > karma? This was the original question that started this spate of posts. So you seek a fatwa from the Dalia Lama in which he says in so many words "Eating meat is bad karma"? Does this not strike you as a remarkably limited and unimaginative way of looking at an important issue? -- Richard From selwyn at ntlworld.com Wed Oct 19 08:37:52 2005 From: selwyn at ntlworld.com (L.S. Cousins) Date: Wed Oct 19 08:50:00 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Pali for Teacher In-Reply-To: <001c01c5d489$1410caa0$9d00a8c0@CHRIS> References: <001c01c5d489$1410caa0$9d00a8c0@CHRIS> Message-ID: Chris Ward asks: >Acariya is mentioned in some forest sangha sources as pali for 'teacher' >and seems to be linked with 'achan' and 'ajahn', honorifics for longer term >monastics. However, acariya is not in the pali- English dictionary (Rhys >Davids and Stede). If acariya does not mean teacher, what pali word does? It does indeed mean teacher. It begins with a long 'a' and you will find it there in the dictionaries. 'Achan' and 'ajahn' aare two different romanizations of the same Thai word. I think it is derived from the Pali aacariya or Sanskrit aacaarya. Lance Cousins From rhayes at unm.edu Wed Oct 19 08:44:57 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Wed Oct 19 08:50:05 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat In-Reply-To: References: <5.2.1.1.0.20051019083735.010f9218@mail.jcu.edu.au> <4355E1D6.8060800@nerim.net> Message-ID: <1129733097.4522.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Wed, 2005-10-19 at 07:44 +0100, Mike Austin wrote: > Maybe there will be a day when vegans harangue vegetarian Buddhists for > causing suffering to animals by eating their produce. That day has already come. Read the last chapter of the Lankavatara Sutra and the Shurangama Sutra for relentless denunciations of meat- eating and honey-licking Buddhists. Here we can find pronouncements that those who teach that the Buddha allowed eating meat under certain circumstances are thieves who are stealing from their disciples the possibility of attaining enlightenment and that these teachers will surely go to hell. We could also mention Ambedkar's imaginative thesis that meat-eating Buddhists were so despised by both Buddhists and Brahmans that they evolved into the untouchables. > Then maybe there will be a day when people who do not eat root > vegetables harangue those who do because of the suffering it causes to > creatures in the earth. The argument against eating root vegetables (which are also banned in the Lankavatara and Shurangama Sutras, by the way) is that the root contains the life force of a plant. To eat a fruit or a leaf from a plant leaves the plant alive, while eating a root kills the whole plant. Harangues and denunciations are pretty ugly in any religious tradition. The grotesque harangues in parts of the Lankavatara, the Shurangama and the Lotus Sutra are as ugly to me as some of the ghastly material in the books of Samuel, Judges and Kings and the book of revelations in the Bible. That's why I incessantly denounce Mahayana Buddhists and predict they will all burn in hell for several aeons. -- Richard From simonjwiles at gmail.com Wed Oct 19 08:26:38 2005 From: simonjwiles at gmail.com (Simon Wiles) Date: Wed Oct 19 08:53:31 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Pali for Teacher In-Reply-To: <001c01c5d489$1410caa0$9d00a8c0@CHRIS> References: <001c01c5d489$1410caa0$9d00a8c0@CHRIS> Message-ID: <338d31450510190726q149ffa11q13a518e0fc2da34b@mail.gmail.com> On 10/19/05, Chris Ward wrote: > Acariya is mentioned in some forest sangha sources as pali for 'teacher' > and seems to be linked with 'achan' and 'ajahn', honorifics for longer term > monastics. However, acariya is not in the pali- English dictionary (Rhys > Davids and Stede). If acariya does not mean teacher, what pali word does? > > Chris Ward Hi Chris, Acariya is found in the PED (p.97 in my edition), with a long 'A' at the beginning: ?cariya, or AAcariya, where it is described as being almost synonymous with upajjh?ya, a 'spiritual teacher' or 'preceptor'. It would seem extremely likely that achan/ajahn are derived from this. Pali has lots of words for 'teacher'. Perhaps the most common is Satthar. Simon From bcarral at kungzhi.org Wed Oct 19 09:18:25 2005 From: bcarral at kungzhi.org (Benito Carral) Date: Wed Oct 19 09:19:50 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: recommendations for books on Madhyamika In-Reply-To: <20051019030347.98805.qmail@web32607.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <53377248.20051019040852@kungzhi.org> <20051019030347.98805.qmail@web32607.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <502586233.20051019171825@kungzhi.org> On Wednesday, October 19, 2005, Michael Paris wrote: > Where might I find this? David W. Chappell, "The Teachings of the Fourth Ch'an Patriarch Tao-hsin (580-651)," in Whalen Lai and Lewis R. Lancaster (ed.), _Early Ch'an in China and Tibet,_ Berkeley Buddhist Studies Series 5, Berkeley: Asian Humanities Press, 1983. Best wishes, Beni From skiltonat at Cardiff.ac.uk Wed Oct 19 10:04:53 2005 From: skiltonat at Cardiff.ac.uk (Andrew Skilton) Date: Wed Oct 19 10:09:51 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat Message-ID: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 Richard Nance wrote: >... the point made by the Dalai Lama is one that echoes a ways of thinking about animals that has a long tradition in Buddhist thought. Thanks, Richard. Your point is well made (and taken). The passage from the *Kun bzang bla ma'i zhal lung* is particularly good. I'm curious about the tension between acknowledging the sentience/agency (to use inadequate labels for what I am referring to) of other species and being dismissed as a paid up member of the Bambi brigade and thus dismissed as a kind of 'sentimentalist'. Is it that those who, in a Buddhist environment, do not acknowledge what I called the continuity of consciousness are just importing incompatible cultural conditionings or religious ideologies into their Buddhism? Andrew *********************************** Andrew Skilton D. Phil. email: skiltonat@cardiff.ac.uk *********************************** From bcarral at kungzhi.org Wed Oct 19 10:39:09 2005 From: bcarral at kungzhi.org (Benito Carral) Date: Wed Oct 19 10:39:54 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Self-inmolation in the Buddhist tradition In-Reply-To: <837006096.20051012172329@kungzhi.org> References: <1482385235.20051011194231@kungzhi.org> <1129054955.30986.12.camel@localhost.localdomain> <434C1A36.6040206@cola.iges.org> <375829113.20051012012514@kungzhi.org> <837006096.20051012172329@kungzhi.org> Message-ID: <1844084337.20051019183909@kungzhi.org> Dear fellows, I just want to say here that a kind kalayamitra has sent me a copy of Jan Y?an-hua's "Buddhist Self-immolation in Medieval China," which I have found most interesting. As I susppected there is much more about self-immolation than the "they are crazy" approach. I'm going to finish quoting a Tsan-ming's poem included in the article: To give away the thing that is difficult to part [with, Is the best offering amongst the alms. Let this impure and sinful body, Turn into something like a diamond. Best wishes, Beni From jpeavler at mindspring.com Wed Oct 19 10:36:34 2005 From: jpeavler at mindspring.com (Jim Peavler) Date: Wed Oct 19 10:40:03 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: recommendations for books on Madhyamika In-Reply-To: <53377248.20051019040852@kungzhi.org> References: <20051017144023.40801.qmail@web32604.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4353C0DF.5000404@cola.iges.org> <1289233492.20051018000855@kungzhi.org> <697c8217e913dcffa9acd5db6d248da6@earthlink.net> <53377248.20051019040852@kungzhi.org> Message-ID: On Oct 18, 2005, at 8:08 PM, Benito Carral wrote: > On Tuesday, October 18, 2005, Franz Metcalf wrote: > > The question is that Californian Zen was not a > faithful to of Zen, at least not to Chinese Zen. > Californian Zen was what Westerners wanted then. They > were entertained trying to be dharma bums, laughing > with Alan Watt's jokes. And they created (supported) > such kind of Zen. There is more than one kind of California Zen, and certainly more than one kind of Zen that has influenced American Zen. Renazi-ji, founded by Jashu Sasaki Roshi at Mount Baldy and Los Angeles (now having major centers in many states, including New Mexico) is Japanese Zen in the same sense most people are using the term "Japenese Zen" on this list, including the fact that New Mexico has continued to refuse to apologize for World War II. From jpeavler at mindspring.com Wed Oct 19 10:32:19 2005 From: jpeavler at mindspring.com (Jim Peavler) Date: Wed Oct 19 10:40:15 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] on eating meat In-Reply-To: <001601c5d451$67153610$2d6b4e51@zen> References: <200510181643.j9IGhSxS028433@ns1.swcp.com> <43558DE3.1090407@virginia.edu> <001601c5d451$67153610$2d6b4e51@zen> Message-ID: <9ea559f3e433de661700f5e714758811@mindspring.com> On Oct 18, 2005, at 8:03 PM, Stephen Hodge wrote: > Dear Alberto, > >> At night we often see deer crossing roads and sometimes people run >> over them, accidentally, of course. Why should there be anything >> wrong about eating that meat? > I agree with you -- if one really wants to eat meat, then fresh > road-kill would be acceptable. Myself, I just don't want to eat meat > anyway -- the aesthetics don't appeal too much besides all the other > factors. > Where I live people in financial straights are allowed to get licenses that allow them to remove dead game animals from roadways. (Otherwise the department of wildlife removes them and turns them into food for carnivores, I understand.) The intention, of course, was to make free meat available to them. However, road-kill seldom has very much, if any, decent meat to eat. Impact with automobiles and trucks usually bruises and breaks the animal in such way as to force offal into the blood vessels throughout, or the bruising and internal bleeding alone is enough to make the meat not only undesirable but downright dangerous to eat. It would seem that if you want to eat decent meat the best thing to do is to pick it out of dumpsters behind good restaurants. From joy.vriens at nerim.net Wed Oct 19 10:46:24 2005 From: joy.vriens at nerim.net (Joy Vriens) Date: Wed Oct 19 10:49:55 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43567860.7000007@nerim.net> Andrew Skilton wrote: > I'm curious about the tension between acknowledging the sentience/agency (to use > inadequate labels for what I am referring to) of other species and being > dismissed as a paid up member of the Bambi brigade and thus dismissed as a kind > of 'sentimentalist'. Is it that those who, in a Buddhist environment, do not > acknowledge what I called the continuity of consciousness are just importing > incompatible cultural conditionings or religious ideologies into their Buddhism? Interconnectedness is sufficient continuity of consciousness as far as I am concerned, but I like the idea of continuity of consciousness in that it doesn't allow one to say things like "animals are so simple, so stupid, ignorant, and defenseless, [that men really have no right to hunt and kill them for food]." It doesn't allow one to take pride in one's temporary consciousness status while comparing it to a lower status of other creatures in a judgemental way. Anything conscious is a fellow "creature". And that sort of attitude, which doesn't need to be sentimentalist, helps one to be more accepting of shortcomings in others and in oneself. It also helps one to prepare oneself for possible future lower states of oneself in this life (Alzenheimer, strokes of various types etc.) With a hug for you and two pets on the back each for your dogs, Joy From jpeavler at mindspring.com Wed Oct 19 10:43:41 2005 From: jpeavler at mindspring.com (Jim Peavler) Date: Wed Oct 19 10:50:10 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re:on eating meat In-Reply-To: <001201c5d480$5d6c2cc0$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> References: <5.2.1.1.0.20051019083735.010f9218@mail.jcu.edu.au><001701c5d43b$cc5f8c20$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> <001201c5d480$5d6c2cc0$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> Message-ID: <4293617dc0923a68f6b9880a50cbe364@mindspring.com> On Oct 19, 2005, at 1:40 AM, Kate wrote: > >> Only last week, our resident Geshe told of a place in India near to a >> lake where the locals caught fish and sold them live. Tibetans in the >> area bought these fish to release into the lake again. The circle of >> events continues - perhaps not so 'vicious' as the circle of life and >> death, but a suffering circle for the fish even within one lifetime. > If you had bought the little birds and released them they would have spent a few weeks starving for want of their native food or dying of the different climate. You did the right thing. In the story above, the folks are putting the fish back into the lake from which they were caught. Jim Peavler jmp@peavler.org From jpeavler at mindspring.com Wed Oct 19 10:49:16 2005 From: jpeavler at mindspring.com (Jim Peavler) Date: Wed Oct 19 10:50:16 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7174f23110eedd7ba5eb13fd19a26911@mindspring.com> On Oct 19, 2005, at 6:58 AM, Andrew Skilton wrote: > > After a gap of almost 25 years, I have for the last 8 or so enjoyed > the company > of a couple of dogs in the house. I have found the experience of once > again > sharing my living space with members of another species moving and > salutary, not > least in realising the extent to which, during that interim quarter > century, I > had become marginally seduced by the (Judeo-Xtian?) view that animals > are > soul-less machines. And that even while being vegetarian! With no evil intentions at all I cannot help asking any vegetarian who keeps carnivorous pets: What is better about supporting the death of animals to feed your pets than doing so for your own food? Isn't the effect the same? Please don't answer that it is "natural" for the dogs to eat meat and not for the human. It is just as natural (and a long long long part of our evolution as omnivores) for humans to eat meat as it is for dogs. Do dogs collect bad kharma for eating meat? and if not, why not? I have always been puzzled by this and have never had an answer that seemed satisfactory. From joy.vriens at nerim.net Wed Oct 19 11:01:57 2005 From: joy.vriens at nerim.net (Joy Vriens) Date: Wed Oct 19 11:09:54 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] on eating meat In-Reply-To: <9ea559f3e433de661700f5e714758811@mindspring.com> References: <200510181643.j9IGhSxS028433@ns1.swcp.com> <43558DE3.1090407@virginia.edu> <001601c5d451$67153610$2d6b4e51@zen> <9ea559f3e433de661700f5e714758811@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <43567C05.8030905@nerim.net> Jim wrote: > It would seem that if you want to eat decent meat the best thing to do > is to pick it out of dumpsters behind good restaurants. I just loved your "it would seem". "Hey, isn't that Jim Peavler over there!" ;-) From f-lehman at uiuc.edu Wed Oct 19 11:06:20 2005 From: f-lehman at uiuc.edu (F.K. Lehman (F.K.L. Chit Hlaing)) Date: Wed Oct 19 11:10:06 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Pali for Teacher In-Reply-To: References: <001c01c5d489$1410caa0$9d00a8c0@CHRIS> Message-ID: A minor addition to Lance Cousins, if I may: Actually, Thai acan is from the Sanskrit. This is easily seen because the Indic form has a simply last syllable with a palatalised initial (ry-), which allows, in Thai, the short final -a to be dropped, and then the ry- is simplified to just r-, now treated as a final of the second syllable, i.e. -aar, which becomes -aan because Thai turns final -r into final -n invariantly. In Pali, the cognate form is aacariya because Pali lacks complex-palatalised iniitial consonant clusters (e.g., Sanskrit ny, as in Punya, becomes Pali palatalised n (n with a tilde over it, which my e-mail client won't let me use here). That would NOT give the Thai form! The Burmese on the other hand bases on the Pali cognate. This may usefully be amplified by looking at the Burmese. Where Burmese bases on Pali, we get (Modern Burmese) asariya (used only in Burmese Pali and not Burmese proper), but the ordinary word for teacher, hsaya has to be from Sanskrit, as in Thai: elision of initial a- in Indic loanwords, regardless of length; ry>y (across the board in standard Burmese r becomes y, so the Skt. ry- simplifies to just y-); the final -a remains. It is a bit ore complicated to deal with why in Burmee, in either of the two forms (P and Skt) the first consonant, c, gets aspirated (Burmese hs- from P/Skt hypothetical ch- . I won't deal with it in detail, but only word initially can ch- exist never medially in Pali, only -c-: in Skt only the geminate -cch-, in P only -c-, so in Burmese borrowings it tends to be interpreted as aspirated in such loans for obscure phonetic reasons having to do with Burmese if it ends up as an initial (as in hsaya). -- F. K. L. Chit Hlaing Professor Department of Anthropology University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20051019/f747f581/attachment.html From stefan.detrez at gmail.com Wed Oct 19 11:38:43 2005 From: stefan.detrez at gmail.com (Stefan Detrez) Date: Wed Oct 19 11:39:52 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Pali for Teacher In-Reply-To: References: <001c01c5d489$1410caa0$9d00a8c0@CHRIS> Message-ID: <4526ba440510191038t1b5a3678y@mail.gmail.com> > > It does indeed mean teacher. It begins with a long 'a' and you will > find it there in the dictionaries. 'Achan' and 'ajahn' aare two > different romanizations of the same Thai word. I think it is derived > from the Pali aacariya or Sanskrit aacaarya. I'd opt for the possibility that ajaan is derived from the Sanskrit honorific meaning 'unborn', a-: not, jan: ti be born, to be (pro-)created. Stefan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20051019/8aafcf88/attachment.htm From rhayes at unm.edu Wed Oct 19 12:07:58 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Wed Oct 19 12:09:55 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat In-Reply-To: <7174f23110eedd7ba5eb13fd19a26911@mindspring.com> References: <7174f23110eedd7ba5eb13fd19a26911@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <1129745278.4522.53.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Wed, 2005-10-19 at 10:49 -0600, Jim Peavler wrote: > With no evil intentions at all I cannot help asking any vegetarian who > keeps carnivorous pets: What is better about supporting the death of > animals to feed your pets than doing so for your own food? Several friends of mine who are vegetarian feeds their dogs and cats nothing but rice and lentils. The pets seem to do pretty well on that fare. Our dogs loves broccoli (but see how naughty he is in the passage that follows). > Do dogs collect bad kharma for eating meat? and if not, why not? Our dog (whom you know, Jim) has taken to catching mice. He doesn't seem to realize that he is supposed to kill them. He just walks around with them in his mouth until they either drown or suffocate, and then he buries them under a pillow. (I have trained him to bury mice under Judy's pillow rather than mine.) Somewhat more troubling to me is that our cat kills birds. She kills the very birds that we take care to feed. The birds spill a lot of the seed we put out for them, and that attracts mice. All things are interconnected. Your question about karma never occurs to me, because I just don't use the language of karma much, except when I'm trying to talk to Buddhists in terms even they can understand. I do, however, give some thought to the way I feel when my dog kills mice and my cat kills birds. I don't like it much. But why? It makes no sense not to like it. It is my problem, not theirs. Indeed, it is stupidity on my part, and lack of true compassion and impartiality, to be annoyed when our cat kills a bird. (When I get really annoyed, it's not our cat, but Judy's.) A truly compassionate attitude would be to rejoice at the merits of my cat for being so good at being a cat and getting something that she obviously treasures, while feeling compassion for the bird who has died in the cat's clutches. My aim now is to progress to the stage where I can just watch the cat catch birds that I feed and feel simultaneous joy and commiseration. > I have always been puzzled by this and have never had an answer that > seemed satisfactory. If you ever do get an answer that seems satisfactory, be suspicious of it. In the hope that this will not be too abrupt a transition, I have derived much benefit from thinking about the writings of James Hollis, many of whose books I have read, one in particular that I loved being entitled Swamplands of the Soul. It is an exploration of the benefit one can derive by reflecting on the various ways in which we feel psychologically uncomfortable. Hollis says about melancholy that it is an especially rich mode, since it a feeling we get when we look at the world around us and say "This really is too bad." It's too bad that nothing at all can live unless something else dies to provide it food. It's too bad that no mouse or bird ever lived in a natural setting to be old enough to die of cancer or Alzheimer's disease. It's too bad we humans are so attached to life that we continue living long after our children no longer need us. It's too bad that children die young and that old men didn't. It's too bad the questions that are most interesting and urgently in need of answers never do get satisfactory answers. It's too bad about buddha-l. Tant pis, tant mieux. Well, that's enough melancholy for now. I'm going to go eat lunch (a sandwich made of 7 sprouted grain bread and some soybean product made to resemble and taste approximately like dead turkey flesh) and then try to understand a puzzling Sanskrit verse well enough that I don't prove my linguistic incompetence to the students in my Sanskrit class this afternoon. Too bad Sanskrit is so bloody difficult. -- Richard From curt at cola.iges.org Wed Oct 19 11:40:32 2005 From: curt at cola.iges.org (curt) Date: Wed Oct 19 12:45:28 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: recommendations for books on Madhyamika In-Reply-To: <000a01c5d4d3$43002c80$7dee6480@chass> References: <20051018230733.85237.qmail@web32604.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <000a01c5d4d3$43002c80$7dee6480@chass> Message-ID: <43568510.3050704@cola.iges.org> "Entry Into the Inconceivable" by Thomas Cleary. Subtitle: "An Introduction to Hua Yen Buddhism." If you are reading the Avatamsaka in English you are probably reading Cleary's translation. - Curt p.s. My spell checker prefers "Hula Yen" to "Hua Yen" - but I resisted the temptation. Gad Horowitz wrote: >The Buddhist Teaching of Totality: The Philosophy of Hua Yen Buddhism, by >Garma C.C. Chang > >Hua Yen Buddhism:The Jewel Net of Indra, by7 Francis H. Cook > > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Michael Paris" >To: "Buddhist discussion forum" >Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 4:07 PM >Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] Re: recommendations for books on Madhyamika > > > > >>Dare I ask for any recommendations on books about hua-yen? >> >>--- Gad Horowitz wrote: >> >> >> >>>Actually hua-yen would be a great sorce of metaphors for the >>>individual-society relation. >>> >>> >>[snip] >> >> >> >> >>__________________________________ >>Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page! >>http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs >>_______________________________________________ >>buddha-l mailing list >>buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com >>http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l >> >> > > >_______________________________________________ >buddha-l mailing list >buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com >http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l > > > > From s.hodge at padmacholing.freeserve.co.uk Wed Oct 19 12:51:22 2005 From: s.hodge at padmacholing.freeserve.co.uk (Stephen Hodge) Date: Wed Oct 19 12:49:52 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: +AFs-Buddha-l+AF0- Re: on eating meat References: +ADw-s356510d.017+AEA-zgrw01.cf.ac.uk+AD4APA-7174f23110eedd7ba5eb13fd19a26911+AEA-mindspring.com+AD4- +ADw-1129745278.4522.53.camel+AEA-localhost.localdomain+AD4- Message-ID: <002c01c5d4de$2b337cf0$14b54c51@zen> Dear Richard, > Several friends of mine who are vegetarian feeds their dogs and cats > nothing but rice and lentils. The pets seem to do pretty well on that > fare. The cats are probably just humoring them and sneeking out for mice-burgers on the quiet. Otherwise the cats definitely would not be healthy -- they are obligate carnivores, unlike us. They need meat to derive taurine which they cannot synthesize for themselves, like us with vitamin C. Perhaps your friends know this and give manufactured supplements instead. Without taurine, they sicken and fade away. Best wishes, Stephen Hodge From mike at lamrim.org.uk Wed Oct 19 13:05:01 2005 From: mike at lamrim.org.uk (Mike Austin) Date: Wed Oct 19 13:09:53 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] on eating meat In-Reply-To: <1129733231.4522.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <5.2.1.1.0.20051018083252.0120e5f8@mail.jcu.edu.au> <43542E6A.2000403@cola.iges.org> <004101c5d38f$998b8990$a3694e51@zen> <00ca01c5d416$97a88560$7dee6480@chass> <001f01c5d407$6f592560$eed4869f@m4k8m7> <004d01c5d4e0$aa011e50$6402a8c0@gatewaycompute> <1129733231.4522.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <0ScbFwZdjpVDFwpu@clara.net> In message <1129733231.4522.13.camel@localhost.localdomain>, Richard P. Hayes writes >On Wed, 2005-10-19 at 07:28 +0100, Mike Austin wrote: > >> I am not entering the debate here, but can you cite a reference - or a >> quote from His Holiness - that says eating meat, or buying meat, is bad >> karma? This was the original question that started this spate of posts. > >So you seek a fatwa from the Dalia Lama in which he says in so many >words "Eating meat is bad karma"? Does this not strike you as a >remarkably limited and unimaginative way of looking at an important >issue? No, but I do see your comment as a remarkably limited and unimaginative response to a sincere request for a reference - not just from the Dalai Lama - that can clarify whether eating or buying meet is bad karma. Now, any sensible replies out there? -- Metta Mike Austin From richard.nance at gmail.com Wed Oct 19 13:34:26 2005 From: richard.nance at gmail.com (Richard Nance) Date: Wed Oct 19 13:39:57 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] on eating meat In-Reply-To: <0ScbFwZdjpVDFwpu@clara.net> References: <5.2.1.1.0.20051018083252.0120e5f8@mail.jcu.edu.au> <43542E6A.2000403@cola.iges.org> <004101c5d38f$998b8990$a3694e51@zen> <00ca01c5d416$97a88560$7dee6480@chass> <001f01c5d407$6f592560$eed4869f@m4k8m7> <004d01c5d4e0$aa011e50$6402a8c0@gatewaycompute> <1129733231.4522.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> <0ScbFwZdjpVDFwpu@clara.net> Message-ID: Mike Austin wrote: > No, but I do see your comment as a remarkably limited and unimaginative > response to a sincere request for a reference - not just from the Dalai > Lama - that can clarify whether eating or buying meet is bad karma. Not just from the Dalai Lama? That's easy. Have a look at the La"nkaavataara Suutra (or, without those pesky diacritical approximations, the Lankavatara Sutra). Unfortunately, you may have to make do with Suzuki's translation of the text, which leaves a lot to be desired -- but even in Suzuki's translation, the message comes through loud and clear. Best wishes, R. Nance From franzmetcalf at earthlink.net Wed Oct 19 13:31:37 2005 From: franzmetcalf at earthlink.net (Franz Metcalf) Date: Wed Oct 19 13:40:03 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: recommendations for books on Madhyamika In-Reply-To: References: <20051017144023.40801.qmail@web32604.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4353C0DF.5000404@cola.iges.org> <1289233492.20051018000855@kungzhi.org> <697c8217e913dcffa9acd5db6d248da6@earthlink.net> <53377248.20051019040852@kungzhi.org> Message-ID: Gang, A couple of clarifications to Jim's recent post on Californian Zen, which I append. 1) The words Jim quoted are Benito's, not mine, in case this was unclear. 2) There were some typos in Jim's message. The teacher in question is Joshu Sasaki Roshi, and the temple is Rinzai-ji in Los Angeles. I'm pretty sure he only later bought the land on Mt. Baldy and in New Mexico where he founded retreat centers. 3) We need to be careful in using a term like "Japanese Zen." The overwhelmingly predominant form of Japanese Zen has nothing to do with zazen at all: it is funerary Zen. 4) Jim is right to remind the list of the variety of Zen forms in California. There were three Japanese Roshis in California teaching to eager and dedicated students by the early 1960s. To be sure, Alan Watts was also here and attracting much larger audiences, but serious practitioners had already surpassed him. 5) Regarding the fact that "New Mexico has continued to refuse to apologize for World War II," I expect action on this front from Richard. Cheers, Franz On Oct 19, 2005, at 9:36 AM, Jim Peavler wrote: > > On Oct 18, 2005, at 8:08 PM, Benito Carral wrote: > >> On Tuesday, October 18, 2005, Franz Metcalf wrote: >> > >> The question is that Californian Zen was not a >> faithful to of Zen, at least not to Chinese Zen. >> Californian Zen was what Westerners wanted then. They >> were entertained trying to be dharma bums, laughing >> with Alan Watt's jokes. And they created (supported) >> such kind of Zen. > > There is more than one kind of California Zen, and certainly more than > one kind of Zen that has influenced American Zen. Renazi-ji, founded > by Jashu Sasaki Roshi at Mount Baldy and Los Angeles (now having major > centers in many states, including New Mexico) is Japanese Zen in the > same sense most people are using the term "Japenese Zen" on this list, > including the fact that New Mexico has continued to refuse to > apologize for World War II. From franzmetcalf at earthlink.net Wed Oct 19 13:45:10 2005 From: franzmetcalf at earthlink.net (Franz Metcalf) Date: Wed Oct 19 13:50:06 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Vipassana? In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20051018230233.01efc888@mailbag.com> References: <3c4466e0062f65b0a4749cabee3e3d28@earthlink.net> <6.2.3.4.2.20051018230233.01efc888@mailbag.com> Message-ID: <5adad7358a83553867dd660f3a5def9b@earthlink.net> Gang, Michael Paris and Bruce Burrill have asked me to say more about my understanding of IMS meditative methods. Truth is, I don't know much of what's happening on the ground in the last few years. My impression has been that there is a tremendous focus in the published literature on being mindful of the breath and noting an labeling mental events (especially emotive thoughts) as they occur. There are variations on how this is accomplished, but the overall effect is consistent. The most important exception to this generalization is metta meditation, which of course intentionally focuses the mind on retaining and cultivating a particular emotional state. Are these folks doing other sorts of meditations found in Buddhaghosa or elsewhere? No corpse meditations outside of New Orleans, as Richard notes, but I haven't heard about kasina meditations, either, or even the anusatis (recollections). The absence of the latter surprises me, since the practice of recollecting the Buddha evolved into (arguably) the primary form of meditation in East Asia. But, again, perhaps I'm wrong. Now *that* would not surprise me. Franz From mike at lamrim.org.uk Wed Oct 19 15:05:00 2005 From: mike at lamrim.org.uk (Mike Austin) Date: Wed Oct 19 15:09:57 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] on eating meat In-Reply-To: References: <5.2.1.1.0.20051018083252.0120e5f8@mail.jcu.edu.au> <43542E6A.2000403@cola.iges.org> <004101c5d38f$998b8990$a3694e51@zen> <00ca01c5d416$97a88560$7dee6480@chass> <001f01c5d407$6f592560$eed4869f@m4k8m7> <004d01c5d4e0$aa011e50$6402a8c0@gatewaycompute> <1129733231.4522.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> <0ScbFwZdjpVDFwpu@clara.net> Message-ID: In message , Richard Nance writes >Mike Austin wrote: > >> No, but I do see your comment as a remarkably limited and unimaginative >> response to a sincere request for a reference - not just from the Dalai >> Lama - that can clarify whether eating or buying meet is bad karma. > >Not just from the Dalai Lama? That's easy. Have a look at the >La"nkaavataara Suutra (or, without those pesky diacritical >approximations, the Lankavatara Sutra). Unfortunately, you may have to >make do with Suzuki's translation of the text, which leaves a lot to >be desired -- but even in Suzuki's translation, the message comes >through loud and clear. Thanks. I dug out my musty old copy (Suzuki's) and read it again. It was a long time since I read it. The 8th Chapter - the later addition to the sutra - seems to put the emphasis, as I mentioned before, on what desire for meat does to one's appearance to animals, and to some subtle changes that occur to one's mind and body due to eating meat. There is a mention of karma in one place, and a number references to rebirth amongst flesh-eating creatures. But what strikes me about this particular chapter is the vehemence - and the almost campaigning nature, against meat eating in any circumstances. This is quite unlike other texts purporting to be the Buddha's words. It is for this reason that I do not find it convincing. However, what I do glean from it is something more esoteric - something not conducive to an explanation. I see no rational arguments against meat-eating per-se, and yet unconvincing (to me) arguments are still put forward by this text. I feel there may be hidden reasons (tantric maybe?) behind it. I will have to think about this in a different way. Meanwhile, any other references out there? -- Metta Mike Austin From rhayes at unm.edu Wed Oct 19 15:58:11 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Wed Oct 19 15:59:57 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] on eating meat In-Reply-To: <0ScbFwZdjpVDFwpu@clara.net> References: <5.2.1.1.0.20051018083252.0120e5f8@mail.jcu.edu.au> <43542E6A.2000403@cola.iges.org> <004101c5d38f$998b8990$a3694e51@zen> <00ca01c5d416$97a88560$7dee6480@chass> <001f01c5d407$6f592560$eed4869f@m4k8m7> <004d01c5d4e0$aa011e50$6402a8c0@gatewaycompute> <1129733231.4522.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> <0ScbFwZdjpVDFwpu@clara.net> Message-ID: <1129759091.6234.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Wed, 2005-10-19 at 20:05 +0100, Mike Austin wrote: > >So you seek a fatwa from the Dalia Lama in which he says in so many > >words "Eating meat is bad karma"? Does this not strike you as a > >remarkably limited and unimaginative way of looking at an important > >issue? > > No, but I do see your comment as a remarkably limited and unimaginative > response to a sincere request for a reference - not just from the Dalai > Lama - that can clarify whether eating or buying meet is bad karma. Let me try putting it another way. It seems to me that you have already received an abundance of materials from various sources, including the Dalai Lama, that make it clear in every possible way that buying meat is an unwholesome activity in that it leads to the suffering of sentient beings. What you do not have is a single sentence that summarizes all this material up for you in the words "Buying meat is bad karma." But do you really need that sentence? Can you not see that that is precisely what is being said by the material that your friends on buddha-l have been giving to you? -- Richard From terrywaugh at ozemail.com.au Wed Oct 19 15:53:56 2005 From: terrywaugh at ozemail.com.au (Terry) Date: Wed Oct 19 16:24:15 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Self-inmolation in the Buddhist tradition In-Reply-To: <1844084337.20051019183909@kungzhi.org> Message-ID: Hi Beni The following book may also contain relevant info on Self-immolation in Vietnam: Topmiller, Robert J. 2002, The Lotus Unleashed: The Buddhist Peace Movement in South Vietnam, 1964-1966. University Press 210 pages Regards Terry -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.12.4/143 - Release Date: 19/10/2005 From rhayes at unm.edu Wed Oct 19 16:23:20 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Wed Oct 19 16:30:01 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat In-Reply-To: References: <5.2.1.1.0.20051018083252.0120e5f8@mail.jcu.edu.au> <43542E6A.2000403@cola.iges.org> <004101c5d38f$998b8990$a3694e51@zen> <00ca01c5d416$97a88560$7dee6480@chass> <001f01c5d407$6f592560$eed4869f@m4k8m7> <004d01c5d4e0$aa011e50$6402a8c0@gatewaycompute> <1129733231.4522.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> <0ScbFwZdjpVDFwpu@clara.net> Message-ID: <1129760600.6234.29.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Wed, 2005-10-19 at 22:05 +0100, Mike Austin wrote: > But what strikes me about this particular chapter is the vehemence - and > the almost campaigning nature, against meat eating in any circumstances. > This is quite unlike other texts purporting to be the Buddha's words. I agree that the text is vehement and offers far more threats than it offers reasons. As I said earlier, I find it an ugle text. The Shurangama is even more strident and shrill than the Lankavatara. It is not easy to warm up to these texts. It is also impossible to deny their importance in forming Buddhist theory and practice in those areas in which the texts were important, which was mostly East Asia. > It is for this reason that I do not find it convincing. I'm not clear on what you mean exactly by "this reason". Do you mean that you do not find these texts convincing because they do not sound like the version of the Buddha to which you have come to be somewhat attached? Perhaps you do not like them because they offer a suggestion that makes you uncomfortable and to which you therefore have some resistance. As I'm sure no one has to tell you, a far better practice now would be to examine your own attachments and forms of resistance than to find ways of explaining away the sutras that annoy you. If you enjoy reading hypotheses about what social and political contexts these vegetarian sutras manifest, do consider Ambedkar's hypothesis that the Brahmans, the Jainas and the Buddhists got caught up in a rhetorical storm of spiritual one-ups-manship. Buddhists annoyed the Brahmans by condemning animal sacrifices. The Brahmans retaliated by criticizing Buddhist monks for eating meat under certain specified conditions. The Buddhists raise the ante by saying that only pseudo-Buddhists had ever spread the filthy lie that the Buddha allowed meat to be eaten under certain specified circumstances. So some Buddhists had to be sacrificed to save Buddhism from Brahman critics. Ambedkar offers an interesting hypothesis. But how far does it get any of us in thinking clearly about the decision we have to make the next time we pass the meat counter in a market? Surely it is that task, the task of thinking clearly about the consequences of our actions, that demands our energy more than the task of deciding which Buddhist texts may be forgeries. > Meanwhile, any other references out there? Is there any reason to be confident that you would heed them if there were? It seems to me you have stated your position, and others have stated theirs, and I'm not sure anyone is going to say anything new on this topic. So perhaps it is time for all of us to agree to leave this topic alone for now, knowing it will probably come back again sometime next year just as it has come up every year on buddha-l since the list was first founded. Meanwhile, we all have some thinking to do in the privacy of our own hearts. One question one might begin with is: Would I be somewhat better at cultivating bodhicitta and universal compassion if I were not eating the flesh of animals who have been killed against their will? Answering that question does not require references to things others have said. It requires only intellectual and emotional honesty. -- Richard From mike at lamrim.org.uk Wed Oct 19 16:40:28 2005 From: mike at lamrim.org.uk (Mike Austin) Date: Wed Oct 19 16:49:55 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] on eating meat In-Reply-To: <1129759091.6234.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <5.2.1.1.0.20051018083252.0120e5f8@mail.jcu.edu.au> <43542E6A.2000403@cola.iges.org> <004101c5d38f$998b8990$a3694e51@zen> <00ca01c5d416$97a88560$7dee6480@chass> <001f01c5d407$6f592560$eed4869f@m4k8m7> <004d01c5d4e0$aa011e50$6402a8c0@gatewaycompute> <1129733231.4522.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> <0ScbFwZdjpVDFwpu@clara.net> <1129759091.6234.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <0Gk0B0GctsVDFw5X@clara.net> In message <1129759091.6234.4.camel@localhost.localdomain>, Richard P. Hayes writes >On Wed, 2005-10-19 at 20:05 +0100, Mike Austin wrote: > >> >So you seek a fatwa from the Dalia Lama in which he says in so many >> >words "Eating meat is bad karma"? Does this not strike you as a >> >remarkably limited and unimaginative way of looking at an important >> >issue? >> >> No, but I do see your comment as a remarkably limited and unimaginative >> response to a sincere request for a reference - not just from the Dalai >> Lama - that can clarify whether eating or buying meet is bad karma. > >Let me try putting it another way. It seems to me that you have already >received an abundance of materials from various sources, including the >Dalai Lama, that make it clear in every possible way that buying meat is >an unwholesome activity in that it leads to the suffering of sentient >beings. What you do not have is a single sentence that summarizes all >this material up for you in the words "Buying meat is bad karma." But >do you really need that sentence? Can you not see that that is precisely >what is being said by the material that your friends on buddha-l have >been giving to you? Sigh. I really did not want to get into a discussion but... First, there is the simple eating of meat that is not addressed. OK, it is mentioned in the Lanka, but I have addressed that elsewhere. Then, there is buying meat. People suggest that this causes the death of animals because it is tantamount to ordering the butcher, or whoever is at the end of the line of business, to kill another animal for meat. Now I agree that there is an interdependence here. It is pretty damn obvious. But then there is an interdependence between my living in peace and my government maintaining an army - an army that kills humans in foreign countries. Now I complain against that and, if asked, I would tell them not to do it on my behalf. I would also ask a slaughterer of animals not to do it- particularly not on my behalf. Yet, it is done. There is meat on the shelf and I benefit from it. It appears to me, by the arguments put forward, that I am also implicated - responsible even - for any bad actions that I benefit from. So, by simply enjoying the conditions I have now, I am ordering those in power to pursue the same actions that they think produce that peace. And the same applies to unfair economic policies and so on. It is this multitude of dependencies that, I feel, are hard to reconcile with one's own actions of body, speech and mind. Is it through these one accumulates good or bad karma? Or is it by any interdependency with any evil act in the world. If it were the latter, we would all be doomed. It is my current opinion that eating meat or buying meat is neutral, on the basis of the three doors of action. It is also my opinion that being an ethical vegetarian (as opposed to just preferring to eat vegetables) is positive because of the intention. I could even suppose that eating meat would be positive if it were for medical purposes and the intention were to enable one to benefit more beings. (I don't claim that intention for myself, though.) -- Metta Mike Austin From marshallarts at bigpond.com Wed Oct 19 17:05:04 2005 From: marshallarts at bigpond.com (Kate) Date: Wed Oct 19 17:09:56 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re:on eating meat References: <5.2.1.1.0.20051019083735.010f9218@mail.jcu.edu.au><001701c5d43b$cc5f8c20$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au><001201c5d480$5d6c2cc0$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> <4293617dc0923a68f6b9880a50cbe364@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <005501c5d501$8ac86680$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> > If you had bought the little birds and released them they would have > spent a few weeks starving for want of their native food or dying of > the different climate. You did the right thing. In the story above, the > folks are putting the fish back into the lake from which they were > caught. Thanks for your comforting words, Jim. Unfortunately the birds were caught locally. There is every possibility they would have returned to their normal habitat and have been caught again. Mozambique, at that time was coming out of a twenty year civil war that coincided with a twenty year drought. As a combined result, just about every creature from song birds to elephants ended up in the stew pots. Prior to this, the capital city, Maputo, used to be a beautiful place - wide tree-lined streets, paved walkways, marble columns and palm trees - a playground for the European and African aristocracy. I arrived shortly after the war ended though there was still firing in the streets at night and landmines on the golden beaches. The place resembled downtown Beirut with many locals living in abandoned cars and cardboard boxes. The whole country had been stripped of wild life. The only exception was the little weaver birds that flittered around in the trees that lined the streets. Regards Kate From mike at lamrim.org.uk Wed Oct 19 17:05:18 2005 From: mike at lamrim.org.uk (Mike Austin) Date: Wed Oct 19 17:11:08 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat In-Reply-To: <1129760600.6234.29.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <5.2.1.1.0.20051018083252.0120e5f8@mail.jcu.edu.au> <43542E6A.2000403@cola.iges.org> <004101c5d38f$998b8990$a3694e51@zen> <00ca01c5d416$97a88560$7dee6480@chass> <001f01c5d407$6f592560$eed4869f@m4k8m7> <004d01c5d4e0$aa011e50$6402a8c0@gatewaycompute> <1129733231.4522.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> <0ScbFwZdjpVDFwpu@clara.net> <1129760600.6234.29.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <0koUJTIuEtVDFwLx@clara.net> In message <1129760600.6234.29.camel@localhost.localdomain>, Richard P. Hayes writes >On Wed, 2005-10-19 at 22:05 +0100, Mike Austin wrote: > >> It is for this reason that I do not find it convincing. > >I'm not clear on what you mean exactly by "this reason". Neither am I. But are there not sutras that you think did not originate from the Buddha? And, if so, would you be able to explain why? >As I'm sure no one has to tell you, a far better practice now would be >to examine your own attachments and forms of resistance than to find >ways of explaining away the sutras that annoy you. Hehe! No attachment, but I had an aversion to discussing this subject! I have the impression that more people are attached to not eating meat. I am equally content eating meat or vegetables but eat more of the latter. Sometimes, I feel as if my body needs a bit of meat. I sometimes I have the same feeling about fruit juice. I need to look after myself. I have a fortunate human rebirth, you know. >> Meanwhile, any other references out there? > >Is there any reason to be confident that you would heed them if there >were? I am not asking for opinions, but references. >It seems to me you have stated your position, and others have >stated theirs, and I'm not sure anyone is going to say anything new on >this topic. Exactly. That is why discussing this subject can be quite fruitless, and vegetableless. >One question one might begin with is: Would I be somewhat better at >cultivating bodhicitta and universal compassion if I were not eating the >flesh of animals who have been killed against their will? Answering that >question does not require references to things others have said. It >requires only intellectual and emotional honesty. This is precisely the point. Friends of mine are vegetarians because it appears to them, intellectually and emotionally, to be the only way to eat that is compatible with bodhicitta. I appreciate that. All I say is that this is not universally true, and others do not accumulate any bad karma because they behave differently. -- Metta Mike Austin From marshallarts at bigpond.com Wed Oct 19 17:38:49 2005 From: marshallarts at bigpond.com (Kate) Date: Wed Oct 19 17:49:57 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Fw: Buddhism & Alcohol References: <001901c5d3d2$a648a9e0$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> Message-ID: <008901c5d506$4192ffc0$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> > Yes. In recent conversations I have had with our resident Geshe, this is > a subject that has occasionally come up. It indicates to me that no rule > was absolute but that they arose contingently with monks' behaviour that > the Buddha deemed inappropriate., That's right. They were house rules. I tend to see the majority of teachings > in this way - antidotal rather than prescriptive. First, one appreciates > the problem (or perhaps experiences it). Then one takes the appropriate > countermeasure. Could well be. Regards Kate From skiltonat at Cardiff.ac.uk Wed Oct 19 18:01:44 2005 From: skiltonat at Cardiff.ac.uk (Andrew Skilton) Date: Wed Oct 19 18:09:58 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat Message-ID: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 Joy Vriens wrote: >... I like the idea of continuity of consciousness in that it doesn't allow one ... to take pride in one's temporary consciousness status while comparing it to a lower status of other creatures in a judgemental way. Anything conscious is a fellow "creature". Yes, it does seem to engender a sense of humility in the face of such diversity of conscious existence. >And that sort of attitude, which doesn't need to be sentimentalist, helps one to be more accepting of shortcomings in others and in oneself. It also helps one to prepare oneself for possible future lower states of oneself in this life (Alzenheimer, strokes of various types etc.) Yes, and even of one's own shortcomings, in the sense of fluctuations in the quality of one's daily consciousness. I have also found it interesting to dwell on the conflict of interests or 'wills' that can occur with my cohabitants. Its so easy to assume that theirs are to be subsumed to mine, insofar as their's need be acknowledged at all. Its quite interesting to try to view my pressing 'needs' or wants from their perspective - as it were. >With a hug for you and two pets on the back each for your dogs, Many thanks! Andrew *********************************** Andrew Skilton D. Phil. email: skiltonat@cardiff.ac.uk *********************************** From s.hodge at padmacholing.freeserve.co.uk Wed Oct 19 18:04:35 2005 From: s.hodge at padmacholing.freeserve.co.uk (Stephen Hodge) Date: Wed Oct 19 18:10:06 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] on eating meat References: <5.2.1.1.0.20051018083252.0120e5f8@mail.jcu.edu.au><43542E6A.2000403@cola.iges.org> <004101c5d38f$998b8990$a3694e51@zen><00ca01c5d416$97a88560$7dee6480@chass><001f01c5d407$6f592560$eed4869f@m4k8m7><004d01c5d4e0$aa011e50$6402a8c0@gatewaycompute><1129733231.4522.13.camel@localhost.localdomain><0ScbFwZdjpVDFwpu@clara.net> Message-ID: <000a01c5d509$ecbfc560$eb734e51@zen> Dear Mike, > Meanwhile, any other references out there ? The main sutras to deal with meat-eating belong to the tathagata-garbha class. In particular, the Angulimala-sutra and the Mahaparinirvana-sutra cover this topic. I have not yet translated the AS but here is one of the passages from the MPNS. Elsewhere therein, the Buddha says that he views all beings as his only son, as should bodhisattvasd, and to eat meat would thus be tantamount to cannibalism. Best wishes, Stephen Hodge "I stipulate that you should not even eat meat blameless in three respects. Even those meats apart from the ten [forbidden] kinds should be abandoned. The meat of corpses should also be abandoned. All creatures sense the odour and are frightened by meat-eaters no matter if they are moving around or resting. If a person eats asafoetida or garlic, everybody else feels uncomfortable and alienated - whether in a crowd of many people or in the midst of many creatures, they all know that that person has eaten them. Similarly, all creatures can recognize a person who eats meat and, when they catch the odour, they are frightened by the terror of death. Wherever that person roams, the beings in the waters, on dry land or in the sky are frightened. Thinking that they will be killed by that person, they even swoon and die. For these reasons bodhisattva-mahsattvas do not eat meat. Even though they may appear to eat meat on account of those to be trained, since they do not actually eat ordinary food so how much less so meat ! Noble son, when many hundreds of years have elapsed after I have gone, there will be no once-returners, non-returners or arhats. In the age of the Dharma's decline, there will be monks who preserve the vinaya and abhidharma and who have a multitude of rituals, but who also look after their physical well-being, who highly esteem various kinds of meat, whose humours are disturbed, who are troubled by hunger and thirst, whose clothing looks a fright, who have robes with splashes of colour like a cowherd or a fowler, who comport themselves like a cat, who assert that they are arhats, who are pained by many hurts, whose bodies will be soiled with their own faeces and urine, who dress themselves well as though they were sages (muni), who dress themselves as wanderers (sramana) though they are not, and who hold spurious writings as the authentic Dharma. These people destroy what I have devised - the vinaya, rites, comportment and the authentic utterances that free and liberate one from attachment to what is improper, selecting and reciting passages from each of the sutras according to their inclinations. Thus there will appear [so-called] wanderers, sons of Shakyamuni, who claim that, 'According to our vinaya, the Blessed One has said that alms of meat-stuffs are acceptable' and who concoct their own [scriptures] and contradict each other." From rhayes at unm.edu Wed Oct 19 18:38:35 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Wed Oct 19 18:39:57 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: recommendations for books on Madhyamika In-Reply-To: References: <20051017144023.40801.qmail@web32604.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4353C0DF.5000404@cola.iges.org> <1289233492.20051018000855@kungzhi.org> <697c8217e913dcffa9acd5db6d248da6@earthlink.net> <53377248.20051019040852@kungzhi.org> Message-ID: <1129768715.4344.8.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Wed, 2005-10-19 at 12:31 -0700, Franz Metcalf wrote: > 5) Regarding the fact that "New Mexico has continued to refuse to > apologize for World War II," I expect action on this front from Look, I will be prepared to apologize for New Mexico's participation in World War II as soon as the USA apologizes to Mexico for the Mexican- American war and returns New Mexico and Arizona to Mexico. For the sake of logical consistency, I should also require the return of parts of Texas to Mexico, but I'd had to foist such a worthless piece of real estate onto the Mexican people. Now it's Michael Paris's turn. -- Richard From skiltonat at Cardiff.ac.uk Wed Oct 19 18:30:50 2005 From: skiltonat at Cardiff.ac.uk (Andrew Skilton) Date: Wed Oct 19 18:40:11 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat Message-ID: Wed 19th October Jim Peavler wrote: >With no evil intentions at all I cannot help asking any vegetarian who keeps carnivorous pets: What is better about supporting the death of animals to feed your pets than doing so for your own food? Isn't the effect the same? Your question is completely reasonable. Except that dogs, as I understand them, are omnivores, like us. They'll eat any old crap - even crap, if you let them. So they don't have to be fed on other dead critters. That said, commercial vegetarian dog food is not top of their list of favourites, whereas curry from one of our local vegetarian Indian cafes is. I also have qualms about forcing my choices on others - whether other animals or other human beings (if you'll allow me such an illogical distinction). Society rightly requires me to have a relationship of ownership to these dogs and thus take responsibility for their welfare and conduct. They are thus physically enclosed by me and therefore dependent on me to feed them. But I hesitate to believe that my choices or preferences should automatically be theirs. Your question is also reasonable excepting that the circumstance of my 'owning' pets didn't come about through a kind of utilitarian debate. I freely confess that their acquisition was a largely selfish act, in that my wife and I wanted to enjoy the company of dogs again, for both of us after long intervals without them. Ironically (?) we picked up both of ours from 'death row' at the local city pound. >Do dogs collect bad kharma for eating meat? and if not, why not? Well, the start of an answer must surely be the Buddha declaring that 'karma' is 'intention'. When mine gobble food down, I guess they have no intention of harming other creatures, whatever it is that I have put in their bowls. But I do think they have other plans when they try to murder squirrels in the local woods - although even then their total incompetence in the matter suggests to me that they are in the chase more for the charging around and yelling than for murder as such. When I give them food containing meat, I assume that the 'bad karma' arising from that choice is mine. But the animal realm is regularly described as a durgati, 'a bad place to be', because therein one is more likely to commit acts that are unwholesome. So maybe, through some of the limitations that I impose on their choices and actions prevent them from deeper sin! >I have always been puzzled by this and have never had an answer that seemed satisfactory. Me neither, obviously. Andrew *********************************** Andrew Skilton email: skiltonat@cardiff.ac.uk *********************************** From marshallarts at bigpond.com Wed Oct 19 18:39:51 2005 From: marshallarts at bigpond.com (Kate) Date: Wed Oct 19 18:49:58 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Lankavatara sutra References: <5.2.1.1.0.20051018083252.0120e5f8@mail.jcu.edu.au><43542E6A.2000403@cola.iges.org> <004101c5d38f$998b8990$a3694e51@zen><00ca01c5d416$97a88560$7dee6480@chass><001f01c5d407$6f592560$eed4869f@m4k8m7><004d01c5d4e0$aa011e50$6402a8c0@gatewaycompute><1129733231.4522.13.camel@localhost.localdomain><0ScbFwZdjpVDFwpu@clara.net><1129759091.6234.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> <0Gk0B0GctsVDFw5X@clara.net> Message-ID: <000901c5d50e$c86444c0$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> Talking about sutras and translations, my notes say that the Lankavatara sutra existed in three forms within China, these being translations from Sanskrit made by Gunabhadra, another by Bodhiruci and one by Silshanada. While these three are similar, they are said to differ widely from the Sanskrit version used by Suzuki for his English language translation. Any idea how the differences came about? Were there two Sanskrit versions of the Lankavatara sutra? Thanks. Regards Kate From rhayes at unm.edu Wed Oct 19 18:44:09 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Wed Oct 19 18:50:08 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] on eating meat In-Reply-To: <0Gk0B0GctsVDFw5X@clara.net> References: <5.2.1.1.0.20051018083252.0120e5f8@mail.jcu.edu.au> <43542E6A.2000403@cola.iges.org> <004101c5d38f$998b8990$a3694e51@zen> <00ca01c5d416$97a88560$7dee6480@chass> <001f01c5d407$6f592560$eed4869f@m4k8m7> <004d01c5d4e0$aa011e50$6402a8c0@gatewaycompute> <1129733231.4522.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> <0ScbFwZdjpVDFwpu@clara.net> <1129759091.6234.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> <0Gk0B0GctsVDFw5X@clara.net> Message-ID: <1129769049.4344.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Wed, 2005-10-19 at 23:40 +0100, Mike Austin wrote: > It is this multitude of dependencies that, I feel, are hard to reconcile > with one's own actions of body, speech and mind. Is it through these one > accumulates good or bad karma? It is thinking in terms of individuality that creates most of the problems we face. > Or is it by any interdependency with any evil act in the world. Yes. > If it were the latter, we would all be doomed. I'm sorry to be the one to have to point this out, Mike, but in fact we have all already been doomed. And we'll stay doomed as long as we think in these simplistic terms of things like individualistic karma and karma-vipaaka. -- Richard From mike at lamrim.org.uk Wed Oct 19 18:54:55 2005 From: mike at lamrim.org.uk (Mike Austin) Date: Wed Oct 19 19:00:00 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] on eating meat In-Reply-To: <000a01c5d509$ecbfc560$eb734e51@zen> References: <5.2.1.1.0.20051018083252.0120e5f8@mail.jcu.edu.au> <43542E6A.2000403@cola.iges.org> <004101c5d38f$998b8990$a3694e51@zen> <00ca01c5d416$97a88560$7dee6480@chass> <001f01c5d407$6f592560$eed4869f@m4k8m7> <004d01c5d4e0$aa011e50$6402a8c0@gatewaycompute> <1129733231.4522.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> <0ScbFwZdjpVDFwpu@clara.net> <000a01c5d509$ecbfc560$eb734e51@zen> Message-ID: <73UnNQKfruVDFwaP@clara.net> In message <000a01c5d509$ecbfc560$eb734e51@zen>, Stephen Hodge writes >"I stipulate that you should not even eat meat blameless in three >respects. Thanks for the reference. Presumably this refers to body, speech, mind? If so, then there would be blame (karma) in conjunction with these. The Buddha then says: >Even those meats apart from the ten [forbidden] kinds should be >abandoned. The meat of corpses should also be abandoned. All creatures >sense the odour and are frightened by meat-eaters no matter if they are >moving around or resting. So here the Buddha gives the reason that a meat-eater's appearance would frighten beings. This is the reason that I mentioned before. The rest of the text includes the eating of specific meats in a series of disgusting traits. However, I still read the meat-eating as something that may degrade the individual - not something of karmic (blameable) nature. For example, it seems that it may be put on a par with uncleanliness, laziness, lack of self-discipline and so on. Do you see this reading as incorrect? (In another post, I have given my reasons for thinking that I am not responsible for the action of another person who thinks they are acting on my behalf.) -- Metta Mike Austin From rhayes at unm.edu Wed Oct 19 18:54:55 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Wed Oct 19 19:00:12 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat In-Reply-To: <0koUJTIuEtVDFwLx@clara.net> References: <5.2.1.1.0.20051018083252.0120e5f8@mail.jcu.edu.au> <43542E6A.2000403@cola.iges.org> <004101c5d38f$998b8990$a3694e51@zen> <00ca01c5d416$97a88560$7dee6480@chass> <001f01c5d407$6f592560$eed4869f@m4k8m7> <004d01c5d4e0$aa011e50$6402a8c0@gatewaycompute> <1129733231.4522.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> <0ScbFwZdjpVDFwpu@clara.net> <1129760600.6234.29.camel@localhost.localdomain> <0koUJTIuEtVDFwLx@clara.net> Message-ID: <1129769695.4344.24.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Thu, 2005-10-20 at 00:05 +0100, Mike Austin wrote: > Neither am I. But are there not sutras that you think did not originate > from the Buddha? And, if so, would you be able to explain why? I don't think we have ANY sutras that originated with the Buddha. But I also don't think it matters. I would never accept or dismiss any teaching on the grounds that it was or was not the Buddha's opinion. He's dead. > Hehe! No attachment, but I had an aversion to discussing this subject! I > have the impression that more people are attached to not eating meat. Some are, some are not. One can hardly make a judgement about which is more without doing a systematic study. > I am equally content eating meat or vegetables but eat more of the latter. > Sometimes, I feel as if my body needs a bit of meat. I sometimes I have > the same feeling about fruit juice. I need to look after myself. I have > a fortunate human rebirth, you know. No one who spends as much time on buddha-l as you and I do can claim to be using our fortunate human births very productively. > I am not asking for opinions, but references. I'd be more than happy to write a letter of reference for you. For what are you applying? > This is precisely the point. Friends of mine are vegetarians because it > appears to them, intellectually and emotionally, to be the only way to > eat that is compatible with bodhicitta. I appreciate that. All I say is > that this is not universally true, and others do not accumulate any bad > karma because they behave differently. Jesus, Mike, forget about karma. You've got an obsession with karma. You'll never get anywhere if all you can think about is karma. You're thinking like a bloody chartered accountant. Just set the karmic issue aside and explain (quietly to yourself) why you think that eating meat enhances the quality of your bodhicitta. And then ask yourself to what extent you are making a rationalization, as opposed to being rational and true to your convictions. -- Richard From mike at lamrim.org.uk Wed Oct 19 19:02:12 2005 From: mike at lamrim.org.uk (Mike Austin) Date: Wed Oct 19 19:10:16 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In message , Andrew Skilton writes >>Do dogs collect bad kharma for eating meat? and if not, why not? > >Well, the start of an answer must surely be the Buddha declaring that >'karma' is >'intention'. When mine gobble food down, I guess they have no intention of >harming other creatures, whatever it is that I have put in their bowls. If I eat like this (not gobbling, but having no intention to harm other beings), do I create bad karma. Or is that only for dogs? -- Metta Mike Austin From mike at lamrim.org.uk Wed Oct 19 19:18:10 2005 From: mike at lamrim.org.uk (Mike Austin) Date: Wed Oct 19 19:19:58 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] on eating meat In-Reply-To: <1129769049.4344.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <5.2.1.1.0.20051018083252.0120e5f8@mail.jcu.edu.au> <43542E6A.2000403@cola.iges.org> <004101c5d38f$998b8990$a3694e51@zen> <00ca01c5d416$97a88560$7dee6480@chass> <001f01c5d407$6f592560$eed4869f@m4k8m7> <004d01c5d4e0$aa011e50$6402a8c0@gatewaycompute> <1129733231.4522.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> <0ScbFwZdjpVDFwpu@clara.net> <1129759091.6234.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> <0Gk0B0GctsVDFw5X@clara.net> <1129769049.4344.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: In message <1129769049.4344.13.camel@localhost.localdomain>, Richard P. Hayes writes >I'm sorry to be the one to have to point this out, Mike, but in fact we >have all already been doomed. And we'll stay doomed as long as we think >in these simplistic terms of things like individualistic karma and >karma-vipaaka. Is this any more simplistic than thinking it is all collective karma? It seems to me that reflecting on both is the reasonable approach. And that is precisely what I was doing. Tsongkhapa says in Lam Rim Chenmo: "Rather, happiness and suffering, in general, come from virtuous and non-virtuous karma, and the various particular happinesses and sufferings arise individually, without even the slightest confusion, from various particular instances of these two kinds of karma." I try to view the overall picture and dissect it into pieces that I can manage - i.e. my own actions of body, speech and mind. These pieces come in large chunks, but these chunks do not include the actions of others. -- Metta Mike Austin From rhayes at unm.edu Wed Oct 19 19:11:57 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Wed Oct 19 19:20:09 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] on eating meat In-Reply-To: <73UnNQKfruVDFwaP@clara.net> References: <5.2.1.1.0.20051018083252.0120e5f8@mail.jcu.edu.au> <43542E6A.2000403@cola.iges.org> <004101c5d38f$998b8990$a3694e51@zen> <00ca01c5d416$97a88560$7dee6480@chass> <001f01c5d407$6f592560$eed4869f@m4k8m7> <004d01c5d4e0$aa011e50$6402a8c0@gatewaycompute> <1129733231.4522.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> <0ScbFwZdjpVDFwpu@clara.net> <000a01c5d509$ecbfc560$eb734e51@zen> <73UnNQKfruVDFwaP@clara.net> Message-ID: <1129770717.4344.39.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Thu, 2005-10-20 at 01:54 +0100, Mike Austin wrote: > However, I still read the meat-eating as something that may degrade the > individual - not something of karmic (blameable) nature. Degrading the individual is exactly what any kind of unwholesome karma does. It has nothing to do with blame. It has everything to do with consequences. If it does harm to self or others, it is unwholesome and its ripening is degradation. You might want to reread the karma chapter of the Ahidharmakosha, where there is a lengthy discussion of the karmic consequences of having another do an act for one. If you have someone else act on your behalf, even indirectly, you increase the bad karma of two people: yourself and the person who acted on your behalf. think if you'd like to eat meat, for whatever reason, you should at least have the decency to kill the animals yourself. Then only you get degraded, instead of you and your local butcher (and the workers at the killing plant, and the driver who transported the doomed cattle from the ranch to the abattoir, and the rancher). -- Richard From mike at lamrim.org.uk Wed Oct 19 19:28:36 2005 From: mike at lamrim.org.uk (Mike Austin) Date: Wed Oct 19 19:30:01 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat In-Reply-To: <1129769695.4344.24.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <5.2.1.1.0.20051018083252.0120e5f8@mail.jcu.edu.au> <43542E6A.2000403@cola.iges.org> <004101c5d38f$998b8990$a3694e51@zen> <00ca01c5d416$97a88560$7dee6480@chass> <001f01c5d407$6f592560$eed4869f@m4k8m7> <004d01c5d4e0$aa011e50$6402a8c0@gatewaycompute> <1129733231.4522.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> <0ScbFwZdjpVDFwpu@clara.net> <1129760600.6234.29.camel@localhost.localdomain> <0koUJTIuEtVDFwLx@clara.net> <1129769695.4344.24.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <2HCkhlMELvVDFwIM@clara.net> In message <1129769695.4344.24.camel@localhost.localdomain>, Richard P. Hayes writes >Just set the karmic issue >aside and explain (quietly to yourself) why you think that eating meat >enhances the quality of your bodhicitta. I never said that. You are putting words into my mouth - but I am not going to eat them. I have been spewing them up all day here. -- Metta Mike Austin From wongwf at comp.nus.edu.sg Wed Oct 19 19:47:56 2005 From: wongwf at comp.nus.edu.sg (Wong Weng Fai) Date: Wed Oct 19 19:49:58 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] on eating meat In-Reply-To: <1129656741.4563.53.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <5.2.1.1.0.20051018083252.0120e5f8@mail.jcu.edu.au> <000b01c5d370$3d55acb0$9b00a8c0@whizzo> <1129656741.4563.53.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: On Tue, 18 Oct 2005, Richard P. Hayes wrote: > If this were not so, it would surely result in a law being > passed in Singapore specifying the punishment of caning to anyone caught > reading buddha-l on company time. That would be too dangerous. The President of the U.S.A. and the U.S. Army might just decide to "liberate" Singapore from its "oppressors" by precision-bombs. We know where to draw the line and not to escalate beyond chewing gum which already pissed out a major U.S. corporation (Wrigley's) immensely. W.F. Wong From richard.nance at gmail.com Wed Oct 19 19:52:10 2005 From: richard.nance at gmail.com (Richard Nance) Date: Wed Oct 19 19:59:58 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] on eating meat In-Reply-To: <1129770717.4344.39.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <5.2.1.1.0.20051018083252.0120e5f8@mail.jcu.edu.au> <004d01c5d4e0$aa011e50$6402a8c0@gatewaycompute> <1129733231.4522.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> <0ScbFwZdjpVDFwpu@clara.net> <000a01c5d509$ecbfc560$eb734e51@zen> <73UnNQKfruVDFwaP@clara.net> <1129770717.4344.39.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: On 10/19/05, Richard P. Hayes wrote: > You might want to reread the karma chapter of the Ahidharmakosha Otherwise known as the Treasury of Tuna Dharma. Sorry -- couldn't resist, R. From mike at lamrim.org.uk Wed Oct 19 20:12:49 2005 From: mike at lamrim.org.uk (Mike Austin) Date: Wed Oct 19 20:20:00 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] on eating meat In-Reply-To: <1129770717.4344.39.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <5.2.1.1.0.20051018083252.0120e5f8@mail.jcu.edu.au> <43542E6A.2000403@cola.iges.org> <004101c5d38f$998b8990$a3694e51@zen> <00ca01c5d416$97a88560$7dee6480@chass> <001f01c5d407$6f592560$eed4869f@m4k8m7> <004d01c5d4e0$aa011e50$6402a8c0@gatewaycompute> <1129733231.4522.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> <0ScbFwZdjpVDFwpu@clara.net> <000a01c5d509$ecbfc560$eb734e51@zen> <73UnNQKfruVDFwaP@clara.net> <1129770717.4344.39.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: In message <1129770717.4344.39.camel@localhost.localdomain>, Richard P. Hayes writes >You might want to reread the karma chapter of the Ahidharmakosha, where >there is a lengthy discussion of the karmic consequences of having >another do an act for one. Quite - because the intention is there and the instruction is given. And the intention is in the mind of both people, so results apply to both. >If you have someone else act on your behalf, >even indirectly, you increase the bad karma of two people: yourself and >the person who acted on your behalf. If one gives out a hint, it is tantamount to an instruction. That has an intention and this is the same as before. If one has no intention at all yet someone acts on your behalf, intention is in the mind of one person only. I will have to look at the Abhidharmakosha closely. I find it hard to accept that one being reaps the result of another being's action. The unwitting cat owner whose cat brings home a gift of a mouse or a bird is in for a shock. -- Metta Mike Austin From RonLeifer at aol.com Wed Oct 19 20:13:47 2005 From: RonLeifer at aol.com (RonLeifer@aol.com) Date: Wed Oct 19 20:20:06 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] on eating meat Message-ID: <8b.3246f08f.3088575b@aol.com> In a message dated 10/19/2005 7:27:23 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, rhayes@unm.edu writes: So you seek a fatwa from the Dalia Lama in which he says in so many words "Eating meat is bad karma"? Does this not strike you as a remarkably limited and unimaginative way of looking at an important issue? If eating meat is bad karma, how does one explain that it is served in some left handed tantra rituals (along with whiskey)? I was served a morsel of steak and a shot of Canadian Club by a Tibetan monk at a dedication ceremony. Ron Leifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20051019/c1cc5b26/attachment.htm From rhayes at unm.edu Wed Oct 19 20:21:38 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Wed Oct 19 20:29:58 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] on eating meat In-Reply-To: References: <5.2.1.1.0.20051018083252.0120e5f8@mail.jcu.edu.au> <004d01c5d4e0$aa011e50$6402a8c0@gatewaycompute> <1129733231.4522.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> <0ScbFwZdjpVDFwpu@clara.net> <000a01c5d509$ecbfc560$eb734e51@zen> <73UnNQKfruVDFwaP@clara.net> <1129770717.4344.39.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1129774898.5242.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Wed, 2005-10-19 at 21:52 -0400, Richard Nance wrote: > > You might want to reread the karma chapter of the Ahidharmakosha > > Otherwise known as the Treasury of Tuna Dharma. Isn't that a Mahimahiyana text? -- The other Richard From marshallarts at bigpond.com Wed Oct 19 20:24:23 2005 From: marshallarts at bigpond.com (Kate) Date: Wed Oct 19 20:30:14 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Shingon sutras Message-ID: <002201c5d51d$63058080$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> Another question re sutras if I may please. Which sutras are used by Japanese Shingon? Are they different to those used by Chinese Chen Yen? Many thanks. Regards Kate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20051020/5bbda0e0/attachment-0001.html From rhayes at unm.edu Wed Oct 19 20:36:48 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Wed Oct 19 20:39:59 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat In-Reply-To: References: <5.2.1.1.0.20051018083252.0120e5f8@mail.jcu.edu.au> <43542E6A.2000403@cola.iges.org> <004101c5d38f$998b8990$a3694e51@zen> <00ca01c5d416$97a88560$7dee6480@chass> <001f01c5d407$6f592560$eed4869f@m4k8m7> <004d01c5d4e0$aa011e50$6402a8c0@gatewaycompute> <1129733231.4522.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> <0ScbFwZdjpVDFwpu@clara.net> <000a01c5d509$ecbfc560$eb734e51@zen> <73UnNQKfruVDFwaP@clara.net> <1129770717.4344.39.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1129775808.5242.16.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Thu, 2005-10-20 at 03:12 +0100, Mike Austin wrote: > I find it hard to accept that one being reaps the result of another being's action. Ordering (or asking) someone to do something is an action. So when one asks another to do something, one gets the effects of the action as if one did the action oneself, and the person who carries out the order also gets the consequences of the action. The example in the AbhK is person A asking person B to kill A's mother. Killing one's own mother, of course, is one of the five grave sins. So if A gets B to kill A's mother, it would seem as though neither one is killing his own mother. But since A gives the order, A gets the karma of killing his own mother, and B gets the karma of killing someone. So A gets the heavier karmic burden, even though B does the deed. I think there is a discussion of this whole thing in a paper I wrote many years ago. It's on my download page, I think. That's at http://www.unm.edu/~rhayes/download.html. > The unwitting cat owner whose cat brings home a gift of a mouse or a bird is > in for a shock. Yes, if one orders a cat to go kill a bird, one can look forward to being a canary in the next life. -- Richard Hayes Department of Philosophy University of New Mexico From rhayes at unm.edu Wed Oct 19 21:09:55 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Wed Oct 19 21:19:59 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat In-Reply-To: <2HCkhlMELvVDFwIM@clara.net> References: <5.2.1.1.0.20051018083252.0120e5f8@mail.jcu.edu.au> <43542E6A.2000403@cola.iges.org> <004101c5d38f$998b8990$a3694e51@zen> <00ca01c5d416$97a88560$7dee6480@chass> <001f01c5d407$6f592560$eed4869f@m4k8m7> <004d01c5d4e0$aa011e50$6402a8c0@gatewaycompute> <1129733231.4522.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> <0ScbFwZdjpVDFwpu@clara.net> <1129760600.6234.29.camel@localhost.localdomain> <0koUJTIuEtVDFwLx@clara.net> <1129769695.4344.24.camel@localhost.localdomain> <2HCkhlMELvVDFwIM@clara.net> Message-ID: <1129777796.5767.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Thu, 2005-10-20 at 02:28 +0100, Mike Austin wrote: > I never said that. You are putting words into my mouth - but I am not > going to eat them. No need to eat the words. I really didn't mean to put words into your mouth. What I was trying to do was to put some food for thought into your brain. Speaking of food for though, here's an interesting item on Ven. Heng Sure's blog. The item is called "What's in my steak?" (You may not want to know.) http://paramita.typepad.com/dharma_forest/2005/10/whats_in_my_ste.html -- Richard From marshallarts at bigpond.com Wed Oct 19 21:21:56 2005 From: marshallarts at bigpond.com (Kate) Date: Wed Oct 19 21:31:10 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] on eating meat References: <8b.3246f08f.3088575b@aol.com> Message-ID: <001f01c5d525$6cf92260$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> >If eating meat is bad karma, how does one explain that it is served in some left handed tantra rituals (along with whiskey)? I was served a morsel of steak and a shot of Canadian Club by a Tibetan monk at a dedication ceremony. < While you are waiting for a more learned response, Ron, my understanding is that it would depend on the particular sect you are talking about. As you probably know, Tibetan tantric followers use non-canonical collections of religious writings (termed tantras). In Tibet these often supplanted the Sutras as sources of doctrine. It would depend on which tantras this sect draws its teachings from and how much it had been influenced by Hindu Tantrism which contains quite a few practises which aren't acceptable by most Buddhist standards. Regards Kate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20051020/092a98c4/attachment.html From jwilson101 at gmail.com Wed Oct 19 21:27:01 2005 From: jwilson101 at gmail.com (Jeff Wilson) Date: Wed Oct 19 21:31:20 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Lankavatara and Shingon Sutras Message-ID: Dear Kate, My copy of Kogen Mizuno's "Buddhist Sutras: Origin, Development, Transmission" has this to say about the Lankavatara Sutra (p. 194): "Lankavatara-Sutra: generic abbreviation: Leng-chia-ching; (1) Leng-chia a-pa-to-lo pao-ching, 4 fascicles, translated 443 by Gunabhadra; (2) Ju leng-chia-ching, 10 fascicles, translated 513 by Bodhiruchi; (3) Ta-ch'eng ju-leng-chia-ching, 7 fascicles, translated 700-704 by Shikshananda" D.T. Suzuki also mentions that there is a Tibetan translation. His rendering is I believe the only complete English translation; it is notoriously full of errors. Because we see a wide variety of fascicle counts, it is clear that there were multiple Sanskrit versions, some of significantly different length. On Shingon, you will want to consult these two sources: Yamasaki, Taiko. "Shingon: Japanese Esoteric Buddhism." Fresno, CA: Shingon Buddhist International Institute, 1988. Geibel, Rolf W. and Dale A. Todaro, eds. "Shingon Texts." Berkeley, CA: Numata Center for Buddhist Translation and Research, 2004. In asking about what Sutras are used by Japanese Shingon, and whether they differ from those used by Chinese Chen-yen, it is important to keep a few things in mind. First, Chen-yen no longer exists as a viable school of Buddhism, though Chen-yen practices have survived to the present day within Chinese Buddhism (augmented, in many cases now, by Tibetan/Mongolian-derived esoteric practices) and Chen-yen scriptures are of course contained within the Chinese Tripitaka. Second, Shingon is not a unified school but rather a descriptive term for several major competing schools with many sub-variations (as many as 36, according to one authority). So it isn't really a matter of whether Shingon preserves the same texts as Chen-yen, but rather of which varieties of Shingon preserve which versions of Chen-yen texts. Hope this helps! Sincerely, Jeff Wilson University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20051019/e502416e/attachment.htm From marshallarts at bigpond.com Wed Oct 19 22:06:06 2005 From: marshallarts at bigpond.com (Kate) Date: Wed Oct 19 22:10:00 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Lankavatara and Shingon Sutras References: Message-ID: <001f01c5d52b$9903cbc0$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> This helps a great deal. Thank you, Jeff! Regards Kate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20051020/69a3d304/attachment.htm From c_castell at yahoo.com Thu Oct 20 00:49:42 2005 From: c_castell at yahoo.com (Catalina Castell-du Payrat) Date: Thu Oct 20 00:50:06 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Karma.........was: on eating meat In-Reply-To: <0ScbFwZdjpVDFwpu@clara.net> Message-ID: <20051020064942.69231.qmail@web60823.mail.yahoo.com> Mike wrote: <<<.No, but I do see your comment as a remarkably limited and unimaginative response to a sincere request for a reference - not just from the Dalai Lama - that can clarify whether eating or buying meet is bad karma.>>>>>> Karma?......One of my favorite neighbords just put too many bicycles almost in front of my door......so I pushed one (in a bad mood..........., me, not the bicycle) and the bicycle dropped...........and dropped the other ones (ji....ji...ji........), I left them like this.......and then my husband told me what a bad girl I were......and then...........ok...........I tried to put back the bicycles as before............and one of them dropped again and hurt me!!!!!!!........ahhhhhhhhhhhhh! action and reaction......? Seriously, I would look for the "noble octuple sendero" (eight noble path?) and common sense again. I would say that if you are looking to get ride of all the bad karma........uf! that has to be a job! When people used to tell me that to smoke was a big contradiction in my life (I didn't understand this opinion anyways) I used to answer: This is the smallest of my contradictions, so I will pay attention to that later.......I choose to try to be consequent with a way of life, respecting life (and sometimes others opinions) and trying to not hurt others when self-defending.......hoping that someday if I have been succsessfully enough , contradictions will desappear. Cheers, Catalina --------------------------------- Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20051019/87e7d635/attachment.html From marshallarts at bigpond.com Thu Oct 20 01:01:02 2005 From: marshallarts at bigpond.com (Kate) Date: Thu Oct 20 01:10:02 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Vipassana Message-ID: <002801c5d544$08967e20$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> A late question on Vipassana meditation. Is this the same as Pi Kuan meditation. Many thanks. Regards Kate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20051020/021c4fcb/attachment.htm From joy.vriens at nerim.net Thu Oct 20 03:44:11 2005 From: joy.vriens at nerim.net (Joy Vriens) Date: Thu Oct 20 03:50:10 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] on eating meat In-Reply-To: <0ScbFwZdjpVDFwpu@clara.net> References: <5.2.1.1.0.20051018083252.0120e5f8@mail.jcu.edu.au> <43542E6A.2000403@cola.iges.org> <004101c5d38f$998b8990$a3694e51@zen> <00ca01c5d416$97a88560$7dee6480@chass> <001f01c5d407$6f592560$eed4869f@m4k8m7> <004d01c5d4e0$aa011e50$6402a8c0@gatewaycompute> <1129733231.4522.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> <0ScbFwZdjpVDFwpu@clara.net> Message-ID: <435766EB.1010501@nerim.net> Mike Austin wrote: > No, but I do see your comment as a remarkably limited and unimaginative > response to a sincere request for a reference - not just from the Dalai > Lama - that can clarify whether eating or buying meet is bad karma. > Now, any sensible replies out there? When I was still a monk I was taught a little ritual and a mantra that would purify the negative karma accumulated by eating meat, which is perhaps an indirect answer to your question. Joy From joy.vriens at nerim.net Thu Oct 20 04:01:26 2005 From: joy.vriens at nerim.net (Joy Vriens) Date: Thu Oct 20 04:10:04 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43576AF6.4020307@nerim.net> Andrew Skilton wrote: > Yes, and even of one's own shortcomings, in the sense of fluctuations in the > quality of one's daily consciousness. I have also found it interesting to dwell > on the conflict of interests or 'wills' that can occur with my cohabitants. Its > so easy to assume that theirs are to be subsumed to mine, insofar as their's > need be acknowledged at all. Its quite interesting to try to view my pressing > 'needs' or wants from their perspective - as it were. I think that is an excellent spiritual exercise. I try to do the same with my children (though not with my wife, I tend to lose those conflicts of interests), not forgetting that I also have a role in setting limits and teaching them to behave in responsible ways. BTW I find the whole issue of "will" interesting and IMO more to the point than the self/no-self approach. But whereas I may be complemented as a very understanding and modern father when sorting out a conflict of interests with my children in a non-autoritarian way in a shopping mall, you may be simpy considered mad when you have an open discussion with your dogs to sort out a conflict of interests. ;-) >>With a hug for you and two pets on the back each for your dogs, Oops I meant pats. > Many thanks! My pleasure and honour. From skiltonat at Cardiff.ac.uk Thu Oct 20 04:39:59 2005 From: skiltonat at Cardiff.ac.uk (Andrew Skilton) Date: Thu Oct 20 04:50:10 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: buddha-l Digest, Vol 8, Issue 121 Message-ID: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 Mike Austin wrote: >>>Do dogs collect bad kharma for eating meat? and if not, why not? >>Well, the start of an answer must surely be the Buddha declaring that >>'karma' is 'intention'. When mine gobble food down, I guess they have no intention of >>harming other creatures, whatever it is that I have put in their bowls. >If I eat like this (not gobbling, but having no intention to harm other >beings), do I create bad karma. Or is that only for dogs? But choosing to eat flesh when one knows and is capable understanding what is involved in its acquisition is 'an intention to harm other beings'. My point, clearly not clearly expressed, was that when I feed my dogs they probably do not analyse what is in their bowl and are therefore capable of neither knowing nor understanding its provenance (and thereby precluding the possibility of their making an ethical choice). Whereas I am, and therefore the 'bad karma' is mine. Andrew *********************************** Andrew Skilton *********************************** From skiltonat at Cardiff.ac.uk Thu Oct 20 05:07:06 2005 From: skiltonat at Cardiff.ac.uk (Andrew Skilton) Date: Thu Oct 20 05:10:04 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat Message-ID: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 Mike Austin wrote: >However, I still read the meat-eating as something that may degrade the >individual - not something of karmic (blameable) nature. For example, it >seems that it may be put on a par with uncleanliness, laziness, lack of >self-discipline and so on. Mike, I am fascinated by the distinctions you are making here and would like to see how you would elaborate the difference between degradation of the individual and actions of a karmic nature. I take your list of 'individual degradations' to be actions that only (or primarily) affect the person who performs them. If so I would agree that these are probably of a different moral significance (tho still of a 'karmic nature') to actions that primarily affect others - but the case of eating meat is one which has drastic effects on others (the slaughtered animals) and therefore cannot be classed as merely an 'individual degradation'. If I disdain to wash such that I stink out the dharma hall and distract my fellow practitioners from the golden words of the guru, you could argue that there is only minor blame to me if I do not understand the effects of my aroma. But if I understand that my smell is having that effect, then surely the significance of my not washing in that situation is different? Andrew *********************************** Andrew Skilton *********************************** From ghoti at consultron.ca Thu Oct 20 05:27:14 2005 From: ghoti at consultron.ca (Tom Troughton) Date: Thu Oct 20 05:30:06 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: buddha-l Digest, Vol 8, Issue 121 Message-ID: <200510201127.j9KBRgCq029790@mail2.magma.ca> On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 11:39:59 +0100, Andrew Skilton wrote: >Thu, 20 Oct 2005 Mike Austin wrote: > >>>>Do dogs collect bad kharma for eating meat? and if not, why not? > >>>Well, the start of an answer must surely be the Buddha declaring that >>>'karma' is 'intention'. When mine gobble food down, I guess they have no >intention of >>>harming other creatures, whatever it is that I have put in their bowls. > >>If I eat like this (not gobbling, but having no intention to harm other >>beings), do I create bad karma. Or is that only for dogs? > >But choosing to eat flesh when one knows and is capable understanding what is >involved in its acquisition is 'an intention to harm other beings'. > >My point, clearly not clearly expressed, was that when I feed my dogs they >probably do not analyse what is in their bowl and are therefore capable of >neither knowing nor understanding its provenance (and thereby precluding the >possibility of their making an ethical choice). Whereas I am, and therefore the >'bad karma' is mine. Andrew Does this not remove all ethical characteristic from the action? I am under the impression that Buddhist theory does distinguish betweeen 1) actions that are to abandoned or adopted according to vow, and 2) actions that 'unmentionable', which seems to amount to a conception that some actions carry some moral power due to their nature. The power may be attenuated and so forth, but it remains. Perhaps Theravadin traditions draw this distinction differently - could someone throw some light on this? You do not seem to wish to maintain this distinction, by making morality only apply to knowing and understanding, i.e. human. It appears to me that you are standing dangerously close to a slippery slope. You could move away from that slope simply by assenting that dogs do accumulate negative karma, attenuated through circumstance no doubt, but still a stain imprinted on the mind. This raises a question. In general do you think that the Buddhist theory of karma, an explanation of our lack of control over our experience and fate, is taught so we may assert control? Might it be taught for some other reason(s)? Best wishes Tom From s.hodge at padmacholing.freeserve.co.uk Thu Oct 20 05:51:18 2005 From: s.hodge at padmacholing.freeserve.co.uk (Stephen Hodge) Date: Thu Oct 20 06:30:29 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat References: <43576AF6.4020307@nerim.net> Message-ID: <008701c5d571$37c49ce0$c9754e51@zen> Dear Joy, > I try to do the same with my children (though not with my wife, I tend to > lose those conflicts of interests). Aha ! All this time, because of your first name, I had been thinking you were female ! Just goes to show how we are influenced by our cultural preconceptions. I wonder how many other subscribers will find this a revelation.... Best wishes, Stephen Hodge From s.hodge at padmacholing.freeserve.co.uk Thu Oct 20 05:43:29 2005 From: s.hodge at padmacholing.freeserve.co.uk (Stephen Hodge) Date: Thu Oct 20 06:30:40 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Shingon sutras References: <002201c5d51d$63058080$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> Message-ID: <008601c5d571$36e3d9d0$c9754e51@zen> Dear Kate, > Which sutras are used by Japanese Shingon? The main ones are: 1. Mahavairocana-abhisambodhi-sutra [translated & published by me if you're interested] 2. Sarva-tathagata-tattva-samgraha-sutra [translated but not yet published by me] 3. 150 Prajnaparamita-sutra 4. Susuddhikara-tantra [translated by me but not yet published, version available by Giebel in BDK series] These should be the same as in Chen-yen Best wishes, Stephen Hodge PS: I was a Shingon monk for a while in Japan From curt at cola.iges.org Thu Oct 20 05:51:49 2005 From: curt at cola.iges.org (curt) Date: Thu Oct 20 07:40:15 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] on eating meat In-Reply-To: <435766EB.1010501@nerim.net> References: <5.2.1.1.0.20051018083252.0120e5f8@mail.jcu.edu.au> <43542E6A.2000403@cola.iges.org> <004101c5d38f$998b8990$a3694e51@zen> <00ca01c5d416$97a88560$7dee6480@chass> <001f01c5d407$6f592560$eed4869f@m4k8m7> <004d01c5d4e0$aa011e50$6402a8c0@gatewaycompute> <1129733231.4522.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> <0ScbFwZdjpVDFwpu@clara.net> <435766EB.1010501@nerim.net> Message-ID: <435784D5.8070503@cola.iges.org> I consider "little rituals" like that part of the folkways of Buddhism. There is a "little ritual" that Korean Buddhists sometimes perform when killing a bug - you say "Ji Jang Bosal" and then, well, splat, and then "Ji Jang Bosal" a few more times. "Ji Jang Bosal" is the Korean name for Kshitigharba Bodhisattva - who, at least in Korean Buddhism, acts as a "psychopomp" during the transition between lifetimes. The interesting thing is that one says "Ji Jang Bosal" not for one's own sake, but for the bug's sake. Chanting "Ji Jang Bosal" is considered a way to help someone who has died to have a "good" incarnation next time around. Also, once a student of Seung Sahn (the Korean Zen Master) accidentally ran over a racoon while driving. The student was very upset and Seung Sahn consoled him by saying "if you chant Namu Amita Bul seven times the racoon will come back as a monk", or something like that (the idea being that going from racoon to monk would be a good thing). "Namu Amita Bul" is the Korean form of "nembutsu". - Curt Joy Vriens wrote: > Mike Austin wrote: > >> No, but I do see your comment as a remarkably limited and >> unimaginative response to a sincere request for a reference - not >> just from the Dalai Lama - that can clarify whether eating or buying >> meet is bad karma. > > >> Now, any sensible replies out there? > > > When I was still a monk I was taught a little ritual and a mantra that > would purify the negative karma accumulated by eating meat, which is > perhaps an indirect answer to your question. > > Joy > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l > > From shian at kmspks.org Wed Oct 19 21:41:09 2005 From: shian at kmspks.org ([DPD Web] Shen Shi'an) Date: Thu Oct 20 07:40:56 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] on eating meat Message-ID: <179F65D5F8DDA444910D688753F4157989F87E@kmsexsvr01.temple.kmspks.org> www.meatyourmeat.com - Actually, one just needs to meet one's meat to know whether to be vegetarian or not - it's simple - place yourself in the position of the exploited and slaughtered animals. ________________________________ From: buddha-l-bounces@mailman.swcp.com [mailto:buddha-l-bounces@mailman.swcp.com] On Behalf Of Kate Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2005 11:22 AM To: Buddhist discussion forum Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] on eating meat >If eating meat is bad karma, how does one explain that it is served in some left handed tantra rituals (along with whiskey)? I was served a morsel of steak and a shot of Canadian Club by a Tibetan monk at a dedication ceremony. < While you are waiting for a more learned response, Ron, my understanding is that it would depend on the particular sect you are talking about. As you probably know, Tibetan tantric followers use non-canonical collections of religious writings (termed tantras). In Tibet these often supplanted the Sutras as sources of doctrine. It would depend on which tantras this sect draws its teachings from and how much it had been influenced by Hindu Tantrism which contains quite a few practises which aren't acceptable by most Buddhist standards. Regards Kate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20051020/cfb284a1/attachment-0001.html From joy.vriens at nerim.net Thu Oct 20 08:16:33 2005 From: joy.vriens at nerim.net (Joy Vriens) Date: Thu Oct 20 08:20:09 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat In-Reply-To: <008701c5d571$37c49ce0$c9754e51@zen> References: <43576AF6.4020307@nerim.net> <008701c5d571$37c49ce0$c9754e51@zen> Message-ID: <4357A6C1.6080800@nerim.net> Dear Stephen, > Aha ! All this time, because of your first name, I had been thinking > you were female ! I am working hard at achieving a perfect balance of yin and yang (with just that bit of extra yang to keep the missus happy), but the road to the primeval androgyn is long and winding. My name, the name of my grandfather, is actually a diminutive in Dutch dialect (Brabants) of "Janus", but don't ask me how they managed to transform that into "Joy" (pronounced "yoy"). > Just goes to show how we are influenced by our > cultural preconceptions. I wonder how many other subscribers will find > this a revelation.... I will let you know if more people start responding to my postings (gros bisous, Joanna)... ;-) Joy From s.hodge at padmacholing.freeserve.co.uk Thu Oct 20 08:12:04 2005 From: s.hodge at padmacholing.freeserve.co.uk (Stephen Hodge) Date: Thu Oct 20 08:20:18 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Lankavatara and Shingon Sutras References: Message-ID: <003001c5d580$8441c480$937e4e51@zen> Dear Jeff, > Second, Shingon is not a unified school but rather a > descriptive term for several major competing schools with many > sub-variations (as many as 36, according to one authority). Hhmm. I think that Shingon ismuch more unified that you suggest. The two main divisions are the Shingon per se and the late medieval off-shoot of Shingi Shingon. These are sub-divided into a number subsidiary lineages (ha) -- many of which are now extinct. As far as I know, the differences between the subsidiary lineages have more to do with ritual praxis rather that doctrinal interpretation. When I was at Koyasan, members of all the Shingon lineages from all over Japana had no problem in participating in major communal events. As a foot-note, one also might mention that the Japanese version of Tendai also incorporates mantrayana scriptures and practices, as does the syncretic Shugendo or yamabushi folk. There is also a tiny group of temples adhering to the so-called Shotoku-shu/ha, apparently tracing their lineage back to Prince Shotoku, who also use Shingon rituals and texts. Best wishes, Stephen Hodge From s.hodge at padmacholing.freeserve.co.uk Thu Oct 20 08:00:59 2005 From: s.hodge at padmacholing.freeserve.co.uk (Stephen Hodge) Date: Thu Oct 20 08:20:25 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Lankavatara sutra References: <5.2.1.1.0.20051018083252.0120e5f8@mail.jcu.edu.au><43542E6A.2000403@cola.iges.org><004101c5d38f$998b8990$a3694e51@zen><00ca01c5d416$97a88560$7dee6480@chass><001f01c5d407$6f592560$eed4869f@m4k8m7><004d01c5d4e0$aa011e50$6402a8c0@gatewaycompute><1129733231.4522.13.camel@localhost.localdomain><0ScbFwZdjpVDFwpu@clara.net><1129759091.6234.4.camel@localhost.localdomain><0Gk0B0GctsVDFw5X@clara.net> <000901c5d50e$c86444c0$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> Message-ID: <002f01c5d580$8345b140$937e4e51@zen> Dear Kate, > Any idea how the differences came about? Were there two Sanskrit versions > of the Lankavatara sutra? Thanks. The enormous value of the Chinese canon for us boring old scholars is that many sutras, especially Mahayana ones, have multiple translations of a single text done over a several centuries, based on Sanskrit originals at the different stages of textual elaboration -- originals which have almost never survived. This contrasts with the Tibetan canon which has very, very few multiple translations, though they make up for this by the generally superior quality of the translation itself. With the Chinese sources, we are able to track the developments of texts as they evolved and were modified or enlarged. A comparative study of these translations reveal much useful data concerning the evolution of Mahayana doctrines and social conditions. I have been doing something like this with the various versions of the Mahaparinirvana-sutra -- the earliest Faxian version is much shorter and differs in many important points from the later Dharmaksema or Tibetan versions. In the case of these texts, combined with a study of their obvious internal evolution, important deductions and inferences may be made, for example, about the origins and evolution of some strands of Mahayana. Hence, the reason why there are three Chinese versions of the LS is because the text started life in India as a much shorter text than the current Sanskrit version. At some stage in the evololution of the LS, the first Chinese translation was made. Meanwhile, back in India, the text evolved still further and then yet another Chinese translation was produced. It should be noted that the traditional explanation for this phenomenon ignores the obvious evolutionary expansion of these texts since pre-modern scholar-monks believed that these texts were first taught in full by the Buddha and truncated subsequently for various reasons -- completely inverting the actual state of affairs. Best wishes, Stephen Hodge From srhodes at boulder.net Thu Oct 20 08:23:41 2005 From: srhodes at boulder.net (Steven Rhodes) Date: Thu Oct 20 08:30:15 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat In-Reply-To: <008701c5d571$37c49ce0$c9754e51@zen> References: <43576AF6.4020307@nerim.net> <008701c5d571$37c49ce0$c9754e51@zen> Message-ID: <4357A86D.8040907@boulder.net> Actually, I believe that this "slipped out" once before! Steven Rhodes Stephen Hodge wrote: > Dear Joy, > >> I try to do the same with my children (though not with my wife, I >> tend to lose those conflicts of interests). > > > Aha ! All this time, because of your first name, I had been thinking > you were female ! Just goes to show how we are influenced by our > cultural preconceptions. I wonder how many other subscribers will > find this a revelation.... > > Best wishes, > Stephen Hodge > > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l > From eklektik at gmail.com Thu Oct 20 08:26:36 2005 From: eklektik at gmail.com (Hugo) Date: Thu Oct 20 08:30:27 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: buddha-l Digest, Vol 8, Issue 121 In-Reply-To: <200510201127.j9KBRgCq029790@mail2.magma.ca> References: <200510201127.j9KBRgCq029790@mail2.magma.ca> Message-ID: <7964f6db0510200726q64774db8m15a87273584252ab@mail.gmail.com> All, All this discussion about interpretations of the Law of Kamma leads me to understand why in the sutta of Right View it is said that believing in the Law of Kamma is Right View with fermentations: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn-117-tb0.html "And what is right view? Right view, I tell you, is of two sorts: There is right view with fermentations [asava], siding with merit, resulting in the acquisitions [of becoming]; and there is noble right view, without fermentations, transcendent, a factor of the path. "And what is the right view that has fermentations, sides with merit, & results in acquisitions? 'There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions. There is this world & the next world. There is mother & father. There are spontaneously reborn beings; there are priests & contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is the right view that has fermentations, sides with merit, & results in acquisitions. "And what is the right view that is without fermentations, transcendent, a factor of the path? The discernment, the faculty of discernment, the strength of discernment, analysis of qualities as a factor for Awakening, the path factor of right view in one developing the noble path whose mind is noble, whose mind is free from fermentations, who is fully possessed of the noble path. This is the right view that is without fermentations, transcendent, a factor of the path. ===================================== Greetings, -- Hugo From l.k.starner at larc.nasa.gov Thu Oct 20 08:34:39 2005 From: l.k.starner at larc.nasa.gov (Lawrence K. Starner) Date: Thu Oct 20 08:40:09 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I eat meat, I confess, simply because I like it. I drink a daily quantity of wine (usually 2 glasses) in the evening, but I don't drink enough for intoxication. I also admit that I'm ignorant and not the best Buddhist in the world. My only redeeming factor, if any, is that I try to practice zazen daily. I may gradually turn away from meat and alcohol as I spiritually evolve (or not). It seems that these behaviors can best be altered at their foundation from deep within as we change through practice. -- Larry From eklektik at gmail.com Thu Oct 20 08:38:32 2005 From: eklektik at gmail.com (Hugo) Date: Thu Oct 20 08:40:19 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] on eating meat In-Reply-To: <0Gk0B0GctsVDFw5X@clara.net> References: <5.2.1.1.0.20051018083252.0120e5f8@mail.jcu.edu.au> <004101c5d38f$998b8990$a3694e51@zen> <00ca01c5d416$97a88560$7dee6480@chass> <001f01c5d407$6f592560$eed4869f@m4k8m7> <004d01c5d4e0$aa011e50$6402a8c0@gatewaycompute> <1129733231.4522.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> <0ScbFwZdjpVDFwpu@clara.net> <1129759091.6234.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> <0Gk0B0GctsVDFw5X@clara.net> Message-ID: <7964f6db0510200738o6ee230b6naf7e10cffc6ebc64@mail.gmail.com> Hello Mike, On 10/19/05, Mike Austin wrote: > It is this multitude of dependencies that, I feel, are hard to reconcile > with one's own actions of body, speech and mind. Is it through these one > accumulates good or bad karma? Excellent, you just realized Anatta!! Now stop looking for your "self", keep contemplating anatta. -- Hugo From Jackhat1 at aol.com Thu Oct 20 08:30:52 2005 From: Jackhat1 at aol.com (Jackhat1@aol.com) Date: Thu Oct 20 08:40:25 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Vipassana Message-ID: <218.be9a6e3.3089041c@aol.com> In a message dated 10/20/2005 2:12:56 A.M. Central Standard Time, marshallarts@bigpond.com writes: A late question on Vipassana meditation. Is this the same as Pi Kuan meditation. Many thanks. === I don't know many of the meditation methods to which vipassana is being compared. But, vipassana is not "just sitting". It is a progressive training method teaching correctly and completely focusing on the arising and passing away of mental phenomena in the moment. Jack -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20051020/86707fd6/attachment.htm From parisjm2004 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 20 08:49:27 2005 From: parisjm2004 at yahoo.com (Michael Paris) Date: Thu Oct 20 08:50:09 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] karma? In-Reply-To: <200510201127.j9KBRgCq029790@mail2.magma.ca> Message-ID: <20051020144927.9153.qmail@web32610.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I see not a whit of difference between "negative" karma and sin, and "positive" karma and good works. Frankly, that sounds as meaningless as my Catholic school teachings that sin was a mark on my soul. I can see karma as relating to something physical. I get angry - it's not good for me or, perhaps, what I'm angry at. I do something good - it's good for me and others. Fine. What need is there for the term "karma?" Is it only because of the doctrine (dogma?) of reincarnation? Or is this an example of getting carried away with metaphysics? What if one doesn't find reincarnation - or any afterlife - tenable? Is one a Buddhist, then? Michael __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From joy.vriens at nerim.net Thu Oct 20 08:42:27 2005 From: joy.vriens at nerim.net (Joy Vriens) Date: Thu Oct 20 08:50:22 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] on eating meat In-Reply-To: <435784D5.8070503@cola.iges.org> References: <5.2.1.1.0.20051018083252.0120e5f8@mail.jcu.edu.au> <43542E6A.2000403@cola.iges.org> <004101c5d38f$998b8990$a3694e51@zen> <00ca01c5d416$97a88560$7dee6480@chass> <001f01c5d407$6f592560$eed4869f@m4k8m7> <004d01c5d4e0$aa011e50$6402a8c0@gatewaycompute> <1129733231.4522.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> <0ScbFwZdjpVDFwpu@clara.net> <435766EB.1010501@nerim.net> <435784D5.8070503@cola.iges.org> Message-ID: <4357ACD3.7070704@nerim.net> Hi curt, > The interesting > thing is that one says "Ji Jang Bosal" not for one's own sake, but for > the bug's sake. Chanting "Ji Jang Bosal" is considered a way to help > someone who has died to have a "good" incarnation next time around. It goes back quite a bit so I am not sure I remember exactly, but you were to recite the mantra a couple of times, breath over the meat that you were about to eat and click your fingers once, imagining that the consciousness of the dead animal would fly away to Amitabha's world. Perhaps a remainder of animism? (you must have read something about it Curt ;-)) There probably also is a link with the tantric practice of "grol ba" (liberation: "the forceful and compassionate transfer of the consciousness of a sentient being (including humans) to a higher level of existence") Joy From joy.vriens at nerim.net Thu Oct 20 08:49:42 2005 From: joy.vriens at nerim.net (Joy Vriens) Date: Thu Oct 20 08:50:30 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4357AE86.5060404@nerim.net> Lawrence K. Starner wrote: > I eat meat, I confess, simply because I like it. I drink a daily quantity > of wine (usually 2 glasses) in the evening, but I don't drink enough for > intoxication. I also admit that I'm ignorant and not the best Buddhist in > the world. You're in good company. When surfing the net to help Mike find a good reason to become a vegetarian I stumbled on the following anecdote. Whether it's authentic I don't know, but the DL could have given this answer. "An amusing story about the Dalai Lama and his meat eating: HH was on a plane and was seated next to someone who happened to notice that he was not eating the veg meal, but had the meat meal. The person seated next to him asked him, "Aren't Buddhists supposed to be vegetarians?" HH's response, "Good ones are!" I am sure there was a hearty laugh with that response!" I also found this one for Mike: "Killing and eating meat are interrelated, so do we have to give up eating animal products? I myself once tried to give it up, but health problems arose and two years later my doctors advised me to again use meat in my diet. If there are people who can give up eating meat, we can only rejoice in their noble efforts. In any case, at least we should try to lessen our intake of meat and not eat it anywhere where it is in scarce supply and our consumption of it would cause added slaughter." -- from The Path to Enlightenment You are saved by a question mark Mike. From eklektik at gmail.com Thu Oct 20 08:40:53 2005 From: eklektik at gmail.com (Hugo) Date: Thu Oct 20 08:50:35 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] on eating meat In-Reply-To: <1129769049.4344.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <5.2.1.1.0.20051018083252.0120e5f8@mail.jcu.edu.au> <00ca01c5d416$97a88560$7dee6480@chass> <001f01c5d407$6f592560$eed4869f@m4k8m7> <004d01c5d4e0$aa011e50$6402a8c0@gatewaycompute> <1129733231.4522.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> <0ScbFwZdjpVDFwpu@clara.net> <1129759091.6234.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> <0Gk0B0GctsVDFw5X@clara.net> <1129769049.4344.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <7964f6db0510200740y76ed6dabud8aa96eb3c6a55d3@mail.gmail.com> Hey Richard, On 10/19/05, Richard P. Hayes wrote: > On Wed, 2005-10-19 at 23:40 +0100, Mike Austin wrote: > > > It is this multitude of dependencies that, I feel, are hard to reconcile > > with one's own actions of body, speech and mind. Is it through these one > > accumulates good or bad karma? > > It is thinking in terms of individuality that creates most of the > problems we face. > > > Or is it by any interdependency with any evil act in the world. > > Yes. > > > If it were the latter, we would all be doomed. > > I'm sorry to be the one to have to point this out, Mike, but in fact we > have all already been doomed. And we'll stay doomed as long as we think > in these simplistic terms of things like individualistic karma and > karma-vipaaka. I agree 100% with you ! -- Hugo From eklektik at gmail.com Thu Oct 20 08:48:21 2005 From: eklektik at gmail.com (Hugo) Date: Thu Oct 20 08:50:42 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] on eating meat In-Reply-To: <435766EB.1010501@nerim.net> References: <5.2.1.1.0.20051018083252.0120e5f8@mail.jcu.edu.au> <43542E6A.2000403@cola.iges.org> <004101c5d38f$998b8990$a3694e51@zen> <00ca01c5d416$97a88560$7dee6480@chass> <001f01c5d407$6f592560$eed4869f@m4k8m7> <004d01c5d4e0$aa011e50$6402a8c0@gatewaycompute> <1129733231.4522.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> <0ScbFwZdjpVDFwpu@clara.net> <435766EB.1010501@nerim.net> Message-ID: <7964f6db0510200748r6d6aad02q27cce3d32a735afc@mail.gmail.com> Hello Joy, On 10/20/05, Joy Vriens wrote: > When I was still a monk I was taught a little ritual and a mantra that > would purify the negative karma accumulated by eating meat, which is > perhaps an indirect answer to your question. Rites and rituals is one of the fetters that have to be broken: 1. Sakkaya-ditthi is translated as "personality belief". This is the belief that we are solid beings, which leads to the illusion of a separate self, egoism, or individuality. This is a major obstacle to spiritual progress. Not only are we attached to the idea of self, we even glorify it. Conceit, arrogance, pride, self-abasement. Attachment to idea of "I" is fundamental to all problems; we defend the idea of I, we seek to cherish I, make a fuss of it. It is difficult to be entirely free from idea of self (Anatta), but at least do not take the five aggregates as self. [...] 3. Silabbataparamasa means "adherence to wrongful rites, rituals and ceremonies"...in the mistaken belief that purification can be achieved simply by their performance. Examples are the extreme ascetic practices condemned by the Buddha. Also at that time, the Brahmins had developed very complicated rituals which only they could carry out and which meant that the rest of the population had to ask the Brahmins for perform all the religious ceremonies on their behalf. "Oneself is one's own master. Who else can be the master?" (Dhp. v. 160). Source: http://sped2work.tripod.com/fetters.html Also: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/anguttara/an10-013.html Anguttara Nikaya X.13 Sanyojana Sutta Fetters "There are these ten fetters. Which ten? Five lower fetters & five higher fetters. And which are the five lower fetters? Self-identity views, uncertainty, grasping at precepts & practices, sensual desire, & ill will. These are the five lower fetters. And which are the five higher fetters? Passion for form, passion for what is formless, conceit, restlessness, & ignorance. These are the five higher fetters. And these are the ten fetters." -- Hugo From skiltonat at Cardiff.ac.uk Thu Oct 20 08:42:27 2005 From: skiltonat at Cardiff.ac.uk (Andrew Skilton) Date: Thu Oct 20 08:50:49 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat Message-ID: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 "Tom Troughton" wrote: >>My point, clearly not clearly expressed, was that when I feed my dogs they >>probably do not analyse what is in their bowl and are therefore capable of >>neither knowing nor understanding its provenance (and thereby precluding the >>possibility of their making an ethical choice). Whereas I am, and therefore the >>'bad karma' is mine. >>Andrew >Does this not remove all ethical characteristic from the action? I am under the impression that Buddhist theory does distinguish betweeen 1) actions that are to abandoned or adopted according to vow, and 2) actions that 'unmentionable', which seems to amount to a conception that some actions carry some moral power due to their nature. The power may be attenuated and so forth, but it remains. Perhaps Theravadin traditions draw this distinction differently - could someone throw some light on this? Tom, I'm sorry but I do not follow your argument here and do not recognise this aspect of Buddhist theory on the matter. So I cannot usefully respond to this bit of your message at the moment. All I can say is that there is at least one ethically significant action involved if my dogs are fed flesh, and that is in my choice to purchase this product. >You do not seem to wish to maintain this distinction, by making morality only apply to knowing and understanding, i.e. human. It appears to me that you are standing dangerously close to a slippery slope. You could move away from that slope simply by assenting that dogs do accumulate negative karma, attenuated through circumstance no doubt, but still a stain imprinted on the mind. I assume dogs do accumulate negative karma (i.e. perform unwholesome deeds) and therefore 'generate' further unpleasant experiences for themselves. As I put in a previous mail on this matter, the animal realm is considered a durgati largely because it predisposes its members to further unwholesome actions. The context for my remark above was a query from Jim about the apparent contradiction of vegetarians keeping, and therefore feeding, carnivore pets. I was not attempting to make a universal statement above the moral status of animal behaviour. Also, as I wrote a while back, I certainly do not wish to claim characteristics such as knowledge or understanding as exclusively human, but rather wanted to point out that there are a range of allegedly 'human' virtues and traits that literary Buddhist literature (perhaps as distinct from Buddhist technical literature?) regularly attribute to animals. My own limited experience confirms this possibility, and for me plays a part in my reasons for adopting vegetarianism. >This raises a question. In general do you think that the Buddhist theory of karma, an explanation of our lack of control over our experience and fate, is taught so we may assert control? Might it be taught for some other reason(s)? I thought that Buddhist teaching in this area was attempting to draw our attention to the consequences of unwholesome (akusala) action (karma) so that if we wish, we can free our selves from its consequences. Is that a 'yes'? In the academic forum Buddhist karma theory is taught for remuneration. But I perhaps wrongly have a suspicion that you meant something else here...? Andrew *********************************** Andrew Skilton *********************************** From s.hodge at padmacholing.freeserve.co.uk Thu Oct 20 08:52:15 2005 From: s.hodge at padmacholing.freeserve.co.uk (Stephen Hodge) Date: Thu Oct 20 09:00:17 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat References: Message-ID: <006801c5d585$eeb01150$937e4e51@zen> Dear all, Whiole we are at it, another related animal issue that has not been mentioned or discussed yet is the use of animals in medical experimentation and cosmetic testing. Any takers ? How, for example, might Buddhists view somebody like Christopher Reeves and the lab he funded which specialized in breaking animals backs in the hope that a way might have been found to stick his spinal cord together again ? My personal view (surprise, surprise) is that he was a selfish monster, prepared to inflict horrendous suffering on other sentient beings for his own self-indulgent ends. My partner, given to more schadenfreude than myself, actually broke into spontaneous applause when the news came in that he had died before he had achieved his goal. Also, the use of animals in warfare. This is truly distressing. Most people are completely oblivious to the widespread use and enormous death toll of animals conscripted into many wars even now. Belatedly, a beautiful and moving monument has recently been erected in London (Park Lane) to mark the sacrifice of these animals. Have other countries anything similar yet ? Best wishes, Stephen Hodge From skiltonat at Cardiff.ac.uk Thu Oct 20 08:51:54 2005 From: skiltonat at Cardiff.ac.uk (Andrew Skilton) Date: Thu Oct 20 09:00:36 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat Message-ID: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 Joy Vriens wrote: >>Andrew Skilton wrote: >>... I have also found it interesting to dwell >> on the conflict of interests or 'wills' that can occur with my cohabitants. Its >> so easy to assume that theirs are to be subsumed to mine, insofar as their's >> need be acknowledged at all. Its quite interesting to try to view my pressing >> 'needs' or wants from their perspective - as it were. >I think that is an excellent spiritual exercise. I try to do the same >with my children (though not with my wife, I tend to lose those >conflicts of interests), not forgetting that I also have a role in >setting limits and teaching them to behave in responsible ways. BTW I >find the whole issue of "will" interesting and IMO more to the point >than the self/no-self approach. Yes, now you have put in in writing, I suspect that this last point applies to me as well. The cutting edge of self/other interaction is the clash or confluence of 'will'. >But whereas I may be complemented as a very understanding and modern >father when sorting out a conflict of interests with my children in a >non-autoritarian way in a shopping mall, you may be simpy considered mad >when you have an open discussion with your dogs to sort out a conflict >of interests. ;-) Lucky kids! Don't you think there was a time not so long ago, when you too would have been considered mad! Talking to your children!! It it a further measure of my 'madness' that I think I read recently that tests have shown some dogs able to recognise a vocabulary of several hundred words? Andrew *********************************** Andrew Skilton *********************************** From s.hodge at padmacholing.freeserve.co.uk Thu Oct 20 08:35:26 2005 From: s.hodge at padmacholing.freeserve.co.uk (Stephen Hodge) Date: Thu Oct 20 09:00:49 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] on eating meat References: <8b.3246f08f.3088575b@aol.com> <001f01c5d525$6cf92260$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> Message-ID: <006701c5d585$edcc4100$937e4e51@zen> Dear Kate, > Ron, my understanding is that it would depend on the particular sect you > are talking about. ---- No, the use of meat and alcohol in some tantric rituals is normal for all Tibetan schools. > Tibetan tantric followers use non-canonical collections of religious > writings (termed tantras). --- In Tibetan terms, the tantras are entirely canonical and mainly based on Indian originals. > It would depend on which tantras this sect draws its teachings from and > how much it had been influenced by Hindu Tantrism which contains quite a > few practises which aren't acceptable by most Buddhist standards. ---- The question of who influenced who -- Hindu or Buddhist -- is complex. There seems to have been much mutual borrowing and mirroring. In my experience, the older Buddhist tantras (the "lower" tantras) seem to be largely Buddhist creations, though inevitably they draw on materials from the pan-Indian religious landscape. The so-called "higher" tantras do have varying degrees of influence from Saivite sources, but Buddhist influences also went the other way too. > which contains quite a few practises which aren't acceptable by most > Buddhist standards. --- But which eventually made up a large portion of Indian Buddhust practice and engaged the minds of many of the later major Indian Buddhist scholars. But what I do find amusing is the selective nature of these "forbidden" substances. Apart from their symbolic meaning, their use was often antinomian in nature, but included more than just convenient and palatable alcohol and meat. Many tantric rituals should properly include a healthy dose of faeces and menstrual blood -- the piss is optional. The selectivity makes me just a little suspiscious about the sincerity of the practitioners. From stefan.detrez at gmail.com Thu Oct 20 08:55:11 2005 From: stefan.detrez at gmail.com (Stefan Detrez) Date: Thu Oct 20 09:00:56 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4526ba440510200755x43bde7as@mail.gmail.com> 2005/10/20, Lawrence K. Starner : > > > I eat meat, I confess, simply because I like it. I drink a daily quantity > of wine (usually 2 glasses) in the evening, but I don't drink enough for > intoxication. I also admit that I'm ignorant and not the best Buddhist in > the world. My only redeeming factor, if any, is that I try to practice > zazen daily. I may gradually turn away from meat and alcohol as I > spiritually evolve (or not). It seems that these behaviors can best be > altered at their foundation from deep within as we change through > practice. > > -- Larry > > > It's a curious fact that few, if any, Buddhist countries are strictly > vegetarian (thanks or due to its syncretist qualities, I presume). Maybe > some folks here try to be too orthodox about the issue. Vegetarianism seems > to be mostly a monastery-kind-of-thing, and then not in all of them. I'd say > it's a personal issue whether you eat meat. Trying to change people against > their will will surely reap some bad karma, too, if you ask me. Another > thing is that the Buddha is not the kind of person who's life I would like > to imitate (read Naomi Wolf's 'Moral Saints', and all that). In fact, I'm > glad some people are willnig to take on some example without pushing their > views onto others. That's the spirit of the Buddha (unless your name is > Mahavira OR Ajita Kesakambali) > > Stefan > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20051020/60fae82d/attachment.html From horowitz at chass.utoronto.ca Thu Oct 20 12:22:15 2005 From: horowitz at chass.utoronto.ca (Gad Horowitz) Date: Thu Oct 20 09:20:10 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat References: <43576AF6.4020307@nerim.net> <008701c5d571$37c49ce0$c9754e51@zen> Message-ID: <01ed01c5d5a3$34bb41c0$7dee6480@chass> joy could still be female even though having a wife! think further about cultural preconceptions!. signed, "gad" ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stephen Hodge" To: "Buddhist discussion forum" Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2005 4:51 AM Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat > Dear Joy, > > > I try to do the same with my children (though not with my wife, I tend to > > lose those conflicts of interests). > > Aha ! All this time, because of your first name, I had been thinking you > were female ! Just goes to show how we are influenced by our cultural > preconceptions. I wonder how many other subscribers will find this a > revelation.... > > Best wishes, > Stephen Hodge > > > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From horowitz at chass.utoronto.ca Thu Oct 20 12:25:42 2005 From: horowitz at chass.utoronto.ca (Gad Horowitz) Date: Thu Oct 20 09:20:24 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat References: <43576AF6.4020307@nerim.net><008701c5d571$37c49ce0$c9754e51@zen> <4357A6C1.6080800@nerim.net> Message-ID: <021201c5d5a3$b0a4c0e0$7dee6480@chass> hey joy you should have kept them guessing ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joy Vriens" To: "Buddhist discussion forum" Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2005 7:16 AM Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat > Dear Stephen, > > > Aha ! All this time, because of your first name, I had been thinking > > you were female ! > > I am working hard at achieving a perfect balance of yin and yang (with > just that bit of extra yang to keep the missus happy), but the road to > the primeval androgyn is long and winding. My name, the name of my > grandfather, is actually a diminutive in Dutch dialect (Brabants) of > "Janus", but don't ask me how they managed to transform that into "Joy" > (pronounced "yoy"). > > > Just goes to show how we are influenced by our > > cultural preconceptions. I wonder how many other subscribers will find > > this a revelation.... > > I will let you know if more people start responding to my postings (gros > bisous, Joanna)... ;-) > > Joy > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From jwilson101 at gmail.com Thu Oct 20 09:25:33 2005 From: jwilson101 at gmail.com (Jeff Wilson) Date: Thu Oct 20 09:30:15 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Lankavatara and Shingon Sutras Message-ID: Howdy, Thanks for your clarifying posts, Stephen, good stuff. I know almost nothing about Shotoku-shu, I didn't know they're a mikkyo sect. Is there any literature on them? My comments about Shingon's multiplicity were more intended to avoid the common attitude which I encounter in my students of reifying labels and drastically simplifying multivalent traditions. "What is Zen?" "What is Presbyterianism?" etc, with little appreciation that these and other labels apply to multiple groups who have particular and differing histories, views, practices, and have in some cases verbally or physically warred with one another. I'm continually amazed by the lack of proper preparation in historical thinking which my undergrads display. I tend to wonder how they go through high school and managed to reach me in such a state. But then I teach at a large public university in the South, I don't want to assume my observations are necessarily representative of the state of American high school education as a whole. I hope not. . . Sincerely, Jeff Wilson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20051020/bd1980be/attachment.html From Jackhat1 at aol.com Thu Oct 20 09:20:29 2005 From: Jackhat1 at aol.com (Jackhat1@aol.com) Date: Thu Oct 20 09:30:29 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] karma? Message-ID: <1f0.46c22fa0.30890fbd@aol.com> In a message dated 10/20/2005 9:52:49 A.M. Central Standard Time, parisjm2004@yahoo.com writes: I can see karma as relating to something physical. I get angry - it's not good for me or, perhaps, what I'm angry at. I do something good - it's good for me and others. Fine. ====== That is all karma is. Proximate karma means that it is not good for you at that moment. Future karma means it has a future negative effect on you. What need is there for the term "karma?" Is it only because of the doctrine (dogma?) of reincarnation? Or is this an example of getting carried away with metaphysics? ===== The need for karma as a doctrine is to focus us on doing right. We don't get away with anything. Start doing a lot of little things right and its effect builds over time. First, reincarnation implies that a soul keeps on after death. This is not Buddhism. The Buddhist use of the word "rebirth" means that inclinations go on from moment to moment. Some Buddhist think this rebirth only applies after physical death. Many others such as myself believe that this rebirth is from moment to moment, right now, right here. What happens after physical death is unknown and getting carried away with metaphysics, as you say. What if one doesn't find reincarnation - or any afterlife - tenable? Is one a Buddhist, then Many Buddhists believe belief in rebirth is not necessary to be a Buddhist. Jack -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20051020/cce91b29/attachment.htm From junger at samsara.law.cwru.edu Thu Oct 20 08:40:07 2005 From: junger at samsara.law.cwru.edu (Peter D. Junger) Date: Thu Oct 20 09:41:20 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 20 Oct 2005 15:52:15 BST." <006801c5d585$eeb01150$937e4e51@zen> Message-ID: <200510201440.j9KEe8ei014355@samsara.law.cwru.edu> "Stephen Hodge" writes: : Dear all, : : Whiole we are at it, another related animal issue that has not been : mentioned or discussed yet is the use of animals in medical experimentation : and cosmetic testing. Any takers ? How, for example, might Buddhists view : somebody like Christopher Reeves and the lab he funded which specialized in : breaking animals backs in the hope that a way might have been found to stick : his spinal cord together again ? My personal view (surprise, surprise) is : that he was a selfish monster, prepared to inflict horrendous suffering on : other sentient beings for his own self-indulgent ends. My partner, given to : more schadenfreude than myself, actually broke into spontaneous applause : when the news came in that he had died before he had achieved his goal. At the Cleveland Buddhist Temple we have a tradition of conducting memorial services for animals a couple of times a year. The tradition started because some Japanese researchers at the Cleveland Clinic who were using calves to test artificial hearts wanted a way to express their thanks to the animals that were sacrificed in their research. It may also be relevant that the Cleveland Buddhist Temple is a Shin temple affiliated with the Buddhist Churches of America and that the BCA does not encourage vegetarianism, taking the position, as I understand it, that the practice is likely to encourage the belief that one can get to the pure land because of one's own moral superiority, rather than through reliance on the wisdom and compassion of Amida Buddha. And it may be relevant to that that when the Shin school was started by Shinran, its adherents were farmers and fishermen and, perhaps, bartenders who were not welcome among those more self-rightious Buddhist schools whose members, convinced of their moral suppority, ate the produce supplied by the low caste followers of Shinran. -- Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH EMAIL: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu URL: http://samsara.law.cwru.edu From jpeavler at mindspring.com Thu Oct 20 10:09:49 2005 From: jpeavler at mindspring.com (Jim Peavler) Date: Thu Oct 20 10:20:14 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: recommendations for books on Madhyamika In-Reply-To: References: <20051017144023.40801.qmail@web32604.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4353C0DF.5000404@cola.iges.org> <1289233492.20051018000855@kungzhi.org> <697c8217e913dcffa9acd5db6d248da6@earthlink.net> <53377248.20051019040852@kungzhi.org> Message-ID: <2bf3ddcbf8f3ee9238d7e636de4d7e0e@mindspring.com> Thanks very much for clarifying my rather horrifyingly sloppy posting. I should have got Joshu Sasaki Roshi and Rinzai-ji correctly, since I claim to have studied in with this particular teacher for over 20 years. I would like to personally apologize for World War II, but I have not been authorized to do so. On Oct 19, 2005, at 1:31 PM, Franz Metcalf wrote: > Gang, > > A couple of clarifications to Jim's recent post on Californian Zen, > which I append. > > 1) The words Jim quoted are Benito's, not mine, in case this was > unclear. > 2) There were some typos in Jim's message. The teacher in question is > Joshu Sasaki Roshi, and the temple is Rinzai-ji in Los Angeles. I'm > pretty sure he only later bought the land on Mt. Baldy and in New > Mexico where he founded retreat centers. > 3) We need to be careful in using a term like "Japanese Zen." The > overwhelmingly predominant form of Japanese Zen has nothing to do with > zazen at all: it is funerary Zen. > 4) Jim is right to remind the list of the variety of Zen forms in > California. There were three Japanese Roshis in California teaching to > eager and dedicated students by the early 1960s. To be sure, Alan > Watts was also here and attracting much larger audiences, but serious > practitioners had already surpassed him. > 5) Regarding the fact that "New Mexico has continued to refuse to > apologize for World War II," I expect action on this front from > Richard. > > Cheers, > > Franz > From jpeavler at mindspring.com Thu Oct 20 10:35:16 2005 From: jpeavler at mindspring.com (Jim Peavler) Date: Thu Oct 20 10:41:21 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat In-Reply-To: <0koUJTIuEtVDFwLx@clara.net> References: <5.2.1.1.0.20051018083252.0120e5f8@mail.jcu.edu.au> <43542E6A.2000403@cola.iges.org> <004101c5d38f$998b8990$a3694e51@zen> <00ca01c5d416$97a88560$7dee6480@chass> <001f01c5d407$6f592560$eed4869f@m4k8m7> <004d01c5d4e0$aa011e50$6402a8c0@gatewaycompute> <1129733231.4522.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> <0ScbFwZdjpVDFwpu@clara.net> <1129760600.6234.29.camel@localhost.localdomain> <0koUJTIuEtVDFwLx@clara.net> Message-ID: <410e2c8b97826add88644e12e1dfc813@mindspring.com> On Oct 19, 2005, at 5:05 PM, Mike Austin wrote: > > This is precisely the point. Friends of mine are vegetarians because > it appears to them, intellectually and emotionally, to be the only > way to eat that is compatible with bodhicitta. I appreciate that. All > I say is that this is not universally true, and others do not > accumulate any bad karma because they behave differently. I find two worrisome tendencies in this discussion. First, the insistence on having some text deliver the "truth" seems to be a form of literalism so seriously eschewed amongst the xian fundamentalists, and second is the notion that so long as there is no bad karma expected as a result of an action then it is OK to do it, or if there is said to be bad karma associated with an action then it is to be avoided. This is not dissimilar from xians saying that without a belief in their god no morality is possible. If any sutra actually is the words of the man called the Buddha, it would seem that one of his major lessons is to look into one's own heart and live up to the expectations developed from that to the best of one's ability. Another lesson is to associate with persons one admires and respects for the orderliness and virtue of his live (Buddha apparently didn't say "her" life). So, my (probably worthless) advice, is not to spend too much time looking around outside yourself for your "salvation". Save yourself. From jpeavler at mindspring.com Thu Oct 20 10:49:59 2005 From: jpeavler at mindspring.com (Jim Peavler) Date: Thu Oct 20 10:50:14 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5ccf44401137255c4a58b5d67ee08a56@mindspring.com> On Oct 19, 2005, at 7:02 PM, Mike Austin wrote: > > If I eat like this (not gobbling, but having no intention to harm > other beings), do I create bad karma. Or is that only for dogs? For pr*f*nity's sake, shut up and go ahead and eat meat! Anybody who talks all the time about whether eating meat can cause bad karma obviously has a hang-up about it and should not, in any circumstances, ever eat another piece of meat-- ever. I would be careful around cheese too, if I were you. From jpeavler at mindspring.com Thu Oct 20 10:43:58 2005 From: jpeavler at mindspring.com (Jim Peavler) Date: Thu Oct 20 10:50:20 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > Wed 19th October Jim Peavler wrote: > >> With no evil intentions at all I cannot help asking any vegetarian who > keeps carnivorous pets: What is better about supporting the death of > animals to feed your pets than doing so for your own food? Isn't the > effect the same? On Oct 19, 2005, at 6:30 PM, Andrew Skilton wrote: > > Your question is completely reasonable. Thank you for your very reasonable and well-considered answer. I will have to admit that my question about karma was phony since the classical notion of karma doesn't make much sense to me for humans or animals (although I do believe that bad acts usually cause suffering). From joy.vriens at nerim.net Thu Oct 20 10:40:22 2005 From: joy.vriens at nerim.net (Joy Vriens) Date: Thu Oct 20 10:50:26 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] on eating meat In-Reply-To: <7964f6db0510200748r6d6aad02q27cce3d32a735afc@mail.gmail.com> References: <5.2.1.1.0.20051018083252.0120e5f8@mail.jcu.edu.au> <43542E6A.2000403@cola.iges.org> <004101c5d38f$998b8990$a3694e51@zen> <00ca01c5d416$97a88560$7dee6480@chass> <001f01c5d407$6f592560$eed4869f@m4k8m7> <004d01c5d4e0$aa011e50$6402a8c0@gatewaycompute> <1129733231.4522.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> <0ScbFwZdjpVDFwpu@clara.net> <435766EB.1010501@nerim.net> <7964f6db0510200748r6d6aad02q27cce3d32a735afc@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4357C876.70603@nerim.net> Hello Hugo, > Rites and rituals is one of the fetters that have to be broken: I think the fetter is the attachment to rites and rituals or illusions relating to rites and rituals. I don't think it is the things one is or can be attached to that need to be broken. I was very much against rites and rituals a couple of years back and seem to be changing position on that subject. E.g. concerning eating meat, I am thinking about animist hunter cultures in which some rituals may be performed for the sake of the slaughtered animal and how actually this is perhaps a saner attitude to killing and eating animals than to be very cold and rational about it like in our contemporary civilisation with its industrialised slaughterhouses, where we can buy the meat nicely cut up and conditionned or even ready to eat, totally cut off from the traumatising reality of killing animals etc. Rites and rituals can function as a sort of reminder or reactualisation of important information, like the awareness that we owe something to the animal whose meat we eat and that being creatures ourselves it is a form of cannibalism. > 3. Silabbataparamasa means "adherence to wrongful rites, rituals and > ceremonies"...in the mistaken belief that purification can be achieved > simply by their performance. I have been told that some Buddhists believe that by sitting cross legged at certain times of the day in certain places, concentrating on their breathing and by thinking that everything is impermanent, imperfect and impersonal they can achieve nirvana. Joy From parisjm2004 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 20 11:07:12 2005 From: parisjm2004 at yahoo.com (Michael Paris) Date: Thu Oct 20 11:10:11 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051020170712.1790.qmail@web32609.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I find the idea that an animal can "accumulate karma" very puzzling. Where does the karma accumulate? For that matter, where do humans accumulate karma? If not a soul, or something else metaphysical, then where? I like Buddhism, but find the doctrinal aspects confusing to say the least. Michael --- Jim Peavler wrote: [snip] > > I will have to admit that my question about karma was phony since the > classical notion of karma doesn't make much sense to me for humans > or animals (although I do believe that bad acts usually cause > suffering). __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From eklektik at gmail.com Thu Oct 20 11:19:27 2005 From: eklektik at gmail.com (Hugo) Date: Thu Oct 20 11:21:22 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] on eating meat In-Reply-To: <4357C876.70603@nerim.net> References: <5.2.1.1.0.20051018083252.0120e5f8@mail.jcu.edu.au> <00ca01c5d416$97a88560$7dee6480@chass> <001f01c5d407$6f592560$eed4869f@m4k8m7> <004d01c5d4e0$aa011e50$6402a8c0@gatewaycompute> <1129733231.4522.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> <0ScbFwZdjpVDFwpu@clara.net> <435766EB.1010501@nerim.net> <7964f6db0510200748r6d6aad02q27cce3d32a735afc@mail.gmail.com> <4357C876.70603@nerim.net> Message-ID: <7964f6db0510201019icfe4f0ah5706a457a3cfc99e@mail.gmail.com> Hello Joy, On 10/20/05, Joy Vriens wrote: > I think the fetter is the attachment to rites and rituals or illusions > relating to rites and rituals. I don't think it is the things one is or > can be attached to that need to be broken. I was very much against rites > and rituals a couple of years back and seem to be changing position on > that subject. Of course, rites and rituals are just that, rites and rituals, it is the attachment of one wanting them to be effective or the attachment of one that makes one feel uneasy if one does not perform this or that ritual that makes suffering arise. If you understand that rites and rituals are a tool that will help you realize the Truth (that is if the rite and ritual indeed leads you in that direction) but not the Truth themselves, it is fine, there will be a time when that tool is no longer needed. Also, as long as one doesn't believe that the mere act of performing a ritual is what is effective, one is fine too. > E.g. concerning eating meat, I am thinking about That's a problem, stop thinking! > Rites and rituals can function as a sort of reminder or reactualisation > of important information, like the awareness that we owe something to > the animal whose meat we eat and that being creatures ourselves it is a > form of cannibalism. See my previous paragraphs above. > > 3. Silabbataparamasa means "adherence to wrongful rites, rituals and > > ceremonies"...in the mistaken belief that purification can be achieved > > simply by their performance. > > I have been told that some Buddhists believe that by sitting cross > legged at certain times of the day in certain places, concentrating on > their breathing and by thinking that everything is impermanent, > imperfect and impersonal they can achieve nirvana. If they are just "thinking" then I don't think it will be effective, thinking is just generating more confusion. Now if they are just watching they will probably realize some truths, and may catch a glimpse of a silent mind, then they may "enjoy" a silent mind and the silent mind may arise more frequently. Position, times and places are secondary, but of course certain positions, times and places are more useful for some than for others. -- Hugo From joy.vriens at nerim.net Thu Oct 20 11:34:44 2005 From: joy.vriens at nerim.net (Joy Vriens) Date: Thu Oct 20 11:40:11 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4357D534.5020604@nerim.net> Andrew Skilton wrote: > Lucky kids! Don't you think there was a time not so long ago, when you too > would have been considered mad! Talking to your children!! I made myself a rule that I would systematically try to answer all their Why questions, without ever qualifying them as as silly or not important. That's a hell of lot of work and often I have to admit I don't know or add lots of disclaimers! So now they are not afraid to ask anything or even to question anything. > It it a further measure of my 'madness' that I think I read recently that tests > have shown some dogs able to recognise a vocabulary of several hundred words? That's interesting, I expect that means they recognise a vocabulary of several hundreds human words, many of which probably concern "things" that are objects for humans, but not necessarily for them? Didn't Wittgenstein say that if a lion could speak our language we wouldn't understand him? Joy From rhayes at unm.edu Thu Oct 20 11:41:38 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Thu Oct 20 11:50:11 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat In-Reply-To: <20051020170712.1790.qmail@web32609.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20051020170712.1790.qmail@web32609.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1129830098.5932.1.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Thu, 2005-10-20 at 10:07 -0700, Michael Paris wrote: > For that matter, where do humans accumulate karma? I keep mine in a shed behind Jim Peavler's house. -- Richard From rhayes at unm.edu Thu Oct 20 11:44:49 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Thu Oct 20 11:50:19 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat In-Reply-To: <021201c5d5a3$b0a4c0e0$7dee6480@chass> References: <43576AF6.4020307@nerim.net> <008701c5d571$37c49ce0$c9754e51@zen> <4357A6C1.6080800@nerim.net> <021201c5d5a3$b0a4c0e0$7dee6480@chass> Message-ID: <1129830290.5932.5.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Thu, 2005-10-20 at 11:25 -0700, Gad Horowitz wrote: > hey joy you should have kept them guessing He might have fooled some of the people some of the time, but it's completely obvious from the way Joy writes that he's a bloke. You can tell by the testosteronicity of his syntax and by his big diction. -- Richard From skiltonat at Cardiff.ac.uk Thu Oct 20 13:46:46 2005 From: skiltonat at Cardiff.ac.uk (Andrew Skilton) Date: Thu Oct 20 13:50:12 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat Message-ID: Thur 20th October Jim Peavler wrote: >Thank you for your very reasonable and well-considered answer. I will have to admit that my question about karma was phony since the classical notion of karma doesn't make much sense to me for humans or animals (although I do believe that bad acts usually cause suffering). Phoney or not it was welcome. I agree that it has its limitations and like you think that bad acts cause suffering. As to the extent and mechanism of that causation, maybe our metaphors need to change with cultural and technological evolution. Andrew *********************************** Andrew Skilton *********************************** From jpeavler at mindspring.com Thu Oct 20 13:57:02 2005 From: jpeavler at mindspring.com (Jim Peavler) Date: Thu Oct 20 14:00:13 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] The world according to Buddha-heck In-Reply-To: <001c01c5c957$d8558c30$2930cece@charlie> References: <20051005015144.48488.qmail@web60012.mail.yahoo.com> <001c01c5c957$d8558c30$2930cece@charlie> Message-ID: <1a13c2d764e015bfb35e45ad5936a2a1@mindspring.com> It's probably good to see that you, unlike me, have managed to stay aloof from the silliness that has the buddha-l mailbox bursting the last few weeks. I read about one in 10 posts, but can't help responding to them. I really need more self-discipline! I recovered very well from my prostate surgery, and have been back to riding my bicycle about 60 miles/week. So I decided to take my foot by the horns and get the foot surgery I have been needing for about 5 months. So I had that done yesterday, and am now lying around the house with my raised foot in ice and Beverly waiting on me hand and -- well, waiting on me for a few days. Hope things are going well with you and the onset of winter has not been too bitter. From skiltonat at Cardiff.ac.uk Thu Oct 20 14:02:37 2005 From: skiltonat at Cardiff.ac.uk (Andrew Skilton) Date: Thu Oct 20 14:10:14 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat Message-ID: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 Joy Vriens wrote: >>Lucky kids! >I made myself a rule that I would systematically try to answer all their >Why questions, without ever qualifying them as as silly or not >important. That's a hell of lot of work and often I have to admit I >don't know or add lots of disclaimers! So now they are not afraid to ask >anything or even to question anything. You are a paragon. Very lucky kids! Admitting one doesn't know is very productive for all parties, don't you think? >> Is it a further measure of my 'madness' that I think I read recently that tests >> have shown some dogs able to recognise a vocabulary of several hundred words? >That's interesting, I expect that means they recognise a vocabulary of >several hundreds human words, many of which probably concern "things" >that are objects for humans, but not necessarily for them? Didn't >Wittgenstein say that if a lion could speak our language we wouldn't >understand him? Yes, I you are right in your interpretation of this. These were all human words that they were trained to recognise, I think. Dogs and humans have a long history of relatively intimate mutual training/conditioning, of course - unlike lions and humans. I note how much time my dogs spend studying my behaviours - I'd love to know how they interpret how I live my life. By the way, I wrote that comment on dog vocabulary 'tongue in cheek'. I hope it will not disappoint you but I do not actually talk to my dogs. Well, that's not quite true - I occasionally address them rhetorically. I guess there is a rudimentary 'body language' that we have taught each other, and which they understand better than I. Andrew *********************************** Andrew Skilton *********************************** From Jackhat1 at aol.com Thu Oct 20 14:05:53 2005 From: Jackhat1 at aol.com (Jackhat1@aol.com) Date: Thu Oct 20 14:10:21 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Vipassana? Message-ID: In a message dated 10/19/2005 2:52:53 P.M. Central Standard Time, franzmetcalf@earthlink.net writes: or even the anusatis (recollections). The absence of the latter surprises me, since the practice of recollecting the Buddha evolved into (arguably) the primary form of meditation in East Asia. But, again, perhaps I'm wrong. Now *that* would not surprise me. ==== I've been hanging around US Buddhism for over 25 years and have never run across the practice of recollecting the Buddha. I haven't found much interest in any devotional practices among Western Buddhists (which I think is fine). I would be interested in finding out if there is any canonical justification for it. Jack -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20051020/73541cd4/attachment.htm From marshallarts at bigpond.com Thu Oct 20 16:43:35 2005 From: marshallarts at bigpond.com (Kate) Date: Thu Oct 20 16:50:15 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Lankavatara and Shingon Sutras References: Message-ID: <007c01c5d5c7$b79c2900$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> >Thanks for your clarifying posts, Stephen, good stuff. I know almost nothing about Shotoku-shu, I didn't know they're a mikkyo sect. < Hi Jeff, I didn't like to mention this before as I did appreciate your response and find it useful, but contrary to what most Japanese Shingon groups believe, Chinese Chen Yen is alive and well. It went underground in China for many years but survived quite easily. Chen Yen was never big on temples, most of its monks being wandering monks, so it escaped prosecution and carried out its teachings without drawing attention to itself. It now has many temples throughout the world though like all mi chiao (mikkyo) groups keeps a low profile. In the State of California alone there are over 110 separate entities of ChenYen Orders. Regards Kate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20051021/56eeb6f4/attachment.html From jpeavler at mindspring.com Thu Oct 20 17:00:34 2005 From: jpeavler at mindspring.com (Jim Peavler) Date: Thu Oct 20 17:10:14 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] The world according to Buddha-heck In-Reply-To: <1a13c2d764e015bfb35e45ad5936a2a1@mindspring.com> References: <20051005015144.48488.qmail@web60012.mail.yahoo.com> <001c01c5c957$d8558c30$2930cece@charlie> <1a13c2d764e015bfb35e45ad5936a2a1@mindspring.com> Message-ID: I apologize that this missive, intended for a friend and fellow buddha-heckler, was somehow sent to the group instead of to the person for whom it was intended. On Oct 20, 2005, at 1:57 PM, Jim Peavler wrote: > It's probably good to see that you, unlike me, have managed to stay > aloof from the silliness that has the buddha-l mailbox bursting the > last few weeks. I read about one in 10 posts, but can't help > responding to them. I really need more self-discipline! From marshallarts at bigpond.com Thu Oct 20 17:13:21 2005 From: marshallarts at bigpond.com (Kate) Date: Thu Oct 20 17:20:20 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] on eating meat References: <8b.3246f08f.3088575b@aol.com><001f01c5d525$6cf92260$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> <006701c5d585$edcc4100$937e4e51@zen> Message-ID: <00af01c5d5cb$ddc54ea0$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> Thanks for all your corrections and comments, Stephen. Very interesting. Sounds like Ron was lucky to be offered just the meat and alcohol! > The question of who influenced who -- Hindu or Buddhist -- is complex. > There seems to have been much mutual borrowing and mirroring. Yes. I believe the term "Tantra" lit. means "That which has been brought together" and is a general title for the integrative esoteric schools of Hinduism and Buddhism. Chinese "right hand tantra" often prefers to call itself Mi Ching or Mi Chiao (J: Mikkyo) in preference to Tantra in order to distinguish itself from the Tibetan and Hindu systems as the Chinese do not go in for the sexual practices of the Hindu schools or the sexual imagery of the Tibetan. Regards Kate From marshallarts at bigpond.com Thu Oct 20 18:22:33 2005 From: marshallarts at bigpond.com (Kate) Date: Thu Oct 20 18:30:15 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Shingon sutras References: <002201c5d51d$63058080$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> <008601c5d571$36e3d9d0$c9754e51@zen> Message-ID: <000c01c5d5d5$88267820$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> > The main ones are: > 1. Mahavairocana-abhisambodhi-sutra [translated & published by me if > you're interested] > 2. Sarva-tathagata-tattva-samgraha-sutra [translated but not yet > published by me] > 3. 150 Prajnaparamita-sutra > 4. Susuddhikara-tantra [translated by me but not yet published, version > available by Giebel in BDK series] Yes I am interested in obtaining a copy of your translation of the Mahavairocana, Stephen. Could you please let me know how I can purchase a copy. Thanks! >These should be the same as in Chen-yen.< Chen-yen uses Mahavairocana and Tattvasamgraha. Regards Kate From s.hodge at padmacholing.freeserve.co.uk Thu Oct 20 18:27:35 2005 From: s.hodge at padmacholing.freeserve.co.uk (Stephen Hodge) Date: Thu Oct 20 18:30:24 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] on eating meat References: <8b.3246f08f.3088575b@aol.com><001f01c5d525$6cf92260$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au><006701c5d585$edcc4100$937e4e51@zen> <00af01c5d5cb$ddc54ea0$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> Message-ID: <008501c5d5d6$420468b0$ab794e51@zen> Dear Kate, Thanks for your appreciation. > Yes. I believe the term "Tantra" lit. means "That which has been brought > together" and is a general title for the integrative esoteric schools of > Hinduism and Buddhism. Actually, the original meaning of "tantra" is "a loom" and "a thread, especially the warp threads on a loom". From this the meaning is extended to "a continual sequence of something" -- though there are a lot of other meanings irrelevent here. The Indo-Tibetan exegetical tradition understands the term to mean "continuity", alluding to the continuity of the cause, path and result, or the continuum that exists between the Buddha level and the human level, especially in terms of body, speech and mind. > Chinese "right hand tantra" often prefers to call itself Mi Ching or Mi > Chiao (J: Mikkyo) > in preference to Tantra in order to distinguish itself from the Tibetan > and Hindu systems > as the Chinese do not go in for the sexual practices of the Hindu schools > or the sexual imagery of > the Tibetan. First, it should understood that the terms "left-hand" and right-hand" are quite inaccurate here. They are very late inventions of the colonial era in India (I think). they occur nowhere in the traditional literature. In any case, there is no such thing as "right-handed tantra" or "left-handed tantra" -- I think I discussed this a while back on this very list, so try checking the archives. But you are right about "mi-jiao / mikkyo", though I believe that these too are late inventions. Some tantras with sexual content to which you allude (eg Hevajra / Guhyasamaja) were introduced into China during the early Northern Song period, but they were both bowdlerized and virtually suppressed. The Sarva-tathagata-tattva-samgraha itself has obvious though somewhat covert sexual implications, but these were carefully ignored by the Sino-Japanese traditions. Note also the Vajra-dhatu and Garbha-dhatu / vajra and lotus symbolism -- if these are not sexual, I don't know what is, but again this understanding was carefully suppressed or ignored. The medieval Japanese Tachikawa-ryu was unique in realizing and practising the sexual aspects of these materials, but they too were suppressed though perhaps more for political reasons. Best wishes, Stephen Hodge From s.hodge at padmacholing.freeserve.co.uk Thu Oct 20 18:47:14 2005 From: s.hodge at padmacholing.freeserve.co.uk (Stephen Hodge) Date: Thu Oct 20 18:50:20 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Shingon sutras References: <002201c5d51d$63058080$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au><008601c5d571$36e3d9d0$c9754e51@zen> <000c01c5d5d5$88267820$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> Message-ID: <008a01c5d5d9$009dac80$ab794e51@zen> Dear Kate, > Yes I am interested in obtaining a copy of your translation of the > Mahavairocana, Stephen. Excellent ! Note that it also includes the entire commentary and pindartha by Buddhaguhya -- whether that makes it value for money is up to you, but see next. > Could you please let me know how I can purchase a > copy. Thanks! It is published by RoutledgeCurzon, an imprint of the Taylor and Francis group. You will therefore need to mortgage your house and sell off your children (if you have any) to raise the funds to purchase it. It can be got (probably) through Amazon -- type in my name and see what turns up :) Best wishes, Stephen Hodge From marshallarts at bigpond.com Thu Oct 20 18:39:28 2005 From: marshallarts at bigpond.com (Kate) Date: Thu Oct 20 18:50:30 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Vipassana References: <218.be9a6e3.3089041c@aol.com> Message-ID: <002201c5d5d7$e51e99c0$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> Hi Jack, >I don't know many of the meditation methods to which vipassana is being compared. But, vipassana is not "just sitting". It is a progressive training method teaching correctly and completely focusing on the arising and passing away of mental phenomena in the moment.< Pi Kuan is "wall insight" meditation and is said to be the meditation used by the early monks at the Shaolin Temple (possibly introduced by Bodhidharma). The 'wall' referred to the steep precipice opposite the temple which the monks used as a locus of sight to minimize distractions. As a result of this meditation the practitioner is said to "realise there is no Self no Other, nor can anyone or thing be distinguished from each other. Such realization frees one from the necessity of communicating exclusively through words and speech. In a silent contemplation one is in direct contact with the Dharma Principle itself, serene and beyond the creation of Klesas. Thus is the "Entering the Buddha's Path by Dharmic Principle". (from Entering the Buddha's Path, a teaching by Bodhidharma). Perhaps it isn't the same. Thanks for your reply, Jack Kate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20051021/e9919a42/attachment.htm From rhayes at unm.edu Thu Oct 20 22:18:27 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Thu Oct 20 22:20:19 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: The world according to Buddha-heck In-Reply-To: References: <20051005015144.48488.qmail@web60012.mail.yahoo.com> <001c01c5c957$d8558c30$2930cece@charlie> <1a13c2d764e015bfb35e45ad5936a2a1@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <1129868307.5030.38.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Thu, 2005-10-20 at 17:00 -0600, Jim Peavler wrote: > I apologize that this missive, intended for a friend and fellow > buddha-heckler, was somehow sent to the group instead of to the person > for whom it was intended. Although some people seem to equate moderation with censorship, one of the virtues of a fully moderated list is that it can save a poster (or heckler) the potential embarrassment of shouting to the entire universe what was intended to be whispered in a lone partially deaf ear. -- Richard From rhayes at unm.edu Thu Oct 20 22:12:16 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Thu Oct 20 22:20:31 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: buddha-l Digest, Vol 8, Issue 121 In-Reply-To: <7964f6db0510200726q64774db8m15a87273584252ab@mail.gmail.com> References: <200510201127.j9KBRgCq029790@mail2.magma.ca> <7964f6db0510200726q64774db8m15a87273584252ab@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1129867937.5030.34.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Thu, 2005-10-20 at 10:26 -0400, Hugo wrote: > All this discussion about interpretations of the Law of Kamma leads me > to understand why in the sutta of Right View it is said that believing > in the Law of Kamma is Right View with fermentations: > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn-117-tb0.html Thank you for citing this text, Hugo. It is one of the texts that has been pivotal in my understanding of kamma (poor though that understanding remains). Also pivotal was a discussion in Buddhaghosa's commentary to MN version of the sutta on the four foundations of mindfulness, in which he said, as I recall, that stream-entry consists in abandoning attachment to good conduct (siila) and vows (vata). Whenever good conduct and vows are undertaken with some notion of personal gain---that is, whenever one asks "What is in this good conduct for me---then one is attached to the good conduct. But when one just does the wholesome action because it is the wholesome action, then one is no longer attached to the wholesome action. The passage you cite from the MN does not say exactly the same thing, but it does make the point that when one is thinking in personal terms while doing wholesome actions, then one is doing contaminated (saasava) wholesome actions. This contaminated wholesomeness is a step toward doing uncontaminated wholesome actions, so one should not belittle it, but one should be aware that there is still a distance to go in being wholesome. Similar points are made almost ad nauseam in the perfection of wisdom literature. In one of his Unitarian sermons (number 160 to be precise) Emerson argues that people go seriously astray when they think of God as as external being who creates and superintends the cosmos. Rather, he says, one should understand that God is conscience. It is that within all of us that is pained when anyone is treated violently or dishonourably, and that in all of us that feels diminished by our own behavior when it falls short of our own highest standards. So God, says Emerson, is not so much the giver of particular laws but the principle of goodness that all particular laws can only imperfectly embody. (Yes, Emerson was a Platonist.) Toward this end, he quotes Socrates as saying "The gods are more pleased by our integrity than by our charity." Charity is a particular good, to be sure, but it is derivative of an overall goodness of character (susiila, as the Pali would have it) and so of lesser value than the goodness of character itself. Much of what has been said in this whole protracted discussion of whether eating (or buying) meat is bad karma has struck me as focusing on a relatively unimportant issue (the goodness of a particular action) and ignoring the more important issue of good character. When character is maximally good, I am tempted to say, the very question of whether it is acceptable to eat (or buy) the flesh of animals killed against their will ceases to arise as a question. The answer is dead obvious. Although Emerson wrote sermon CLX before he became acquainted with Buddhism, he ended the sermon with a line that any Buddhist would immediately resonate with: "The reason why so few men have found the Father is that so few men watch their own minds." (Substitute Buddha for Father, since Emerson's conception of God is so close to what Buddhists talk about in different terminology.) Seek the Buddha in the mere obedience of precepts and in other people's opinions about which actions are good and which are bad karma, and one finds a relatively unworthy shadow of the Buddha. Seek the Buddha in the mindfulness from which following precepts spontaneously flows, and one finds the Buddha. -- Richard From rhayes at unm.edu Thu Oct 20 22:30:28 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Thu Oct 20 22:40:19 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Shingon sutras In-Reply-To: <008a01c5d5d9$009dac80$ab794e51@zen> References: <002201c5d51d$63058080$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> <008601c5d571$36e3d9d0$c9754e51@zen> <000c01c5d5d5$88267820$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> <008a01c5d5d9$009dac80$ab794e51@zen> Message-ID: <1129869028.5030.47.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Fri, 2005-10-21 at 01:47 +0100, Stephen Hodge wrote: > It is published by RoutledgeCurzon, an imprint of the Taylor and Francis > group. You will therefore need to mortgage your house and sell off your > children (if you have any) to raise the funds to purchase it. We have talked about this before, but I can't resist saying yet again what a pity it is that book publishers feel they have to charge such high prices for books. There are so many books I would love to order for our library that can't be purchased because the purblind idiots who run governments in this country have slashed budgets to universities so they can fund useless and counterproductive wars. And I can't afford to buy more than a few of these books for myself on my salary. I am so thoroughly fed up with the publishing industry that I am seriously considering publishing everything else I write from now on on the Internet so that people can get it for free (which is about the right price for the quality of the work I do anyway). -- Richard From marshallarts at bigpond.com Fri Oct 21 00:34:17 2005 From: marshallarts at bigpond.com (Kate) Date: Fri Oct 21 00:40:20 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] on eating meat References: <8b.3246f08f.3088575b@aol.com><001f01c5d525$6cf92260$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au><006701c5d585$edcc4100$937e4e51@zen><00af01c5d5cb$ddc54ea0$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> <008501c5d5d6$420468b0$ab794e51@zen> Message-ID: <001701c5d609$766c83c0$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> > Actually, the original meaning of "tantra" is "a loom" and "a thread, > especially the warp threads on a loom". From this the meaning is extended > to "a continual sequence of something" -- though there are a lot of other > meanings irrelevent here. The Indo-Tibetan exegetical tradition understands > the term to mean "continuity", alluding to the continuity of the cause, path > and result, or the continuum that exists between the Buddha level and the > human level, especially in terms of body, speech and mind.< Something about all these discriptions brings to mind yoga. I'll check the archives as suggested, Stephen. And thanks for yet more fascinating info. It is truly appreciated. Regards Kate From joy.vriens at nerim.net Fri Oct 21 01:03:58 2005 From: joy.vriens at nerim.net (Joy Vriens) Date: Fri Oct 21 01:10:20 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat In-Reply-To: <021201c5d5a3$b0a4c0e0$7dee6480@chass> References: <43576AF6.4020307@nerim.net><008701c5d571$37c49ce0$c9754e51@zen> <4357A6C1.6080800@nerim.net> <021201c5d5a3$b0a4c0e0$7dee6480@chass> Message-ID: <435892DE.5090602@nerim.net> Gad Horowitz wrote: > hey joy you should have kept them guessing I had to. They were getting too excited. From joy.vriens at nerim.net Fri Oct 21 01:03:11 2005 From: joy.vriens at nerim.net (Joy Vriens) Date: Fri Oct 21 01:10:29 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] on eating meat In-Reply-To: <7964f6db0510201019icfe4f0ah5706a457a3cfc99e@mail.gmail.com> References: <5.2.1.1.0.20051018083252.0120e5f8@mail.jcu.edu.au> <00ca01c5d416$97a88560$7dee6480@chass> <001f01c5d407$6f592560$eed4869f@m4k8m7> <004d01c5d4e0$aa011e50$6402a8c0@gatewaycompute> <1129733231.4522.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> <0ScbFwZdjpVDFwpu@clara.net> <435766EB.1010501@nerim.net> <7964f6db0510200748r6d6aad02q27cce3d32a735afc@mail.gmail.com> <4357C876.70603@nerim.net> <7964f6db0510201019icfe4f0ah5706a457a3cfc99e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <435892AF.9040804@nerim.net> Hi Hugo, > If they are just "thinking" then I don't think it will be effective, > thinking is just generating more confusion. It is, you are right. But perhaps if one can think oneself in a mess, perhaps one can also think oneself out of that mess. At least that is how I see the huge effort that are the Buddhist scriptures. For starters. > Now if they are just watching they will probably realize some truths, > and may catch a glimpse of a silent mind, then they may "enjoy" a > silent mind and the silent mind may arise more frequently. All that doesn't sound very silent to me, but I see what you are hinting at. The main course. The silence without the "if...then". The native being, passivity, the insocial atemporal self, tathagatagarbha, total coincidence, dare I say the One etc. but without the noise they produce. > Position, times and places are secondary, but of course certain > positions, times and places are more useful for some than for others. In atemporal mode time and space are no reference. Apart from that they are useful for all of us. Joy From joy.vriens at nerim.net Fri Oct 21 01:19:40 2005 From: joy.vriens at nerim.net (Joy Vriens) Date: Fri Oct 21 01:20:22 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat In-Reply-To: <1129830290.5932.5.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <43576AF6.4020307@nerim.net> <008701c5d571$37c49ce0$c9754e51@zen> <4357A6C1.6080800@nerim.net> <021201c5d5a3$b0a4c0e0$7dee6480@chass> <1129830290.5932.5.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <4358968C.9080200@nerim.net> Richard P. Hayes wrote: > He might have fooled some of the people some of the time, but it's > completely obvious from the way Joy writes that he's a bloke. You can > tell by the testosteronicity of his syntax and by his big diction. I hope it won't be a cause for diction envy. From joy.vriens at nerim.net Fri Oct 21 01:13:32 2005 From: joy.vriens at nerim.net (Joy Vriens) Date: Fri Oct 21 01:20:30 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4358951C.3050400@nerim.net> Andrew Skilton wrote: > You are a paragon. Very lucky kids! Admitting one doesn't know is very > productive for all parties, don't you think? Yes, especially since it's true. And again it's part of my "guidline dogma", if you know you don't know you keep searching, it keeps you on your toes. Not to forget that whatever we think is all built on silence as Hugo says. >>That's interesting, I expect that means they recognise a vocabulary of >>several hundreds human words, many of which probably concern "things" >>that are objects for humans, but not necessarily for them? Didn't >>Wittgenstein say that if a lion could speak our language we wouldn't >>understand him? >By the way, I wrote that comment on dog vocabulary 'tongue in cheek'. I hope it > will not disappoint you but I do not actually talk to my dogs. Well, that's not > quite true - I occasionally address them rhetorically. I guess there is a > rudimentary 'body language' that we have taught each other, and which they > understand better than I. When I had a dog I did talk to him, not always verbally though. And I imagine he talked to me. It's very possible that dogs don't pick up on whatever form the "vocabulary" of the test is expressed in, but on totally different things, body language as you say, or perhaps the tester produces a certain smell etc. when thinking and expressing a word he wants the dog to understand. We never know what they do pick up on. Joy From rahula_80 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 21 01:25:15 2005 From: rahula_80 at yahoo.com (Ngawang Dorje) Date: Fri Oct 21 01:30:27 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] The Eight Strict Rules For Buddhist Nuns In-Reply-To: <007c01c5d5c7$b79c2900$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> Message-ID: <20051021072515.1175.qmail@web30208.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi, Any comment on this article? http://www.buddhistinformation.com/eight_strict_rules_for_buddhist_nuns.htm Best wishes, Rahula Kate wrote: >Thanks for your clarifying posts, Stephen, good stuff. I know almost nothing about Shotoku-shu, I didn't know they're a mikkyo sect. < Hi Jeff, I didn't like to mention this before as I did appreciate your response and find it useful, but contrary to what most Japanese Shingon groups believe, Chinese Chen Yen is alive and well. It went underground in China for many years but survived quite easily. Chen Yen was never big on temples, most of its monks being wandering monks, so it escaped prosecution and carried out its teachings without drawing attention to itself. It now has many temples throughout the world though like all mi chiao (mikkyo) groups keeps a low profile. In the State of California alone there are over 110 separate entities of ChenYen Orders. Regards Kate _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l --------------------------------- Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20051021/5e07f5fd/attachment.html From joy.vriens at nerim.net Fri Oct 21 01:47:12 2005 From: joy.vriens at nerim.net (Joy Vriens) Date: Fri Oct 21 01:50:26 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] on eating meat In-Reply-To: <006701c5d585$edcc4100$937e4e51@zen> References: <8b.3246f08f.3088575b@aol.com> <001f01c5d525$6cf92260$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> <006701c5d585$edcc4100$937e4e51@zen> Message-ID: <43589D00.1080409@nerim.net> Ames sensibles s'abstenir Stephen Hodge wrote: > But what I do find amusing is the selective nature of these "forbidden" > substances. Apart from their symbolic meaning, their use was often > antinomian in nature, but included more than just convenient and > palatable alcohol and meat. Many tantric rituals should properly > include a healthy dose of faeces and menstrual blood -- the piss is > optional. The selectivity makes me just a little suspiscious about the > sincerity of the practitioners. Since my lunch hour is not due immediately, I take the liberty of pointing out that the French 17th century quietist, Madame Guyon, was in fact a closet Tantrist and not a fake one like the ones you are alluding at. Others qualified her not as a quietist or a mystic but as half-mad or mad. She imposed all sorts of mortifications on herself, including one of swallowing juicy gobs on the street to break her attraction/repulsion, in which according to herself she succeeded. Joy From jpeavler at mindspring.com Fri Oct 21 05:31:59 2005 From: jpeavler at mindspring.com (Jim Peavler) Date: Fri Oct 21 05:40:30 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: The world according to Buddha-heck In-Reply-To: <1129868307.5030.38.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <20051005015144.48488.qmail@web60012.mail.yahoo.com> <001c01c5c957$d8558c30$2930cece@charlie> <1a13c2d764e015bfb35e45ad5936a2a1@mindspring.com> <1129868307.5030.38.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: Well, it is OK. I would never heckle behind one's back what I would be willing to heckle to her face. I believe I didn't say anything in private that I haven't pretty clearly said on the list. I same most of my most embarrassing moments to share with buddha-l. On Oct 20, 2005, at 10:18 PM, Richard P. Hayes wrote: > On Thu, 2005-10-20 at 17:00 -0600, Jim Peavler wrote: > >> I apologize that this missive, intended for a friend and fellow >> buddha-heckler, was somehow sent to the group instead of to the person >> for whom it was intended. > > Although some people seem to equate moderation with censorship, one of > the virtues of a fully moderated list is that it can save a poster (or > heckler) the potential embarrassment of shouting to the entire universe > what was intended to be whispered in a lone partially deaf ear. > > -- > Richard > > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l > From shian at kmspks.org Fri Oct 21 05:27:09 2005 From: shian at kmspks.org (NamoAmituofo) Date: Fri Oct 21 07:33:16 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Is Vegetarianism Extreme? Message-ID: <000e01c5d632$5fdbb3f0$7f7ba8c0@temple.kmspks.org> Skipped content of type multipart/alternative-------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 5350 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20051021/ac248e06/attachment-0001.gif -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 15076 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20051021/ac248e06/attachment-0001.jpe From jchamberl at cox.net Fri Oct 21 06:27:20 2005 From: jchamberl at cox.net (John Chamberlin) Date: Fri Oct 21 07:33:49 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] The authentic Buddha Message-ID: I have a question for those of you on this list that have an ongoing Buddhist Practice and have found refuge in that practice, and also at least flirt with Relativism. I seem to have this persistent and often frustrating belief that authenticity of a religious body of knowledge/ practice can only be ?real? if it constitutes an absolute in the world?a Meta Theory in Postmodernist language. Strange I know, but nevertheless a source of great struggle for me, and although I persist in my practice, and seem to seldom stray from the Eight-Fold Path, it often feels as if I?m practicing an act of bad faith in the 19th century Existentialist sense of the term. This bad faith coupled with my long-standing attraction to all forms of Relativism in general, results in producing a rather breezy religious refuge for me. The Question: How does one find authenticity in any system of beliefs/practices if there are no absolutes? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20051021/05a43b42/attachment.html From junger at samsara.law.cwru.edu Fri Oct 21 06:44:55 2005 From: junger at samsara.law.cwru.edu (Peter D. Junger) Date: Fri Oct 21 07:50:31 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: The world according to Buddha-heck In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 20 Oct 2005 22:18:27 MDT." <1129868307.5030.38.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <200510211244.j9LCitu2020759@samsara.law.cwru.edu> "Richard P. Hayes" writes: : On Thu, 2005-10-20 at 17:00 -0600, Jim Peavler wrote: : : > I apologize that this missive, intended for a friend and fellow : > buddha-heckler, was somehow sent to the group instead of to the person : > for whom it was intended. : : Although some people seem to equate moderation with censorship, one of : the virtues of a fully moderated list is that it can save a poster (or : heckler) the potential embarrassment of shouting to the entire universe : what was intended to be whispered in a lone partially deaf ear. But that only works if the moderator knows that the intent was to whisper to one rather than shout to all. -- Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH EMAIL: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu URL: http://samsara.law.cwru.edu From wongwf at comp.nus.edu.sg Fri Oct 21 07:51:50 2005 From: wongwf at comp.nus.edu.sg (Wong Weng Fai) Date: Fri Oct 21 08:00:27 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] The authentic Buddha In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, 21 Oct 2005, John Chamberlin wrote: > The Question: How does one find authenticity in any system of > beliefs/practices if there are no absolutes? In your heart. W.F. Wong From horowitz at chass.utoronto.ca Fri Oct 21 11:23:01 2005 From: horowitz at chass.utoronto.ca (Gad Horowitz) Date: Fri Oct 21 08:20:27 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat References: Message-ID: <003501c5d664$18d1bf40$7dee6480@chass> and good acts can cause suffering too, no? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Peavler" To: "Buddhist discussion forum" Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2005 9:43 AM Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat > > > > Wed 19th October Jim Peavler wrote: > > > >> With no evil intentions at all I cannot help asking any vegetarian who > > keeps carnivorous pets: What is better about supporting the death of > > animals to feed your pets than doing so for your own food? Isn't the > > effect the same? > > On Oct 19, 2005, at 6:30 PM, Andrew Skilton wrote: > > > > > Your question is completely reasonable. > > Thank you for your very reasonable and well-considered answer. I will > have to admit that my question about karma was phony since the > classical notion of karma doesn't make much sense to me for humans or > animals (although I do believe that bad acts usually cause suffering). > > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From horowitz at chass.utoronto.ca Fri Oct 21 11:24:23 2005 From: horowitz at chass.utoronto.ca (Gad Horowitz) Date: Fri Oct 21 08:20:35 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat References: <20051020170712.1790.qmail@web32609.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <004101c5d664$494ec5a0$7dee6480@chass> humans accumulate karma in the recurrent bodymind, no? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Paris" To: "Buddhist discussion forum" Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2005 10:07 AM Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat > I find the idea that an animal can "accumulate karma" very puzzling. > Where does the karma accumulate? > > For that matter, where do humans accumulate karma? If not a soul, or > something else metaphysical, then where? > > I like Buddhism, but find the doctrinal aspects confusing to say the > least. > > > > Michael > > > --- Jim Peavler wrote: > > [snip] > > > > I will have to admit that my question about karma was phony since > the > > classical notion of karma doesn't make much sense to me for humans > > or animals (although I do believe that bad acts usually cause > > suffering). > > > > > > __________________________________ > Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 > http://mail.yahoo.com > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From stefan.detrez at gmail.com Fri Oct 21 09:13:37 2005 From: stefan.detrez at gmail.com (Stefan Detrez) Date: Fri Oct 21 09:20:31 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] The authentic Buddha In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4526ba440510210813k3f52f1b6j@mail.gmail.com> > > > The Question: How does one find authenticity in any system of > > beliefs/practices if there are no absolutes? The authenticity comes through one's own untainted experience of reality. Don't look for it, it will come from practice. Plus, looking for authenticity is basically an example of essentialist thinking. Stefan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20051021/323436a8/attachment.html From Jackhat1 at aol.com Fri Oct 21 09:18:02 2005 From: Jackhat1 at aol.com (Jackhat1@aol.com) Date: Fri Oct 21 09:21:41 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Vipassana Message-ID: <54.4f0a7b16.308a60aa@aol.com> In a message dated 10/20/2005 8:52:16 P.M. Central Standard Time, marshallarts@bigpond.com writes: >I don't know many of the meditation methods to which vipassana is being compared. But, vipassana is not "just sitting". It is a progressive training method teaching correctly and completely focusing on the arising and passing away of mental phenomena in the moment.< Pi Kuan is "wall insight" meditation and is said to be the meditation used by the early monks at the Shaolin Temple (possibly introduced by Bodhidharma). The 'wall' referred to the steep precipice opposite the temple which the monks used as a locus of sight to minimize distractions. As a result of this meditation the practitioner is said to "realise there is no Self no Other, nor can anyone or thing be distinguished from each other. Such realization frees one from the necessity of communicating exclusively through words and speech. In a silent contemplation one is in direct contact with the Dharma Principle itself, serene and beyond the creation of Klesas. Thus is the "Entering the Buddha's Path by Dharmic Principle". (from Entering the Buddha's Path, a teaching by Bodhidharma). Perhaps it isn't the same. ==== Kate, It is very different. This isn't to imply it is better. Be well. Jack -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20051021/93fc9b7b/attachment.htm From rhayes at unm.edu Fri Oct 21 09:29:51 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Fri Oct 21 09:30:33 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] On being andogynous In-Reply-To: <4358968C.9080200@nerim.net> References: <43576AF6.4020307@nerim.net> <008701c5d571$37c49ce0$c9754e51@zen> <4357A6C1.6080800@nerim.net> <021201c5d5a3$b0a4c0e0$7dee6480@chass> <1129830290.5932.5.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4358968C.9080200@nerim.net> Message-ID: <1129908592.4559.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Fri, 2005-10-21 at 09:19 +0200, Joy Vriens wrote: > I hope it won't be a cause for diction envy. Don't forget what's mightier than the sword. The pen is. Say, Joy, do you remember our old friend Kevin, the Genius? He was haunting buddha-l about ten years ago. His mission was to cleanse the list of all the pseudo-buddhist elements (of which I was one in particular need of being purged). It was obvious after a while that he just was not going to engage in any kind of discussion with me, so I invented a new identity, just for the sake of debating him. The name I chose was my paternal grandfather's first name and my mother's maiden name, so I signed on as Cary Schooley. It was obvious to me that Cary Schooley was a fellow, but about half the list thought Cary was a female graduate student. Rumours began to fly that this Cary Schooley was having a wild affair with Professor Hayes. I think you were one of the first to catch on that Cary was none other than moi, El Coyote. One of the funniest things to emerge from that experiment in virtual shape- shifting was that a well-known professor of Buddhism, whose name shall remain undisclosed, began to write Cary a flurry of very flirtatious missives. (I've been blackmailing him ever since, which explains how I can manage to live on a meager professor's salary.) It was an eye- opening experience for me in that it gave me some insight into all the crap women have to put up with from predatory old men. (I'm an old man, but I'm in the post-dating phase of life, not the predating phase.) -- Richard From jwilson101 at gmail.com Fri Oct 21 09:26:31 2005 From: jwilson101 at gmail.com (Jeff Wilson) Date: Fri Oct 21 09:30:45 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Chen Yen survival or revival? Message-ID: Dear Kate, Stephen, and the list, I'm intrigued by the recent exchange on Chen Yen's survival, and am wondering if differing opinions arise from differing ways of conceiving/perceiving Chinese Buddhism past and present, or if someone (probably me) is simply misinformed. Could you provide some more information about modern-day Chen Yen groups? Kate, you said that they "went underground in China for many years but survived quite easily." Do you mean they went underground recently during the Community period? I didn't think Chen Yen was alive at the start of the revolution. Also, you said there are over 110 Chen Yen temples in California. Do you primarily mean temples in recently created Buddhist New Religious Movements, like the Purple Lotus Society? China isn't my area of research so I'm intrigued to learn if I've been misinstructed about the history of esoteric Buddhism there. My understanding is that for centuries Chan has been the only Chinese monastic lineage, and that therefore technically all Chinese monks have been Chan monks. Chan itself absorbed most of the earlier currents within Chinese Buddhism, such that any given Chan monk might have a ritual specialty/philosophical preference for Pure Land, esoteric, or other elements which in earlier times (and later Japan) constituted relatively independent movements. Drawing on this situation, my understanding then is that Chen Yen died out as a viable school a long time ago, but, as I said in my initial post, esoteric rituals, texts, and ideas continued to circulate widely within "Chan" Buddhism and are common today. Among the various implications of this conceptualization is the understanding that the Chinese esoteric temples which has sprung up lately on the American West Coast (and elsewhere--I've visited a half dozen in New York City alone, and others in unlikely places such as the western mountains of North Carolina) are not the direct lineal descendants of Chen Yen orders which somehow managed to remain intact and healthy through the Sung and following periods, but rather are recent innovations that draw heavily on Tibetan Buddhism and fall under the catagory of Buddhist New Religious Movements, much like Falun Dafa, Agon Shu, Soka Gakkai, etc. If I am incorrect in general or in particulars here, would listmembers please disabuse (or, as often happens to Buddha-l discussants, abuse) me? As I said, China is not my area of expertise, and I'm happy to be corrected and set right. What I'm not happy to do is hold incorrect notions about Chinese Buddhist history, for while I'm not called to teach on it, I do regularly get asked general questions about things outside my expertise. Many thanks in advance. Sincerely, Jeff Wilson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20051021/2ad0c522/attachment.html From rhayes at unm.edu Fri Oct 21 09:50:20 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Fri Oct 21 09:50:27 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: The world according to Buddha-heck In-Reply-To: <200510211244.j9LCitu2020759@samsara.law.cwru.edu> References: <200510211244.j9LCitu2020759@samsara.law.cwru.edu> Message-ID: <1129909821.4559.21.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Fri, 2005-10-21 at 08:44 -0400, Peter D. Junger wrote: > : Although some people seem to equate moderation with censorship, one of > : the virtues of a fully moderated list is that it can save a poster (or > : heckler) the potential embarrassment of shouting to the entire universe > : what was intended to be whispered in a lone partially deaf ear. > > But that only works if the moderator knows that the intent was to > whisper to one rather than shout to all. Now you understand why I only let those who have developed telepathic powers serve as moderators on buddha-l. (Of course, I didn't have to tell you this by e-mail, since you will have read my mind long before I can type this message.) -- Richard Hayes Department of Philosophy University of New Mexico From curt at cola.iges.org Fri Oct 21 08:15:43 2005 From: curt at cola.iges.org (curt) Date: Fri Oct 21 09:56:59 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] The authentic Buddha In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4358F80F.3030008@cola.iges.org> I not only flirt with Relativism but I have a committed long-term relationship with her (I like to think of Relativism as a her - and because she is Relativism I can do that). There is a beautiful Chinese poem most widely known by its Japanese title, the "Sandokai" - in English usually rendered something like "The Harmony of Difference and Sameness". Shunryu Suzuki delivered a series of lectures on the poem that have been collected in a book: "Branching Streams Flow in the Darkness". One might say that this poem teaches that what we observe as "opposites" are not necessarily "in opposition" to each other. Or, as the poem states more elegantly: "Light and Dark oppose one another / like the front and back foot in walking." Although the Relative and the Absolute seem to "oppose" one another - maybe they are really working together (like "front and back foot in walking")? But if you like movies you should check out "I Heart Huckabees". The movie even uses the word "existential" a lot (as in "existential detectives"). It is slyly antinomian in its conclusion - but I won't give it away. If someone tried to make a movie based on the Sandokai they would, if they were lucky, end up making a movie like "I Heart Huckabees". And it has Lily Tomlin in it! And if you aren't already you should try to familiarize yourself with the Buddhist teaching usually referred to as "the two truths". An easy place to start for that is to google it: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22two+truths%22+buddhism&btnG=Google+Search - Curt John Chamberlin wrote: > I have a question for those of you on this list that have an ongoing > Buddhist Practice and have found refuge in that practice, and also at > least flirt with Relativism. I seem to have this persistent and often > frustrating belief that authenticity of a religious body of > knowledge/practice can only be ?real? if it constitutes an absolute in > the world?a Meta Theory in Postmodernist language. Strange I know, but > nevertheless a source of great struggle for me, and although I persist > in my practice, and seem to seldom stray from the Eight-Fold Path, it > often feels as if I?m practicing an act of bad faith in the 19th > century Existentialist sense of the term. This bad faith coupled with > my long-standing attraction to all forms of Relativism in general, > results in producing a rather breezy religious refuge for me. The > Question: How does one find authenticity in any system of > beliefs/practices if there are no absolutes? > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >buddha-l mailing list >buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com >http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l > > From jpeavler at mindspring.com Fri Oct 21 10:32:50 2005 From: jpeavler at mindspring.com (Jim Peavler) Date: Fri Oct 21 10:41:39 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] The authentic Buddha In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Oct 21, 2005, at 6:27 AM, John Chamberlin wrote: > The Question: How does one find authenticity in any system of > beliefs/practices if there are no absolutes?? Since I am a person for whom absolutes make no sense at all, and for whom absolutes seem to me to be impossible of existence, I am probably not the right person to answer this. However, for myself, I have found that years and years of meditating over an hour each day, on as close to absolutely nothing as I can come, I have taken great solace in the nothingness of meditating. It has come to pass that I do not need to meditate in a formal way very often any more, but, simply by taking two or three slow deep breaths I can get in touch with whatever it is (or isn't) that gives me strength and encouragement. As for my behavior, I try, like you, to live according to the lay precepts and a handful of the monastic ones that make sense to me, and I try to take full responsibility for my actions without subscribing to any "absolute" standard. In my opinion, (and, it seems to me to be within the Buddhist framework) a person has to work at a rather deep level within one's own self and one's own experience. The more serious a person is about living that life, and the harder one works to emulate persons whom one admires and to live up to one's own expectations of morality and compassion, the closer one comes to living a moral life. I think that is as close as a person can come, because, no matter how much closer one comes to one's ideal, experience causes the target to move, and one must not have any idea of "achieving" any particular state, but must be willing to understand that life is an activity and a process, and (in my humble opinion) cannot have any particular goal, especially an "absolute" one. From joy.vriens at nerim.net Fri Oct 21 11:10:31 2005 From: joy.vriens at nerim.net (Joy Vriens) Date: Fri Oct 21 11:21:41 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] On being andogynous In-Reply-To: <1129908592.4559.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <43576AF6.4020307@nerim.net> <008701c5d571$37c49ce0$c9754e51@zen> <4357A6C1.6080800@nerim.net> <021201c5d5a3$b0a4c0e0$7dee6480@chass> <1129830290.5932.5.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4358968C.9080200@nerim.net> <1129908592.4559.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <43592107.2040507@nerim.net> Richard wrote: > On Fri, 2005-10-21 at 09:19 +0200, Joy Vriens wrote: > > >>I hope it won't be a cause for diction envy. > > > Don't forget what's mightier than the sword. The pen is. pen is pen i pen im pen i pen es pen ium pen ibus pen es pen ibus (trying desperately to keep it up, the level of this message that is) Anyway I guess we'd have to say that the tv is mightier than the sword nowadays. > Say, Joy, do you remember our old friend Kevin, the Genius? He was > haunting buddha-l about ten years ago. His mission was to cleanse the > list of all the pseudo-buddhist elements (of which I was one in > particular need of being purged). Ten years already? Yes I remember him and his friend Quinn. It's when you tried to create a schism between them (with some success) that they finally left. I have never understood what their mission was, but they went on about *the* Truth and Reason and they were very much into Kierkegaard. > It was obvious after a while that he > just was not going to engage in any kind of discussion with me, so I > invented a new identity, just for the sake of debating him. The name I > chose was my paternal grandfather's first name and my mother's maiden > name, so I signed on as Cary Schooley. It was obvious to me that Cary > Schooley was a fellow, but about half the list thought Cary was a female > graduate student. Rumours began to fly that this Cary Schooley was > having a wild affair with Professor Hayes. I think you were one of the > first to catch on that Cary was none other than moi, El Coyote. They say it takes one with a big diction to recognise one with a big diction. Wasn't this Cary traveling all around the world visiting various list members at one point and wasn't she a bit flirtatious herself? > One of > the funniest things to emerge from that experiment in virtual shape- > shifting was that a well-known professor of Buddhism, whose name shall > remain undisclosed, began to write Cary a flurry of very flirtatious > missives. (I've been blackmailing him ever since, which explains how I > can manage to live on a meager professor's salary.) It was an eye- > opening experience for me in that it gave me some insight into all the > crap women have to put up with from predatory old men. (I'm an old man, > but I'm in the post-dating phase of life, not the predating phase.) I'm sure that if this professor is old now, he won't mind you mention him. It will make him feel young again and he'll probably have a hearty laugh about it himself. It might even boost the sale of his books. Come on, be a sport. From michaeljameswilson at yahoo.com Fri Oct 21 11:11:11 2005 From: michaeljameswilson at yahoo.com (Michael J. Wilson) Date: Fri Oct 21 11:21:50 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: buddha-l Digest, Vol 8, Issue 132 In-Reply-To: <200510211533.j9LFXEig005381@ns1.swcp.com> Message-ID: <20051021171112.52336.qmail@web34108.mail.mud.yahoo.com> The authenticity exists in the buddha, the dharma and the spiritual community (the sangha) and in your spiritual teacher, who represents the embodiment of this triple gem. It also exists in what transpires when you are sitting practicing mindfulness of breathing meditation. Find a middle path between absolutes and relativism, emptiness and eternalism. Call it compassion. Michael J. Wilson (Sadag Jungpo Chime) Message: 1 Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 05:27:20 -0700 From: John Chamberlin Subject: [Buddha-l] The authentic Buddha To: Buddhist Discussion Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" I have a question for those of you on this list that have an ongoing Buddhist Practice and have found refuge in that practice, and also at least flirt with Relativism. I seem to have this persistent and often frustrating belief that authenticity of a religious body of knowledge/ practice can only be ?real? if it constitutes an absolute in the world a Meta Theory in Postmodernist language. Strange I know, but nevertheless a source of great struggle for me, and although I persist in my practice, and seem to seldom stray from the Eight-Fold Path, it often feels as if I?m practicing an act of bad faith in the 19th century Existentialist sense of the term. This bad faith coupled with my long-standing attraction to all forms of Relativism in general, results in producing a rather breezy religious refuge for me. The Question: How does one find authenticity in any system of beliefs/practices if there are no absolutes? -------------- next part -------------- --------------------------------- Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20051021/5f3cb2b0/attachment-0001.htm From Jackhat1 at aol.com Fri Oct 21 11:48:12 2005 From: Jackhat1 at aol.com (Jackhat1@aol.com) Date: Fri Oct 21 11:50:31 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] The authentic Buddha Message-ID: <1ff.cba23e2.308a83dc@aol.com> In a message dated 10/21/2005 12:26:14 P.M. Central Standard Time, stefan.detrez@gmail.com writes: > The Question: How does one find authenticity in any system of > beliefs/practices if there are no absolutes? === I wonder if one can find authenticity in any belief. Jack -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20051021/b35dab50/attachment.html From Jackhat1 at aol.com Fri Oct 21 11:46:22 2005 From: Jackhat1 at aol.com (Jackhat1@aol.com) Date: Fri Oct 21 11:50:37 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] On being andogynous Message-ID: <20e.c446b80.308a836e@aol.com> In a message dated 10/21/2005 12:24:28 P.M. Central Standard Time, joy.vriens@nerim.net writes: > Say, Joy, do you remember our old friend Kevin, the Genius? He was > haunting buddha-l about ten years ago. His mission was to cleanse the > list of all the pseudo-buddhist elements (of which I was one in > particular need of being purged). Ten years already? Yes I remember him and his friend Quinn. It's when you tried to create a schism between them (with some success) that they finally left. I have never understood what their mission was, but they went on about *the* Truth and Reason and they were very much into Kierkegaard. === I remember both well but I think it was on the insight list not this one. I had thought Quinn and Kevin were the same person; one created to bolster the arguments of the other. I remember Quinn insisting he was enlightened. Bad tempered, argumentive but enlightened. Jack -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20051021/e03fbb6b/attachment.htm From eklektik at gmail.com Fri Oct 21 11:53:54 2005 From: eklektik at gmail.com (Hugo) Date: Fri Oct 21 12:00:41 2005 Subject: kamma, skilfull questions (was: Re: [Buddha-l] Re: buddha-l Digest, Vol 8, Issue 121) Message-ID: <7964f6db0510211053y70dc95d1lf50fdd2d1040fe17@mail.gmail.com> Hello Richard, On 10/21/05, Richard P. Hayes wrote: > On Thu, 2005-10-20 at 10:26 -0400, Hugo wrote: > > > All this discussion about interpretations of the Law of Kamma leads me > > to understand why in the sutta of Right View it is said that believing > > in the Law of Kamma is Right View with fermentations: > > > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn-117-tb0.html > > Thank you for citing this text, Hugo. It is one of the texts that has > been pivotal in my understanding of kamma (poor though that > understanding remains). This sutta was pointed out to me by a bhikkhu when some discussions about rebirth, kamma and related issues arose. Since then I keep it handy whenever I am somehow involved in such kind of discussions, as I think it completely drives the nail through. > Also pivotal was a discussion in Buddhaghosa's > commentary to MN version of the sutta on the four foundations of > mindfulness, in which he said, as I recall, that stream-entry consists > in abandoning attachment to good conduct (siila) and vows (vata). > Whenever good conduct and vows are undertaken with some notion of > personal gain---that is, whenever one asks "What is in this good conduct > for me---then one is attached to the good conduct. But when one just > does the wholesome action because it is the wholesome action, then one > is no longer attached to the wholesome action. I realized that too, if you perform the action in hopes of getting something out of it, it is greed (lobha) the motivation making the action automatically unwholesome as the root is an unwholesome root. That's why it is important to encourage the development of Karuna (compassion) and Metta (loving-friendliness), so the actions that one performs are based on wholesome roots, ergo they are kusala (skilfull) and not akusala (unskilfull) > Much of what has been said in this whole protracted discussion of > whether eating (or buying) meat is bad karma has struck me as focusing > on a relatively unimportant issue (the goodness of a particular action) > and ignoring the more important issue of good character. I think it is simpler than that, as I said, what is the root of not stoping eating meat?, if that root is greed, hated or delusion, it is an unwholesome action, period. No need to try to justify it. The problem is that the mind is excellent in finding justifications, that's why we should not fall in its intellectual game of making rationalizations of this or that, or somebody said this and somebody said that, and look, even somebody else does it. The teachings of the Buddha are deep, but I don't think they are complex, a defiled mind makes them complex. > When character > is maximally good, I am tempted to say, the very question of whether it > is acceptable to eat (or buy) the flesh of animals killed against their > will ceases to arise as a question. The answer is dead obvious. As always, knowing what questions to make and how to make them will automatically provide the answers, no need to worry for finding the answers, it is better to find what should be asked, when and how. BTW, in that topic I recommend: Questions of Skill by Thanissaro Bhikkhu http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/questions.html Greetings, -- Hugo From eklektik at gmail.com Fri Oct 21 12:07:02 2005 From: eklektik at gmail.com (Hugo) Date: Fri Oct 21 12:10:33 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] on eating meat In-Reply-To: <435892AF.9040804@nerim.net> References: <5.2.1.1.0.20051018083252.0120e5f8@mail.jcu.edu.au> <004d01c5d4e0$aa011e50$6402a8c0@gatewaycompute> <1129733231.4522.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> <0ScbFwZdjpVDFwpu@clara.net> <435766EB.1010501@nerim.net> <7964f6db0510200748r6d6aad02q27cce3d32a735afc@mail.gmail.com> <4357C876.70603@nerim.net> <7964f6db0510201019icfe4f0ah5706a457a3cfc99e@mail.gmail.com> <435892AF.9040804@nerim.net> Message-ID: <7964f6db0510211107g38bdf16dud087521ab28a7f59@mail.gmail.com> Hello Joy, Hugo: > > Now if they are just watching they will probably realize some truths, > > and may catch a glimpse of a silent mind, then they may "enjoy" a > > silent mind and the silent mind may arise more frequently. Joy: > All that doesn't sound very silent to me, but I see what you are hinting > at. The main course. The silence without the "if...then". The native > being, passivity, the insocial atemporal self, tathagatagarbha, total > coincidence, dare I say the One etc. but without the noise they produce. Hugo: Try it. It may take a while, but it really is silent, unfortunately the moment I notice "Hey it is silent", the silence is broken, so I need to get better at that. -- Hugo From rhayes at unm.edu Fri Oct 21 13:35:05 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Fri Oct 21 13:40:32 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: On being androgynous In-Reply-To: <20e.c446b80.308a836e@aol.com> References: <20e.c446b80.308a836e@aol.com> Message-ID: <1129923306.10655.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Fri, 2005-10-21 at 13:46 -0400, Jackhat1@aol.com wrote: > === > I remember both well but I think it was on the insight list not this > one. I had thought Quinn and Kevin were the same person; one created > to bolster the arguments of the other. I remember Quinn insisting he > was enlightened. Bad tempered, argumentive but enlightened. Bad tempered, argumentative AND deeply misogynist. (David said right here on buddha-l that only two or three women in the history of the human race had an IQ slightly above that of a potato.) They were on buddha-l until I kicked them off. Then they went to the buddhist@listserv.mcgill.ca list, which no longer exists. After that, they went to the insight list. At one point they admitted they were on a mission to "clean up" all the lists that claimed to be about Buddhism. They were convinced that no monk, no lama, no roshi, no academic and no mere practitioner understands Buddhism correctly. Eventually it became clear that in their view not even the Buddha had understood Buddhism correctly. These fellows had a lot of correcting to do. Anyone interested in catching the latest on David Quinn and Kevin Solway (they're still a team) can read up on their latest attempts to bring their incomparable enlightenment to this sad and confused planet at http://www.theabsolute.net. There are even lots of pictures of these two fellows. They both forty-something now and still enlightened to a degree that only three of four other people in the history of the universe have been. Or so they say. And if what they are what they claim to be, they should know, eh? -- Richard From jpeavler at mindspring.com Fri Oct 21 14:01:33 2005 From: jpeavler at mindspring.com (Jim Peavler) Date: Fri Oct 21 14:10:31 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] On being andogynous In-Reply-To: <1129908592.4559.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <43576AF6.4020307@nerim.net> <008701c5d571$37c49ce0$c9754e51@zen> <4357A6C1.6080800@nerim.net> <021201c5d5a3$b0a4c0e0$7dee6480@chass> <1129830290.5932.5.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4358968C.9080200@nerim.net> <1129908592.4559.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: On Oct 21, 2005, at 9:29 AM, Richard P. Hayes wrote: > > > Say, Joy, do you remember our old friend Kevin, the Genius? Alas, I remember. Wasn't he from Australia or some horrid place? From mike at lamrim.org.uk Fri Oct 21 14:46:11 2005 From: mike at lamrim.org.uk (Mike Austin) Date: Fri Oct 21 14:51:42 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In message , Andrew Skilton writes >Thu, 20 Oct 2005 Mike Austin wrote: > >>However, I still read the meat-eating as something that may degrade the >>individual - not something of karmic (blameable) nature. For example, it >>seems that it may be put on a par with uncleanliness, laziness, lack of >>self-discipline and so on. > >Mike, I am fascinated by the distinctions you are making here and would like to >see how you would elaborate the difference between degradation of the >individual >and actions of a karmic nature. Good. All I am seeking to do is to try and 'unpack' what goes on here - what interwoven causes and results are at play and how an individual can decide for him/herself where their responsibilities are. >I take your list of 'individual degradations' to be actions that only (or >primarily) affect the person who performs them. If so I would agree that these >are probably of a different moral significance (tho still of a 'karmic nature') >to actions that primarily affect others Yes, that's good. I am beginning to think that there could be something about eating meat that affects the individual in a more subtle sense. >- but the case of eating meat is one >which has drastic effects on others (the slaughtered animals) and therefore >cannot be classed as merely an 'individual degradation'. This is where I disagree, but nobody challenges me directly on the point that I am making. People seem to be lumping together several actions and events. Eating meat is just that. Killing is just that. Even if one has killed to eat meat, the non-virtue is in the act of killing - not in the act of eating. Furthermore, buying meat is just that. If someone should kill afterwards because one eats meat, that would be a non-virtue. Then, if one asks them to do this, one is also acting non-virtuously. Forget meat-eating for the moment. People seem to ignore the points I am making because this is an emotive issue. Consider the general case where one person acts on another's behalf, without being ordered, requested or hinted to do so, and with no intention in the mind of the benefactor. Is the benefactor of that act responsible for it? >If I disdain to wash such that I stink out the dharma hall and distract my >fellow practitioners from the golden words of the guru, you could argue that >there is only minor blame to me if I do not understand the effects of my aroma. >But if I understand that my smell is having that effect, then surely the >significance of my not washing in that situation is different? The action - your action - causes discomfort directly. I would say, yes, it is your cause and your responsibility. This would be a 'complete act' in the karmic sense if there was an intention to do it and 'delight' in seeing it through. (This is what I have heard. I have yet to understand the status of 'complete' and 'incomplete' actions.) -- Metta Mike Austin From s.hodge at padmacholing.freeserve.co.uk Fri Oct 21 14:53:33 2005 From: s.hodge at padmacholing.freeserve.co.uk (Stephen Hodge) Date: Fri Oct 21 15:00:34 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: +AFs-Buddha-l+AF0- Re: On being androgynous References: +ADw-20e.c446b80.308a836e+AEA-aol.com+AD4- +ADw-1129923306.10655.13.camel+AEA-localhost.localdomain+AD4- Message-ID: <004901c5d681$8082fb00$ccb74c51@zen> Dear Richard, +AD4- Anyone interested in catching the latest on David Quinn and Kevin Solway +AD4- (they're still a team) can read up on their latest attempts to bring +AD4- their incomparable enlightenment to this sad and confused planet at +AD4- http://www.theabsolute.net. What incredibly modest folk these guys are +ACE- Especially poor David Quinn. Compared to them even yourself on your worst days is a sublime paragon of modesty. Best wishes, Stephen Hodge From bsimon at toad.net Fri Oct 21 17:27:58 2005 From: bsimon at toad.net (Bernie Simon) Date: Fri Oct 21 17:30:35 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Shingon sutras In-Reply-To: <200510210726.j9L7QcdO031086@ns1.swcp.com> References: <200510210726.j9L7QcdO031086@ns1.swcp.com> Message-ID: On Oct 21, 2005, at 3:26 AM, Richard P. Hayes wrote: > I am so thoroughly fed up with the publishing industry that I am > seriously considering publishing everything else I write from now on on > the Internet so that people can get it for free (which is about the > right price for the quality of the work I do anyway). I'm surprised more Buddhist scholars haven't tried print on demand (POD). It's not as prestigious as a traditional publisher, but seems an ideal approach to books aimed at a small specialist audience. This article talks about how to choose a print on demand publisher. http://tinyurl.com/7umhl ---- So what makes you play this game With results always all the same From srhodes at boulder.net Fri Oct 21 17:35:48 2005 From: srhodes at boulder.net (Steven Rhodes) Date: Fri Oct 21 17:40:35 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Shingon sutras In-Reply-To: References: <200510210726.j9L7QcdO031086@ns1.swcp.com> Message-ID: <43597B54.1060509@boulder.net> Dear Bernie, If the scholars to whom you refer are "academic scholars," they are seeking tenure. To get tenure, they need "refereed" books published, which generally means academic presses. Steven Rhodes Bernie Simon wrote: > > On Oct 21, 2005, at 3:26 AM, Richard P. Hayes wrote: > >> I am so thoroughly fed up with the publishing industry that I am >> seriously considering publishing everything else I write from now on on >> the Internet so that people can get it for free (which is about the >> right price for the quality of the work I do anyway). > > > I'm surprised more Buddhist scholars haven't tried print on demand > (POD). It's not as prestigious as a traditional publisher, but seems > an ideal approach to books aimed at a small specialist audience. This > article talks about how to choose a print on demand publisher. > > http://tinyurl.com/7umhl > > ---- > So what makes you play this game > With results always all the same > > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l > From wongwf at comp.nus.edu.sg Fri Oct 21 18:07:12 2005 From: wongwf at comp.nus.edu.sg (Wong Weng Fai) Date: Fri Oct 21 18:10:35 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] The authentic Buddha In-Reply-To: <1ff.cba23e2.308a83dc@aol.com> References: <1ff.cba23e2.308a83dc@aol.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 Jackhat1@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 10/21/2005 12:26:14 P.M. Central Standard Time, > stefan.detrez@gmail.com writes: > > > The Question: How does one find authenticity in any system of > > beliefs/practices if there are no absolutes? > > I wonder if one can find authenticity in any belief. *philo blabber mode = ON* There can be no authenticity in the static or structural. Near optimal authenticity can only be approximated in the interactions of two or more minds set in the contextual tuple of (mind-state, time, situation, motivation, wisdom). *philo blabber mode = OFF* W.F. Wong From bsimon at toad.net Fri Oct 21 18:10:45 2005 From: bsimon at toad.net (Bernie Simon) Date: Fri Oct 21 18:20:35 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Jinajik Message-ID: Jinajik is a new weblog, with the following charter: Findings on Indian tantric Buddhism, and manifestations of the Vajray~{(!~}na in Nepal, Southeast Asia and beyond. The posts so far are pretty interesting. How else would I find out that Suzuki's translation of the Lankavatara Sutra is available online in Russia? http://www.lirs.ru/do/lanka_eng/lanka-contents.htm The url of the weblog is http://jinajik.blogspot.com/ ---- And I am a writer. writer of fictions From franzmetcalf at earthlink.net Fri Oct 21 18:42:09 2005 From: franzmetcalf at earthlink.net (Franz Metcalf) Date: Fri Oct 21 18:51:46 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] The authentic Buddha In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5da7de0a8c44b8f698d31901cf0ca77c@earthlink.net> John, You ask a brave question in a brave way. And you've received the unusually open and non-combative answers your honesty deserves. For my part, I'll echo Jim Peavler: those of us not pursuing chimeric absolutes find our authenticity in movement toward what we perceive of as good, even "the good." Without absolutes against which to measure, we can only guess at the worth of ourselves and our practices. This is dukkha, but, then again, we're not vulnerable to critique from the (imagined) absolute perspectives of others--nor to the accusation (even from within) of being in bad faith. In this desperate situation authenticity derives from our work and our honesty about it. When we're working and genuinely seem to ourselves to be making progress, then we are in integrity and we are authentic. But you know all this. Perhaps what you really want is a passage from some Buddhist canon that permits, even blesses, this blind stumbling. I want that, too. Here are two that absolutely will not satisfy you. The first is hackneyed, the second is extra-canonical, and neither really says "love God and do as you will." Do not be led by rumor, or tradition, or hearsay. Do not be led by the authority of religious scripture, nor by simple logic or inference, nor by mere appearance, nor by the pleasure of speculation, nor by vague possibilities, nor by respect for ?Our Teacher.? When you?ve seen for yourself ?these teachings are skillful, blameless, wise; when followed they lead to good and happiness,? then stay with them. --Kalama Sutta AN, III, 65. For another translation see: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/anguttara/an03-065.html I really do not know whether the nembutsu may be the cause for my birth in the Pure Land, or the act that shall condemn me to hell. But I have nothing to regret, even if I should have been deceived by my teacher, and, saying the nembutsu, fall into hell. The reason is that if I were capable of realizing Buddhahood by other religious practices and yet fell into hell for saying the nembutsu, I might have dire regrets for having been deceived. But since I am absolutely incapable of any religious practice, hell is my only home. --Shinran, from the Tannisho, section 2 Maybe genuine relativists shouldn't go looking for blessings, even from Buddhas. But a breezy practice is at least an open practice. And if there's no absolute Buddha out there, we can still bow to our lovely longing for it. In gassho, Franz From wongwf at comp.nus.edu.sg Fri Oct 21 18:55:24 2005 From: wongwf at comp.nus.edu.sg (Wong Weng Fai) Date: Fri Oct 21 19:00:35 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Shingon sutras In-Reply-To: References: <200510210726.j9L7QcdO031086@ns1.swcp.com> Message-ID: On Oct 21, 2005, at 3:26 AM, Richard P. Hayes wrote: > I am so thoroughly fed up with the publishing industry that I am > seriously considering publishing everything else I write from now on on > the Internet so that people can get it for free (which is about the > right price for the quality of the work I do anyway). That would be seriously detrimental to your academic performance evaluation. Only through peer-reviewed publications in recognized journals (which are helluva expensive to subscribe to), conferences (which are helluva expensive to attend) or in nicely printed books (which are helluva expensive to buy) can it be considered of any academic standing (as well as determining your next pay increment and/or administrative, i.e. power, position in your university). Anything free is plain unworthy - just ask Microsoft. W.F. Wong From chanfu at gmail.com Fri Oct 21 19:25:59 2005 From: chanfu at gmail.com (Chan Fu) Date: Fri Oct 21 19:30:35 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Shingon sutras In-Reply-To: References: <200510210726.j9L7QcdO031086@ns1.swcp.com> Message-ID: On 10/21/05, Wong Weng Fai wrote: > > > On Oct 21, 2005, at 3:26 AM, Richard P. Hayes wrote: > > I am so thoroughly fed up with the publishing industry that I am > > seriously considering publishing everything else I write from now on on > > the Internet so that people can get it for free (which is about the > > right price for the quality of the work I do anyway). > > That would be seriously detrimental to your academic performance > evaluation. Only through peer-reviewed publications in recognized > journals (which are helluva expensive to subscribe to), conferences > (which are helluva expensive to attend) or in nicely printed books > (which are helluva expensive to buy) can it be considered of any academic > standing (as well as determining your next pay increment and/or > administrative, i.e. power, position in your university). Anything free is > plain unworthy - just ask Microsoft. > > W.F. Wong This applies mostly to books - it's not necessarily the economy of academic papers. Vic Stenger is really close to doing this though, and unless Richard is after a book for some extra income (to which he is wholly welcome), I'll not only pay for the web site, but send him some nice firewood for the winter. That said, Sir Wong, (are our surnames the same? I spell mine, "Huang"), if Richard pulls this off it would be a great coup and worthy of all the firewood I could send. cf From parisjm2004 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 21 21:36:34 2005 From: parisjm2004 at yahoo.com (Michael Paris) Date: Fri Oct 21 21:40:37 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Jinajik In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051022033634.65342.qmail@web32603.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Naked Lunch? --- Bernie Simon wrote: > And I am a writer. > writer of fictions __________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page! http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From marshallarts at bigpond.com Fri Oct 21 21:35:50 2005 From: marshallarts at bigpond.com (Kate) Date: Fri Oct 21 21:40:42 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] On being andogynous References: <43576AF6.4020307@nerim.net><008701c5d571$37c49ce0$c9754e51@zen> <4357A6C1.6080800@nerim.net><021201c5d5a3$b0a4c0e0$7dee6480@chass><1129830290.5932.5.camel@localhost.localdomain><4358968C.9080200@nerim.net><1129908592.4559.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <002501c5d6b9$b317c360$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> > > > > Say, Joy, do you remember our old friend Kevin, the Genius?> > Alas, I remember. Wasn't he from Australia or some horrid place? Hey, Jim, I hope you're not implying that Australia is a horrid place!!!! ;-) Regards from Downunder 'Aussie' Kate From rhayes at unm.edu Fri Oct 21 21:41:10 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Fri Oct 21 21:50:43 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: On being arthropodic In-Reply-To: References: <43576AF6.4020307@nerim.net> <008701c5d571$37c49ce0$c9754e51@zen> <4357A6C1.6080800@nerim.net> <021201c5d5a3$b0a4c0e0$7dee6480@chass> <1129830290.5932.5.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4358968C.9080200@nerim.net> <1129908592.4559.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1129952470.4294.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Fri, 2005-10-21 at 14:01 -0600, Jim Peavler wrote: > > Say, Joy, do you remember our old friend Kevin, the Genius? > > Alas, I remember. Wasn't he from Australia or some horrid place? His autobiography, replete with accounts of his enlightenment, says he was born in Guernsey, or one of those places named after a kind of cow. After a childhood (or at least as much of a childhood as an enlightened being can have before getting down to the serious business of saving the world by proving to them that women are almost another species, and one of decidedly inferior intelligence at that), he moved to Australia. He and David Quinn have a radio program there, enlightening Aussies and assuring them that women are slightly less intelligent, and much less useful, than sheep. I think you may owe the antipodes an apology, Br'er James. Kevin and David are not entirely the southern hemisphere's fault. -- Br'er Richard From rhayes at unm.edu Fri Oct 21 21:57:22 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Fri Oct 21 22:00:40 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1129953443.4294.20.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Fri, 2005-10-21 at 21:46 +0100, Mike Austin wrote: > Eating meat is just that. Killing is just that. Even if one has > killed to eat meat, the non-virtue is in the act of killing - not in the > act of eating. Furthermore, buying meat is just that. Have you heard of Madhyamika philosophy. The whole point of that way of thinking is to demonstrate in every way one can imagine that there is nothing at all of whihc one can say "it is just that." > People seem to ignore the points I am making because this is an emotive issue. That's not true. People are not ignoring you at all. They are disagreeing with what you say. From what I can tell from a safe distance, there's very little evidence of anyone treating this issue emotively. People are disagreeing with you because what you have been saying has not been very carefully thought out. > Consider the general case where > one person acts on another's behalf, without being ordered, requested or > hinted to do so, and with no intention in the mind of the benefactor. Is > the benefactor of that act responsible for it? What is the relevance of this question to what is being discussed? > The action - your action - causes discomfort directly. I would say, yes, > it is your cause and your responsibility. This would be a 'complete act' > in the karmic sense if there was an intention to do it and 'delight' in > seeing it through. (This is what I have heard. I have yet to understand > the status of 'complete' and 'incomplete' actions.) Read Vasubandhu on karma. He offers the example, as I said earlier, of person A asking person B to kill A's mother. B agrees to do the deed. On the way to the assassination, B has an accident that prevents him from carrying out the assassination. The deed of killing therefore remains incomplete. The deed of requesting that the deed be done, however, is complete. Now suppose A does not know at all that B has failed to kill A's mother. Believing that B has killed A's mother, A rejoices that he is now free of his mother. His rejoicing completes the karma of requesting, and the karmic burden is therefore as severe as it would have been had B actually killed A's mother. To put it another way, A's intention to be rid of his mother, and his taking steps to eliminate her, and his satisfaction on believing that he was rid of her all contribute to a karmic burden. -- Richard Hayes *** "When a stupid man does something is is ashamed of, he always says it is his duty." -- George Bernard Shaw From rhayes at unm.edu Fri Oct 21 22:01:08 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Fri Oct 21 22:10:38 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: On being androgynous In-Reply-To: <004901c5d681$8082fb00$ccb74c51@zen> References: +ADw-20e.c446b80.308a836e+AEA-aol.com+AD4- +ADw-1129923306.10655.13.camel+AEA-localhost.localdomain+AD4- <004901c5d681$8082fb00$ccb74c51@zen> Message-ID: <1129953668.4294.23.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Fri, 2005-10-21 at 21:53 +0100, Stephen Hodge wrote: > What incredibly modest folk these guys are ! Especially poor David Quinn. > Compared to them even yourself on your worst days is a sublime paragon of > modesty. You have no idea how long and hard I had to look to find someone even more vicious than myself. -- Richard From rhayes at unm.edu Fri Oct 21 22:09:01 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Fri Oct 21 22:10:49 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Shingon sutras In-Reply-To: <43597B54.1060509@boulder.net> References: <200510210726.j9L7QcdO031086@ns1.swcp.com> <43597B54.1060509@boulder.net> Message-ID: <1129954141.4294.29.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Fri, 2005-10-21 at 17:35 -0600, Steven Rhodes wrote: > If the scholars to whom you refer are "academic scholars," they are > seeking tenure. To get tenure, they need "refereed" books published, > which generally means academic presses. If one wants tenure (arguably an odd thing for a Buddhist to want), then it is unwise to do an end run around academic presses. Once one has tenure, however, one can give academic publishers the finger, telling them that the finger is pointing at the moon. Then one can moon them. Thank you, Bernie, for the reference to a POD site. I think I'll go that route in the future. -- Richard From rhayes at unm.edu Fri Oct 21 22:17:43 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Fri Oct 21 22:20:41 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Shingon sutras In-Reply-To: References: <200510210726.j9L7QcdO031086@ns1.swcp.com> Message-ID: <1129954663.4294.36.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Sat, 2005-10-22 at 08:55 +0800, Wong Weng Fai wrote: > Only through peer-reviewed publications in recognized > journals (which are helluva expensive to subscribe to), conferences > (which are helluva expensive to attend) or in nicely printed books > (which are helluva expensive to buy) can it be considered of any academic > standing (as well as determining your next pay increment and/or > administrative, i.e. power, position in your university). Everything you say is true, for now. I am hoping this may all change someday. I am hoping the day will come when more refereed articles will be published exclusively on-line, as they are in the Journal of Buddhist Ethics. If that can be done for journals, why not for books? Until then, I can't afford to buy a copy of my Dignaga book to give to the Buddhist Library. (I have not forgotten my promise to do that, and someday I will honour it.) > Anything free is plain unworthy - just ask Microsoft. That's a helluva thing to say to a fanatical Linux man! -- Richard From hune_martinbubercenter at msn.com Fri Oct 21 21:40:40 2005 From: hune_martinbubercenter at msn.com (Hune Margulies, Ph.D.) Date: Fri Oct 21 22:32:14 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] The authentic Buddha of Encounter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: In the I-Thou relationship. There is no absolutes, nor relatives, only the encounter.. ------- Hune Margulies, Ph.D. Director, The Martin Buber Center For Dialogical Ecology 914-439-7731 ------- >From: John Chamberlin >Reply-To: Buddhist discussion forum >To: Buddhist Discussion >Subject: [Buddha-l] The authentic Buddha >Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 05:27:20 -0700 > >I have a question for those of you on this list that have an ongoing >Buddhist Practice and have found refuge in that practice, and also at >least flirt with Relativism. I seem to have this persistent and often >frustrating belief that authenticity of a religious body of knowledge/ >practice can only be “real” if it constitutes an absolute in the world…a >Meta Theory in Postmodernist language. Strange I know, but nevertheless a >source of great struggle for me, and although I persist in my practice, >and seem to seldom stray from the Eight-Fold Path, it often feels as if >I’m practicing an act of bad faith in the 19th century Existentialist >sense of the term. This bad faith coupled with my long-standing attraction >to all forms of Relativism in general, results in producing a rather >breezy religious refuge for me. The Question: How does one find >authenticity in any system of beliefs/practices if there are no absolutes? >_______________________________________________ >buddha-l mailing list >buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com >http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/ From joy.vriens at nerim.net Fri Oct 21 23:38:08 2005 From: joy.vriens at nerim.net (Joy Vriens) Date: Fri Oct 21 23:40:40 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] on eating meat In-Reply-To: <7964f6db0510211107g38bdf16dud087521ab28a7f59@mail.gmail.com> References: <5.2.1.1.0.20051018083252.0120e5f8@mail.jcu.edu.au> <004d01c5d4e0$aa011e50$6402a8c0@gatewaycompute> <1129733231.4522.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> <0ScbFwZdjpVDFwpu@clara.net> <435766EB.1010501@nerim.net> <7964f6db0510200748r6d6aad02q27cce3d32a735afc@mail.gmail.com> <4357C876.70603@nerim.net> <7964f6db0510201019icfe4f0ah5706a457a3cfc99e@mail.gmail.com> <435892AF.9040804@nerim.net> <7964f6db0510211107g38bdf16dud087521ab28a7f59@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4359D040.5030603@nerim.net> Hugo wrote: > Try it. It may take a while, but it really is silent, unfortunately > the moment I notice "Hey it is silent", the silence is broken, so I > need to get better at that. I do Hugo, don't worry to much about my blabbering here. When in silence, even the silence that is broken is still part of it. From joy.vriens at nerim.net Fri Oct 21 23:42:10 2005 From: joy.vriens at nerim.net (Joy Vriens) Date: Fri Oct 21 23:50:41 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: On being androgynous In-Reply-To: <1129923306.10655.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <20e.c446b80.308a836e@aol.com> <1129923306.10655.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <4359D132.1040803@nerim.net> Richard P. Hayes wrote: > They were on buddha-l until I kicked them off. Then they went to the > buddhist@listserv.mcgill.ca list, which no longer exists. After that, > they went to the insight list. At one point they admitted they were on a > mission to "clean up" all the lists that claimed to be about Buddhism. > They were convinced that no monk, no lama, no roshi, no academic and no > mere practitioner understands Buddhism correctly. Eventually it became > clear that in their view not even the Buddha had understood Buddhism > correctly. These fellows had a lot of correcting to do. It comes back to me now. The most striking thing about them, something which took me a while to realise because I didn't know whether they weren't tongue in cheek, was their total absence of humour. Which struck me again when I saw the website you refered to. From dlusthau at mailer.fsu.edu Fri Oct 21 23:43:52 2005 From: dlusthau at mailer.fsu.edu (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Fri Oct 21 23:50:49 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: On being androgynous References: <20e.c446b80.308a836e@aol.com> <1129923306.10655.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <00e201c5d6cb$96461e50$36369c04@Dan> > Anyone interested in catching the latest on David Quinn and Kevin Solway > (they're still a team) can read up on their latest attempts to bring > their incomparable enlightenment to this sad and confused planet at > http://www.theabsolute.net. There are even lots of pictures of these two > fellows. They both forty-something now and still enlightened to a degree One should always model oneself after the awakened among us. Here is the model of a 21st c enlightened being, according to the autobiographical comments of one of the guys at that site. \--- I rely on social security payments for an income. My one and only full-time job was back in 1982. I have, over the years, been on unemployment benefits (by choice), the disability support pension (I was assessed as having a personality disorder) and the carer's pension (while looking after a friend who was ill). I am currently back on unemployment benefits again. I have engaged in several relationships with women in the past, and also sired a son in 1992 (who doesn't live with me). Nowadays, I am basically a hermit.\ --- It's people like this who turn blue collar folks into Republicans. Dan Lusthaus From joy.vriens at nerim.net Sat Oct 22 00:13:54 2005 From: joy.vriens at nerim.net (Joy Vriens) Date: Sat Oct 22 00:20:38 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] The authentic Buddha In-Reply-To: <5da7de0a8c44b8f698d31901cf0ca77c@earthlink.net> References: <5da7de0a8c44b8f698d31901cf0ca77c@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <4359D8A2.70508@nerim.net> Hi Franz, > You ask a brave question in a brave way. And you've received the > unusually open and non-combative answers your honesty deserves. I had already started a philo blabber answer to John's question, when I saw Wong Weng Fai's answer "In your heart" and thought yes it's all there, there's nothing more to add and then I packed up my stuff again. > Maybe genuine relativists shouldn't go looking for blessings, even from > Buddhas. But a breezy practice is at least an open practice. And if > there's no absolute Buddha out there, we can still bow to our lovely > longing for it. Whether there is an absolute Buddha out there, whether there is a God out there, the following sentence applies to all of us indistinctively, believers and relativists alike. It's one of those sentences that got stuck in my head like a mantra ever since I read it (only recently). It's from The First Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians 4:7 "And what do you have that you didn't receive?" Note how beautiful the "you didn't receive" is. "And what do you have that hasn't been given to you?" would not have had the same effect on me. From mike at lamrim.org.uk Sat Oct 22 03:00:21 2005 From: mike at lamrim.org.uk (Mike Austin) Date: Sat Oct 22 03:00:50 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat In-Reply-To: <1129953443.4294.20.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1129953443.4294.20.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: In message <1129953443.4294.20.camel@localhost.localdomain>, Richard P. Hayes writes >On Fri, 2005-10-21 at 21:46 +0100, Mike Austin wrote: > >> Eating meat is just that. Killing is just that. Even if one has >> killed to eat meat, the non-virtue is in the act of killing - not in the >> act of eating. Furthermore, buying meat is just that. > >Have you heard of Madhyamika philosophy. The whole point of that way of >thinking is to demonstrate in every way one can imagine that there is >nothing at all of whihc one can say "it is just that." Richard, For the purpose of discussing conventional truth, under the designations karma and cause and effect are used, it is quite OK to designate actions in this way. There are those who fatuously say, "It's all empty anyway" in order to avoid further analysis. I hope you are not one of these. If you wish to leave the discussion, just do so. But please don't trump it with sunyata. >> Consider the general case where >> one person acts on another's behalf, without being ordered, requested or >> hinted to do so, and with no intention in the mind of the benefactor. Is >> the benefactor of that act responsible for it? > >What is the relevance of this question to what is being discussed? Please don't pretend to be obtuse. When someone kills because they think someone else wants them to. That is the relevance. >> The action - your action - causes discomfort directly. I would say, yes, >> it is your cause and your responsibility. This would be a 'complete act' >> in the karmic sense if there was an intention to do it and 'delight' in >> seeing it through. (This is what I have heard. I have yet to understand >> the status of 'complete' and 'incomplete' actions.) > >Read Vasubandhu on karma. He offers the example, as I said earlier, of >person A asking person B to kill A's mother. B agrees to do the deed. On >the way to the assassination, B has an accident that prevents him from >carrying out the assassination. The deed of killing therefore remains >incomplete. The deed of requesting that the deed be done, however, is >complete. Now suppose A does not know at all that B has failed to kill >A's mother. Believing that B has killed A's mother, A rejoices that he >is now free of his mother. His rejoicing completes the karma of >requesting, and the karmic burden is therefore as severe as it would >have been had B actually killed A's mother. To put it another way, A's >intention to be rid of his mother, and his taking steps to eliminate >her, and his satisfaction on believing that he was rid of her all >contribute to a karmic burden. Richard, I am well aware of the above distinctions. You have hit several targets correctly - but not the one I set up for you to hit. That is the one where A has no intention and B acts nevertheless. If you do not wish to address it, then don't. Please don't address something else instead. -- Metta Mike Austin From eklektik at gmail.com Sat Oct 22 05:05:20 2005 From: eklektik at gmail.com (Hugo) Date: Sat Oct 22 05:10:45 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] on eating meat In-Reply-To: <4359D040.5030603@nerim.net> References: <5.2.1.1.0.20051018083252.0120e5f8@mail.jcu.edu.au> <1129733231.4522.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> <0ScbFwZdjpVDFwpu@clara.net> <435766EB.1010501@nerim.net> <7964f6db0510200748r6d6aad02q27cce3d32a735afc@mail.gmail.com> <4357C876.70603@nerim.net> <7964f6db0510201019icfe4f0ah5706a457a3cfc99e@mail.gmail.com> <435892AF.9040804@nerim.net> <7964f6db0510211107g38bdf16dud087521ab28a7f59@mail.gmail.com> <4359D040.5030603@nerim.net> Message-ID: <7964f6db0510220405l53e11c53vd2b660ff1581f0d3@mail.gmail.com> Joy, On 10/22/05, Joy Vriens wrote: > I do Hugo, don't worry to much about my blabbering here. When in > silence, even the silence that is broken is still part of it. :-) -- Hugo From jpeavler at mindspring.com Sat Oct 22 05:41:34 2005 From: jpeavler at mindspring.com (Jim Peavler) Date: Sat Oct 22 05:50:45 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] On being andogynous In-Reply-To: <002501c5d6b9$b317c360$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> References: <43576AF6.4020307@nerim.net><008701c5d571$37c49ce0$c9754e51@zen> <4357A6C1.6080800@nerim.net><021201c5d5a3$b0a4c0e0$7dee6480@chass><1129830290.5932.5.camel@localhost.localdomain><4358968C.9080200@nerim.net><1129908592.4559.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> <002501c5d6b9$b317c360$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> Message-ID: <6fce7809c025b86e1424064c2496079f@mindspring.com> Heavens forfend!! Of course I meant, "Wasn't he from Australia, or was it some horrid place?" On Oct 21, 2005, at 9:35 PM, Kate wrote: >>> >>> Say, Joy, do you remember our old friend Kevin, the Genius?> >> Alas, I remember. Wasn't he from Australia or some horrid place? > > Hey, Jim, I hope you're not implying that Australia is a horrid > place!!!! > ;-) > > Regards from Downunder > 'Aussie' Kate > > > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l > From jpeavler at mindspring.com Sat Oct 22 06:04:02 2005 From: jpeavler at mindspring.com (Jim Peavler) Date: Sat Oct 22 06:10:45 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Shingon sutras In-Reply-To: <1129954663.4294.36.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <200510210726.j9L7QcdO031086@ns1.swcp.com> <1129954663.4294.36.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <5e28e47b26d058bd3d2b67022b03e821@mindspring.com> On Oct 21, 2005, at 10:17 PM, Richard P. Hayes wrote: > On Sat, 2005-10-22 at 08:55 +0800, Wong Weng Fai wrote: > >> Only through peer-reviewed publications in recognized >> journals (which are helluva expensive to subscribe to), conferences >> (which are helluva expensive to attend) or in nicely printed books >> (which are helluva expensive to buy) can it be considered of any >> academic >> standing (as well as determining your next pay increment and/or >> administrative, i.e. power, position in your university). Way back in the early 70's I was part of a committee of the Mediaeval Society of America that was trying to help solve the problem of the terrible expense of academic publishing. It was about the time of the first great paper crisis. The leader of our group was one John Stalworthy, who, I believe, was head of the Oxford University Press (if memory serves -- which it often doesn't). This was before the day of online publishing, so our method was Xerox microfilm. We did publish a lot of material using computers in those days, but online publishing didn't really get going until scientists in DARPA began using it a decade later. (I was a scientific editor/publisher in the late 70s and early 80s and had the pleasure of working on the development of computer publishing and electronic libraries, including SGML and HTML.) The scientific world has become pretty good at electronic publishing by now. As the paragraph by Wong Weng Fai above states, the problem has apparently not been solved for most academics (outside the technical or scientific world). I think academics, in the liberal arts particularly, are amongst the most liberal socially and the most conservative technically of any group I can think of. In the 60s, when I was trying to learn how to produce my dissertation using a main-frame computer, many of my professors and peers thought it was evil to even think of doing such a thing. I had dissertation advisors who fought against my doing so on grounds I never understood. Why couldn't they just think of the computer as a fancy typewriter, I asked. I eventually managed to get the whole thing in a computer format and printed out on good quality paper in a type-writer font so that no one who didn't know it had been produced on a computer could recognize is as "technically" produced. I suspect there are still folks in the languages, history, philosophy, and other liberal arts who don't read things online, and who would not give much respect to anything published online. Can one get the dreaded tenure if one has only published online, even if all the publications were refereed by academically sound referees? From marshallarts at bigpond.com Sat Oct 22 06:33:05 2005 From: marshallarts at bigpond.com (Kate) Date: Sat Oct 22 06:40:47 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Chen Yen survival or revival? References: Message-ID: <002201c5d704$c0e066a0$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> Hi Jeff, There are two popular misconceptions regarding Chen Yen, the first being that CY lasted only a couple of hundred years before it died out. The Chen Yen of today traces a direct lineage from about 759CE and preserves the original teaching. The temples I mentioned are CY temples and aren't part of any recently created Buddhist Movements. When I said they went underground I was referring to the Communist era in particular but also in general to the fact that being an esoteric group, they were highly secretive anyway and didn't draw much attention. The second misconception is that Chinese CY is the same as Japanese Shingon. The original Chen Yen was never taken to mainland Japan. The Japanese school of Shingon, founded by Kukai "is dedicated to support the principles that Kukai conceived" (Shingon Buddhism by M. Kiyota). Kukai's principles were influenced by CY but they weren't the same. I had been told that Japanese S uses different sutras to CY but before Stephen's answer, I didn't know what those sutras were. The Japanese Tendai forms of Shingon has some elements in common with CY. However it is the Yamabushi teachings that are closest to CY. CY with its original teaching was introduced directly to Okinawa, not via Japan. The Order in Okinawa is quite separate from the Japanese Koyasan sect of Shingon and considers the temple in China as its 'Mother Church'. It does have some connections to various Japanese Acaryas but does not fall into either the Taimitsu or Tomitsu classification. It is the Okinawan Order that has promoted the establishment of many overseas branches. Most of these have been granted autonomy and have set up their various headquarters in America, Britain and Europe. Most of these are still highly secretive, however one or two are becoming less so. Most of the websites are accessible by invitation only. The only one that I know of that is available to the public is at http://website.lineone.net/~kongoryuji/index.html There is an article at http://www.geocities.com/gorinto/chenyen_med.html regarding CY meditation. However if you are unfamiliar with its type of "ritual", the article may not make much sense. If after reading these you are still interested and want to learn more I can seek permission for you to contact the American head temple. Regards Kate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20051022/72c85b90/attachment.htm From rhayes at unm.edu Sat Oct 22 08:25:43 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Sat Oct 22 08:31:57 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Liberal arts technophobia [was: Shingon sutras] In-Reply-To: <5e28e47b26d058bd3d2b67022b03e821@mindspring.com> References: <200510210726.j9L7QcdO031086@ns1.swcp.com> <1129954663.4294.36.camel@localhost.localdomain> <5e28e47b26d058bd3d2b67022b03e821@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <1129991144.4374.29.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Sat, 2005-10-22 at 06:04 -0600, Jim Peavler wrote: > I think academics, in the liberal arts particularly, > are amongst the most liberal socially and the most conservative > technically of any group I can think of. My experience suggests you are right about this. For years I was the only person in the Faculty of Religious Studies to use e-mail. Until about eight years ago, most of my colleagues were still writing memos on vellum and attaching them to the legs of pigeons. And even now in a philosophy department I know "well enough to call my friend" (anybody remember Tim Hardin?) I am considered a geek because I use Linux and know how to write HTML code and can show a colleague how to save a word processing document as a PDF file. As long as we are marvelling at philosophers, I like to think that the study of philosophy should make a person broad-minded. What I have found almost everywhere, however, is that philosophers have almost no curiosity about Asian philosophy, and many don't even think of it as philosophy at all. My colleagues at UNM are an important exception to this general rule, although a couple of my colleagues here occasionally betray the most astonishing ignorance of what the folks in China and India were up to. It's not just ignorance in the sense of an absence of knowledge, but the presence of misconceptions and outrageous stereotypes. (I can only conclude that philosophers who can't write HTML code also can't get over their childhood cultural prejudices.) I also like to think of Unitarian-Universalists as a pretty open-minded group. A couple of nights ago, however, I went to the Emerson reading group at the local UU church. We read a sermon written by Emerson in 1832 in which he talked in passing about how some Christians are as ignorant about spirituality as the "savages on the banks of the Ganges." What was interesting to me was that the rest of his sermon was laying out a view of the world that to me was obviously quite in keeping with many of the main lines of thought among the very "savages on the banks of the Ganges" that Emerson was holding up as paragons of spiritual blindness. I pointed out this delicious irony to the folks in the reading group, and to my amazement they just could not believe that any Hindu or Buddhist had been as sophisticated as Emerson. Apparently they were still viewing Hinduism and Buddhism in about the same way Emerson had viewed them in 1832. These were Unitarians in 2005! It made me aware of how much work we educators in the USA have to do to bring this benighted parochial society out of its fog of cultural blindness. I hope things are better outside the USA, but I suspect it depends on whether one is living in a cosmopolitan centre or in a more bucolic setting. > I suspect there are still folks in the languages, history, philosophy, > and other liberal arts who don't read things online, and who would not > give much respect to anything published online. I think you're partially right about philosophers. There is a huge amount of excellent material available on line. (My students regularly print it up and hand it in as their own work.) I routinely draw on on- line materials, many of which are very nicely thought out and well presented. The resources are stunning. So SOME philosophers are obviously using the Internet with great skill. On the other hand, I find that most of my colleagues are pretty much ignorant of what is available on line. What amazes me is that some of them insist on getting a new state-of-the-art computer every two years or so, bemoaning the fact that their machines are obsolete. But all they do with their expensive machines is read e-mail and write documents in Word. They could do THAT on DOS 3.3. > Can one get the dreaded tenure if one has only published online, even > if all the publications were refereed by academically sound referees? Putting together a tenure-review dossier would require printing out everything and making twelve copies (so that all twelve people who review the dossier can lie about whether they read them), but I'm guessing that if one could get one's work accepted in respected refereed venues, reviewed and cited now and then by other scholars, one would get tenure. Getting reviewed and cited, as things are now, might be difficult. But I'm betting this will change eventually. -- Richard From jpeavler at mindspring.com Sat Oct 22 09:36:49 2005 From: jpeavler at mindspring.com (Jim Peavler) Date: Sat Oct 22 09:40:46 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Liberal arts technophobia [was: Shingon sutras] In-Reply-To: <1129991144.4374.29.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <200510210726.j9L7QcdO031086@ns1.swcp.com> <1129954663.4294.36.camel@localhost.localdomain> <5e28e47b26d058bd3d2b67022b03e821@mindspring.com> <1129991144.4374.29.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: On Oct 22, 2005, at 8:25 AM, Richard P. Hayes wrote: > As long as we are marvelling at philosophers, I like to think that the > study of philosophy should make a person broad-minded. What I have > found > almost everywhere, however, is that philosophers have almost no > curiosity about Asian philosophy, and many don't even think of it as > philosophy at all. Once, near the shores of the Pacific, I taught a class called "Western Civilization". Part of my opening day discussions was to ask why this was called "Western Civilization" instead of "Civilization", and just what might be some differences between "Western" Civilization and, perhaps, "Eastern" Civilization. Throughout the course I would occasionally mention something that was going on in Asia or the Americas, or somewhere at the same time as our current subject. Each semester at least one student protested that too much time had been spent on "Eastern" thought, which was, of course, irrelevant. It was even harder to understand than the desire of the US Marines (who often made up the bulk of the classes) to have the course be about "kings, generals, and wars". From srhodes at boulder.net Sat Oct 22 10:15:26 2005 From: srhodes at boulder.net (Steven Rhodes) Date: Sat Oct 22 10:20:51 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] The Emptiness of Tenure Message-ID: <435A659E.9030608@boulder.net> Jim Peavler wrote, > Can one get the dreaded tenure if one has only published online, even > if all the publications were refereed by academically sound referees? My understanding is that "refereeing" is *the* criterion. Thus, if an on-line journal were refereed, that should do it. However, I believe that the original posting which has led to this thread did not specify this qualification. Steven Rhodes From jwilson101 at gmail.com Sat Oct 22 11:17:28 2005 From: jwilson101 at gmail.com (Jeff Wilson) Date: Sat Oct 22 11:20:47 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Chen Yen survival or revival? Message-ID: Dear Kate, Thanks very much for that follow-up post. I have visited those websites in the past, though I hadn't thought about them in a while. Can you provide some secondary source citations? I work with a large variety of Buddhist groups, all of whom have their own claims for lineage (and, usually, venerable tradition). Some claims are more reliable than others. I've observed that in many cases claims that a group is secret, underground, esoteric, or persecuted are used to mask the group's recent creation and inability to accurately document their claims. This does not mean that the groups you are speaking about necessarily present this situation, but because I haven't personally encountered scholarship which backs up their claims, and because their claims are not consonant with what I've been taught, I hesitate to take claims published on the internet as accurate. I am particularly hesitant to immediately accept claims put forth exclusively on British websites, as Westerners have historically been subject to a great many dubious claims about ancient or esoteric Buddhist teachings which they are not equipped to evaluate. Tuesday Lobsang Rampa was a Brit, after all, though he's only the tip of a fascinating iceberg of "creative" interpretations of Asian religious traditions in Europe and the Americas. This is not meant as an attack on the sincere belief in their historical claims or sincerity of Buddhist practice of these groups you pointed to, which I am not in any position to evaluate positively or negatively. But before I present infomation in a classroom setting, particularly revisionist information, I need something some substantive than a couple of self-published websites by recently founded British temples. Can you, or other listmembers, help me out with some secondary works in their area that back up their claims in some way? Thanks! Sincerely, Jeff Wilson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20051022/d06bb976/attachment.html From rhayes at unm.edu Sat Oct 22 11:23:21 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Sat Oct 22 11:30:50 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: On being androgynous In-Reply-To: <00e201c5d6cb$96461e50$36369c04@Dan> References: <20e.c446b80.308a836e@aol.com> <1129923306.10655.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> <00e201c5d6cb$96461e50$36369c04@Dan> Message-ID: <1130001802.7608.2.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Sat, 2005-10-22 at 01:43 -0400, Dan Lusthaus wrote: > One should always model oneself after the awakened among us. Here is the > model of a 21st c enlightened being, according to the autobiographical > comments of one of the guys at that site. > It's people like this who turn blue collar folks into Republicans. It's people like this who become Republicans and then spend their energy trashing the reputations of people who behave just like themselves. -- Richard From rhayes at unm.edu Sat Oct 22 11:34:21 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Sat Oct 22 11:41:59 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat In-Reply-To: References: <1129953443.4294.20.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1130002461.7608.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Sat, 2005-10-22 at 10:00 +0100, Mike Austin wrote: > For the purpose of discussing conventional truth, under the designations > karma and cause and effect are used, it is quite OK to designate actions > in this way. There are those who fatuously say, "It's all empty anyway" > in order to avoid further analysis. I hope you are not one of these. If > you wish to leave the discussion, just do so. But please don't trump it > with sunyata. I was not referring to the two truth theory. Even at the level of conventional truth, your thinking has been simplistic and shallow. The reference to Madhyamika thought was a reminder that even at the conventional level, everything is interconnected and that one ignores that at one's peril. > > > >> Consider the general case where > >> one person acts on another's behalf, without being ordered, requested or > >> hinted to do so, and with no intention in the mind of the benefactor. Is > >> the benefactor of that act responsible for it? > > > >What is the relevance of this question to what is being discussed? > > Please don't pretend to be obtuse. When someone kills because they think > someone else wants them to. That is the relevance. I am not pretending to be obtuse. I really am obtuse. I still don't quite get the connection. But now that you bring up someone who kills because they think someone wants them to, you are showing signs of agreeing with waht several people have been telling you. No abattoir worker kills for fun or out of anger. They kill because there is a demand for their product. So if you purchase their produce, they reasonably interpret that to mean that you want them to kill. So you are, according to Vasubandhu's way of thinking about karma, responsible for the action. > Richard, I am well aware of the above distinctions. You have hit several > targets correctly - but not the one I set up for you to hit. That is the > one where A has no intention and B acts nevertheless. If you do not wish > to address it, then don't. I have not addressed it, because it is not relevant to our discussion. What you are evidently trying to say is that the abattoir workers and the butcher do their work without your bidding, and therefore you have no responsibility for their actions. That, as many have tried to show you, is plumb fatuous. If you buy their product, you invite them to do their work. So please don't try to tell us that the abattoir workers and the butchers get all the bad karma while all you get is the juicy steak that they have provided for you. That way of looking at karma we're just not willing to buy, not because of an emotional attachment to some position, but because your reasoning really is quite inadequate on this point. -- Richard From mike at lamrim.org.uk Sat Oct 22 15:50:15 2005 From: mike at lamrim.org.uk (Mike Austin) Date: Sat Oct 22 15:53:13 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat In-Reply-To: <1130002461.7608.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1129953443.4294.20.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1130002461.7608.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: In message <1130002461.7608.14.camel@localhost.localdomain>, Richard P. Hayes writes >The >reference to Madhyamika thought was a reminder that even at the >conventional level, everything is interconnected and that one ignores >that at one's peril. OK - but as I referred to that myself earlier, I do not need reminding. It has been part of my argument all along. >> Richard, I am well aware of the above distinctions. You have hit several >> targets correctly - but not the one I set up for you to hit. That is the >> one where A has no intention and B acts nevertheless. > >I have not addressed it, because it is not relevant to our discussion. >What you are evidently trying to say is that the abattoir workers and >the butcher do their work without your bidding, and therefore you have >no responsibility for their actions. First, I put the case that there was no wrong doing in merely eating or buying meat. That was from a very narrow and personal perspective. Then I suggested that, due to interdependence, we play a part in every wrong in samsara. That was from a very wide and general perspective. So what I am trying to suggest here is that, somewhere between these perspectives, one draws an arbitrary line for oneself beyond which one may consider an action of someone else to be beyond one's own responsibility. It would appear that, more or less unanimously on this list, people view that any killing that follows after someone buys meat, is caused by the buyer of that meat and is their responsibility. I would presume then (so we can move away from meat eating) that this applies to any purchase for which there had to be a prior killing - for example, leather goods. When I was in a taxi a couple of days ago, I sat on leather seats. I am aware that an animal had to die (or, most probably, be killed) so that I could sit on a leather seat. So, through the supply chain of taxi-driver, car manufacturer, tanner and slaughterer, I am now causing the death of some cow in the future because I took a ride in a taxi with leather seats. It may be an increasio ad absurdum, but that is where the argument leads. Another, more relevant, example (for Tibetan Buddhists) is the offering of silk scarves. I was informed a few months ago, that thousands of silk moths have to die to produce one silk scarf. Now, my collection of silk offering scarves (that I bought) represent my causing the death of many silk moths in the future. Then, should someone see me offering scarves, they may think, "This person uses silk scarves. I will now produce silk scarves and kill moths to supply this person." So, I find it rather difficult to see where to draw the line here. That explains my initial, rather insular, consideration of only my immediate actions of body, speech and mind - without so much regard to what others make of it. But I would like to point out that my views are by no means fixed on this. This whole discussion has provided me with plenty of food for thought and I am reviewing my position carefully. I am glad that we are now getting into the nitty gritty of the matter. -- Metta Mike Austin From curt at cola.iges.org Sat Oct 22 09:27:10 2005 From: curt at cola.iges.org (curt) Date: Sat Oct 22 16:07:43 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] The authentic Buddha In-Reply-To: <5da7de0a8c44b8f698d31901cf0ca77c@earthlink.net> References: <5da7de0a8c44b8f698d31901cf0ca77c@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <435A5A4E.6050903@cola.iges.org> Thanks to Franz for not only bringing up the Kalama Sutta - but also providing a link directly to it. The formula beginning with "do not be led by rumor....." is repeated multiple times in the the Sutta - but the first time it is part of a conditional which begins "When there are reasons for doubt, uncertainty is born. So in this case, Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions ......" The conditional part is left off in subsequent repetitions of the formula - but it seems clear that all of the repetitions refer directly back to the first one. So I would say that the Buddha, at least in this one incident, is not making a blanket statement. He is replying to a very specific kind of question of the general form "Different teachers have told us different things. They not only have different teachings, but they criticize each other as well. How are we to decide who is right?" One way to read this is that clearly the Kalamas are already skeptical - they don't need Buddha or anyone else to encourage them to be skeptical. So the Buddha is not, according to this reading, encouraging skepticism, rather he is encouraging precisely the opposite of Skepticism with a capital "S", which holds that absolute truth is unknowable with absolute certainty. He is telling them that it is in fact possible "to know for yourselves". And then he proceeds to lead them by the nose through a series of question and answers that are actually far from obvious - until they all become his students in the end. So even though he never says so outright, the Buddha's answer to the question "How do we decide who is right?" Boils down to, "well, that's easy - I am." The page that Franz provided a link to contains a further link to a talk by Bikkhu Bodhi, who knows a lot more than I do, and expresses himself much better. Bikkhu Bodhi's take on it is different from mine. In particular he is far more convinced of the obviousness of the question and answer part - the part that leads up to the Kalamas all deciding that the Buddha is right and all those other teachers are wrong. - Curt Franz Metcalf wrote: > John, > > You ask a brave question in a brave way. And you've received the > unusually open and non-combative answers your honesty deserves. > > For my part, I'll echo Jim Peavler: those of us not pursuing chimeric > absolutes find our authenticity in movement toward what we perceive of > as good, even "the good." Without absolutes against which to measure, > we can only guess at the worth of ourselves and our practices. This is > dukkha, but, then again, we're not vulnerable to critique from the > (imagined) absolute perspectives of others--nor to the accusation > (even from within) of being in bad faith. In this desperate situation > authenticity derives from our work and our honesty about it. When > we're working and genuinely seem to ourselves to be making progress, > then we are in integrity and we are authentic. > > But you know all this. > > Perhaps what you really want is a passage from some Buddhist canon > that permits, even blesses, this blind stumbling. I want that, too. > Here are two that absolutely will not satisfy you. The first is > hackneyed, the second is extra-canonical, and neither really says > "love God and do as you will." > > Do not be led by rumor, or tradition, or hearsay. Do not be led by the > authority of religious scripture, nor by simple logic or inference, > nor by > mere appearance, nor by the pleasure of speculation, nor by vague > possibilities, nor by respect for ?Our Teacher.? When you?ve seen for > yourself ?these teachings are skillful, blameless, wise; when followed > they lead to good and happiness,? then stay with them. > --Kalama Sutta AN, III, 65. For another translation see: > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/anguttara/an03-065.html > > I really do not know whether the nembutsu may be the cause for my > birth in the Pure Land, or the act that shall condemn me to hell. > But I > have nothing to regret, even if I should have been deceived by my > teacher, and, saying the nembutsu, fall into hell. The reason is > that if > I were capable of realizing Buddhahood by other religious practices > and yet fell into hell for saying the nembutsu, I might have dire > regrets > for having been deceived. But since I am absolutely incapable of any > religious practice, hell is my only home. > --Shinran, from the Tannisho, section 2 > > Maybe genuine relativists shouldn't go looking for blessings, even > from Buddhas. But a breezy practice is at least an open practice. And > if there's no absolute Buddha out there, we can still bow to our > lovely longing for it. > > In gassho, > > Franz > > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l > > From pvera at hsc.usf.edu Sat Oct 22 15:19:55 2005 From: pvera at hsc.usf.edu (Vera, Pedro L.) Date: Sat Oct 22 16:08:48 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] The Emptiness of Tenure Message-ID: <841D767DCDE87C49A02DA6DFC0BABABF020580A2@COMEXCHANGE.hscnet.hsc.usf.edu> I'm afraid that I missed the original post. However, I would add that tenure, in a lot of institutions these days (at least at it pertains to the biomedical sciences), is indeed "empty" or "emptying". Regardless of the number of publications (and I do agree that they must be refereed publications), and even the quality of the journal in which one publishes (there are quantitative measures of the impact of a journal, the so called "impact index"), the overriding factor still remains the ability to attract and retain extramural funding (such as research grants). Without such extramural funding, tenure is unattainable. Moreover, in an increasing number of institutions, "tenure" means a life-long library card. Salary is strictly tied to grants. Therefore, although the institution may support you for a limited period if you lose your grant, they will eventually reduce your salary if you are unable to obtain funding, or, just not pay you altogether. Just to comply with the requisite buddhist content to any post, this system is a perfect example of emptiness, impermanence and dukkha. Particularly dukkha (from my own personal observations) since obtaining extramural funding is particularly difficult these days and the anxiety over the impermanence of any grant (typically 3-5 years) can drive one pretty batty (another example, I suppose, of grasping?). Regards, Pedro -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 3203 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20051022/b5cdd326/attachment.bin From jpeavler at mindspring.com Sat Oct 22 16:27:10 2005 From: jpeavler at mindspring.com (Jim Peavler) Date: Sat Oct 22 16:30:52 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat In-Reply-To: References: <1129953443.4294.20.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1130002461.7608.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1ebac2778628c435a5017998feb1378e@mindspring.com> On Oct 22, 2005, at 3:50 PM, Mike Austin wrote: > In message <1130002461.7608.14.camel@localhost.localdomain>, Richard > P. Hayes writes > >> The >> reference to Madhyamika thought was a reminder that even at the >> conventional level, everything is interconnected and that one ignores >> that at one's peril. > > OK - but as I referred to that myself earlier, I do not need > reminding. It has been part of my argument all along. Well, heck. I completely misunderstood. I thought you said that if you bought meat that you had not asked someone to kill for you, then you couldn't be responsible for the bad karma generated. Why not quit worrying about karma and worry about living properly. Charity given in hopes of a return in not charity. Virtue pursued out of fear of bad karma is not virtue. From marshallarts at bigpond.com Sat Oct 22 16:27:01 2005 From: marshallarts at bigpond.com (Kate) Date: Sat Oct 22 16:31:02 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Chen Yen survival or revival? References: Message-ID: <003201c5d757$b96bbf20$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> Hi Jeff, I doubt very much that there are any secondary source citations. It is a monastic tradition which isn't all that interested in proving its existence to others. It just gets on with what it does with the barest amount of exposure. I can understand why you wouldn't want to teach this information without further proof. Regards Kate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20051023/2a3ae8a5/attachment.html From rhayes at unm.edu Sat Oct 22 16:32:19 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Sat Oct 22 16:40:56 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat In-Reply-To: References: <1129953443.4294.20.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1130002461.7608.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1130020339.8104.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Sat, 2005-10-22 at 22:50 +0100, Mike Austin wrote: > First, I put the case that there was no wrong doing in merely eating or > buying meat. That was from a very narrow and personal perspective. Then > I suggested that, due to interdependence, we play a part in every wrong > in samsara. That was from a very wide and general perspective. So what I > am trying to suggest here is that, somewhere between these perspectives, > one draws an arbitrary line for oneself beyond which one may consider an > action of someone else to be beyond one's own responsibility. Fair enough. It is notoriously difficult to find where to draw lines. If I may again refer to the writing of James Hollis, he distinguishes three kinds of guilt. The first he calls existential guilt, which is the sadness any reasonable and sensitive person feels about the fact that maintenance of one's life requires the death of others. The second he calls reasonable guilt, which is the natural feeling of being diminished a moral person feels when she fails to live up to her moral standards. The third is neurotic guilt, where a person feels guilty for things that are really not at all in his control. > It would appear that, more or less unanimously on this list, people view > that any killing that follows after someone buys meat, is caused by the > buyer of that meat and is their responsibility. I am not sure is a unanimous view. It is a view stated by several people that a buyer of make must take some of the responsibility of the killing of the animals slaughtered for that purpose. > I would presume then (so we can move away from meat eating) that this > applies to any purchase for which there had to be a prior killing - > for example, leather goods. Yes. Many vegetarians do avoid buying leather goods. > When I was in a taxi a couple of days ago, I sat on leather seats. I > am aware > that an animal had to die (or, most probably, be killed) so that I could > sit on a leather seat. So, through the supply chain of taxi-driver, car > manufacturer, tanner and slaughterer, I am now causing the death of some > cow in the future because I took a ride in a taxi with leather seats. No, that would be neurotic guilt. If you bought a car with leather seats, however, that might be a better example of something for which you have have to take some responsibility (if your goal was to be compliant with Buddhist principles about karma). You might also take some responsibility for taking a taxi that pollutes the atmosphere instead of walking or riding a bicycle. > It may be an increasio ad absurdum, but that is where the argument leads. Not necessarily. > Another, more relevant, example (for Tibetan Buddhists) is the offering > of silk scarves. I was informed a few months ago, that thousands of silk > moths have to die to produce one silk scarf. Now, my collection of silk > offering scarves (that I bought) represent my causing the death of many > silk moths in the future. Yes. For that reason many vegetarian Buddhists avoided buying or wearing silk. > Then, should someone see me offering scarves, they may think, "This > person uses silk scarves. I will now produce silk scarves and kill > moths to supply this person." You are now beginning to get the point. > So, I find it rather difficult to see where to draw the line here. Welcome to being human. We all find it difficult to know where to draw the line. And therefore most of us suffer. > But I would like to point out that my views are by no means > fixed on this. This whole discussion has provided me with plenty of food > for thought and I am reviewing my position carefully. I am glad that we > are now getting into the nitty gritty of the matter. I think this has been a useful discussion for many people, and I very much appreciate the time and sincerity you have taken to contribute to it. Thanks to all of you who have either said something or thought about what others were saying. -- Richard From rhayes at unm.edu Sat Oct 22 16:51:30 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Sat Oct 22 17:00:56 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] RE: The Emptiness of Tenure In-Reply-To: <841D767DCDE87C49A02DA6DFC0BABABF020580A2@COMEXCHANGE.hscnet.hsc.usf.edu> References: <841D767DCDE87C49A02DA6DFC0BABABF020580A2@COMEXCHANGE.hscnet.hsc.usf.edu> Message-ID: <1130021491.8104.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Sat, 2005-10-22 at 17:19 -0400, Vera, Pedro L. wrote: > I'm afraid that I missed the original post. Don't be afraid. > Regardless of the number of publications (and I do agree that they > must be refereed publications), and even the quality of the journal in > which one publishes (there are quantitative measures of the impact of > a journal, the so called "impact index"), the overriding factor still > remains the ability to attract and retain extramural funding (such as > research grants). Without such extramural funding, tenure is > unattainable. I believe that is more true in the sciences and social sciences than in the humanities. > Moreover, in an increasing number of institutions, "tenure" means a > life-long library card. Salary is strictly tied to grants. Therefore, > although the institution may support you for a limited period if you > lose your grant, they will eventually reduce your salary if you are > unable to obtain funding, or, just not pay you altogether. So I have heard. Several years ago the Dean of Sciences at McGill remarked that almost everyone is science, engineering and medicine has become, in effect, a slave of either the military or major corporations. (And he was talking about Canada! Think how much more true that is in the USA.) I have known so many science professors who say they spend 90% of their research time applying for grants and only 10% actually doing some work. The system is deeply discouraging and has made a good many people quite cynical. Fortunately, the humanities have not yet become obsessed with grantsmanship, but our time is fast approaching. It is utterly amazing to me how little regard governments have for the importance of liberal education and liberal research; by liberality, of course, I mean the freedom to follow one's curiosity rather than being enslaved by the greed for money and power that drives the people who make most of the decisions that end up impoverishing our lives. > Just to comply with the requisite buddhist content to any post, this > system is a perfect example of emptiness, impermanence and dukkha. A fairly typical Buddhist solution to this dukkha would be to leave all that bullshit behind, simplify one's life by getting rid of everyone one does not need (which is pretty much everything one owns), and start living the sort of life that human beings are designed (by evolution, I would insist) to live. Now everyone sign off of buddha-l, sell your computers and give the money to the poor, and go forth into this sad world to heal it of its pain. -- Richard From mike at lamrim.org.uk Sat Oct 22 17:13:04 2005 From: mike at lamrim.org.uk (Mike Austin) Date: Sat Oct 22 17:20:51 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat In-Reply-To: <1130020339.8104.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1129953443.4294.20.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1130002461.7608.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1130020339.8104.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: In message <1130020339.8104.14.camel@localhost.localdomain>, Richard P. Hayes writes > >I think this has been a useful discussion for many people, and I very >much appreciate the time and sincerity you have taken to contribute to >it. Thanks to all of you who have either said something or thought about >what others were saying. I appreciate you saying this. The impression I got was that most people thought the matter was clear cut and I was just being a pain in the neck for wanting to delve into it. -- Metta Mike Austin From parisjm2004 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 22 21:58:40 2005 From: parisjm2004 at yahoo.com (Michael Paris) Date: Sat Oct 22 22:00:57 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat In-Reply-To: <004101c5d664$494ec5a0$7dee6480@chass> Message-ID: <20051023035840.51331.qmail@web32612.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Gad, Can you explain what you mean by "recurrent bodymind" Sounds like a reincarnating soul in different words, though of course a soul has no body. Unless the body is also somehow reincarnated through genetic patterns contained within the soul. Intriguing thought... That would mean I'm destined to a big bald spot for billions and billions of years. Michael --- Gad Horowitz wrote: > humans accumulate karma in the recurrent bodymind, no? __________________________________ Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click. http://farechase.yahoo.com From parisjm2004 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 22 22:21:56 2005 From: parisjm2004 at yahoo.com (Michael Paris) Date: Sat Oct 22 22:30:57 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: On being androgynous In-Reply-To: <1129953668.4294.23.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20051023042157.48436.qmail@web32607.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Come to Texas. Dime a dozen. Take a drive on a Dallas freeway anytime, day or night, but especially around 5 p.m. Drive less than 80, especially in the right lane, especially by an exit ramp. You'll find 'em in droves. Speaking of The Land Down Under... I note that Crododile Dundee carried a Bowie knife. Old hat for Texans. In fact, we have a law restricting knives carried to blades of less than six inches. No samurai swords on our streets. (Although there are Bowies with five-inch blades.) Nowadays it's legal to carry a handgun if you're licensed. Why bother with a mere blade? Buddhist content: I often wonder just how much any amount of metta, goodwill, kind deeds, etc. can do to counteract the increasing tendency towards violence, even if that means "merely" violent thoughts? Isn't going armed, being prepared for a shooting, having some degree of violent thinking? "I'll be ready to shoot it out with the so-and-so that attacks me." Or something like that. Not a comforting line of thought. Michael --- "Richard P. Hayes" wrote: > You have no idea how long and hard I had to look to find someone even more vicious than myself. > > -- > Richard __________________________________ Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click. http://farechase.yahoo.com From parisjm2004 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 22 22:37:04 2005 From: parisjm2004 at yahoo.com (Michael Paris) Date: Sat Oct 22 22:40:57 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Chen Yen survival or revival? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051023043705.68328.qmail@web32609.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Sounds remarkably like Wicca and most of modern-day neo-paganism. Cf. Ronald Hutton's Triumph of the Moon for a fine read on the above. Most unpopular in some circles. Buddhist content: Isn't there a Critical Buddhist movement? Speaking of critical scholarship, one of the finest movements in recent Biblical scholarship in recent times has been the Jesus Seminar. Marcus Borg, Dominic Crossan, et. al. have done a fine job of putting Christianity into historical and factual perspective. Refreshing. I wonder if the same will ever happen with Buddhism? Granted that Goldstein, Kornfield, Salzberg, Rosenburg, et.al. of the CIMC and IMS have stressed very basic Buddhism, yet that approach seems the exception, not the rule. Also granted that Christianity has its share of magical elements. I was raised old-style Roman Catholic, St. Christopher's medals and all that. Oh well, enough rambling for a late Saturday night. Michael --- Jeff Wilson wrote: [snip] > I've observed that in many cases claims that a group is secret, underground, esoteric, or persecuted are used to mask the group's recent creation and inability to accurately document their claims. [snip] __________________________________ Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click. http://farechase.yahoo.com From rhayes at unm.edu Sat Oct 22 23:19:39 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Sat Oct 22 23:20:57 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Chen Yen survival or revival? In-Reply-To: <20051023043705.68328.qmail@web32609.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20051023043705.68328.qmail@web32609.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1130044779.4337.23.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Sat, 2005-10-22 at 21:37 -0700, Michael Paris wrote: > Isn't there a Critical Buddhist movement? There is indeed. Take a look at a book edited by Paul Swanson, entitled Pruning the Bodhi Tree. -- Richard From rhayes at unm.edu Sat Oct 22 23:17:18 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Sat Oct 22 23:21:03 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] On being unarmed and compassionate In-Reply-To: <20051023042157.48436.qmail@web32607.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20051023042157.48436.qmail@web32607.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1130044638.4337.21.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Sat, 2005-10-22 at 21:21 -0700, Michael Paris wrote: > I often wonder just how much any amount of metta, goodwill, kind deeds, > etc. can do to counteract the increasing tendency towards violence, > even if that means "merely" violent thoughts? > > Isn't going armed, being prepared for a shooting, having some degree of > violent thinking? In just about any country on this planet, it is obvious to most people that bearing arms is a preparedness for violence and that such preparedness is contrary to the advice of most ethical teachers. The USA, however, not quite being fit to exist on this planet, seems to have quite a few people who do not see that bearing arms is pretty much antithetical to the universal moral admonishment to avoid violence. Some years ago I witnessed a very heated exchange among American Buddhists on this issue. (Well, okay, I didn't exactly witness the heated exchange; I participated in it. Well, I didn't exactly participate in it; I started it. But it was interesting all the same.) Last year some time I heard some spokesman for the National Rifle Association saying that liberals would not be happy until America was just like Europe, where (he said) no one can carry any weapon more lethal than a Swiss Army knife. I thought the guy from the NRA was understating the case somewhat. I would not be content merely to see every American completely disarmed. I would also want to see the USA get rid of all its weapons of mass destruction. Oh, and did I mention that I'd like to see every member of the NRA frog-marched naked into a lagoon filled with jelly fish and stingrays while holding an assault rifle over his or her head? One of the Buddhist groups I have been involved with has a guideline that anyone who seeks membership in the group either has to disarm or have a very good reason for possessing firearms or other weapons. Although some people seem a bit puzzled by this guideline and wonder whether it isn't in some sense anti-American, they can usually be made to see that being obsessively American is pretty much anti-Buddhist. (If they can't be made to see this, we usually shoot them.) I wonder how other Buddhist outfits are. Does anyone have anything to report? -- Richard From jpeavler at mindspring.com Sun Oct 23 06:27:35 2005 From: jpeavler at mindspring.com (Jim Peavler) Date: Sun Oct 23 06:31:31 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat In-Reply-To: References: <1129953443.4294.20.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1130002461.7608.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1130020339.8104.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: On Oct 22, 2005, at 5:13 PM, Mike Austin wrote: > > I appreciate you saying this. The impression I got was that most > people thought the matter was clear cut and I was just being a pain in > the neck for wanting to delve into it. I reckon I am one of the people you thought thought the matter was clear cut. I not only don't think the matter is clear cut, I think there is no particular place for it to be cut. I think (and have often been declared mistaken on similar matters) that whether one eats remains of dead animals (be they humans or oysters), or uses leather (for shrunken heads or boot-soles or book covers), where any individual person draws the line has to be drawn after deep consultation with the best part of one's own self. We can learn from others, from books, or from deep reflection, but the final responsibility for our actions must finally be ourselves. Whether or not there are karmic rewards or karmic punishments for whatever place we draw that line is irrelevant. I think. From mike at lamrim.org.uk Sun Oct 23 07:10:03 2005 From: mike at lamrim.org.uk (Mike Austin) Date: Sun Oct 23 07:11:03 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat In-Reply-To: References: <1129953443.4294.20.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1130002461.7608.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1130020339.8104.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <$tipqrhru4WDFwCe@clara.net> In message , Jim Peavler writes >We can learn from others, from books, or from deep reflection, but the >final responsibility for our actions must finally be ourselves. Whether >or not there are karmic rewards or karmic punishments for whatever >place we draw that line is irrelevant. I think. If one is thinking in terms of future lives with the dedication of those lives to achieving an improved position from which to help others, it is important not to compromise those lives by ill-considered actions in the present life. In this context, one's karma vipaka is not just a personal reward or punishment, but something that has implications for others. If such a perspective is not appreciated, it could appear that concern with karma and its ripening is merely a narrow and selfish concern. -- Metta Mike Austin From brburl at mailbag.com Sun Oct 23 07:13:56 2005 From: brburl at mailbag.com (Bruce Burrill) Date: Sun Oct 23 07:21:04 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Chen Yen survival or revival? In-Reply-To: <1130044779.4337.23.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <20051023043705.68328.qmail@web32609.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1130044779.4337.23.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <7.0.0.10.2.20051023081231.04f7fca8@mailbag.com> At 12:19 AM 10/23/2005, you wrote: >There is indeed. Take a look at a book edited by Paul Swanson, entitled >Pruning the Bodhi Tree. edited by Paul Swanson AND Jamie Hubbard, with a really great essay by Dan Lusthaus. From horowitz at chass.utoronto.ca Sun Oct 23 11:15:50 2005 From: horowitz at chass.utoronto.ca (Gad Horowitz) Date: Sun Oct 23 08:11:04 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat References: <20051023035840.51331.qmail@web32612.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <005901c5d7f5$6c3996c0$7dee6480@chass> I was just repeating the idea of rebirth every moment ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Paris" To: "Buddhist discussion forum" Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2005 8:58 PM Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat > Gad, > > Can you explain what you mean by "recurrent bodymind" > > Sounds like a reincarnating soul in different words, though of course a > soul has no body. Unless the body is also somehow reincarnated through > genetic patterns contained within the soul. > > Intriguing thought... That would mean I'm destined to a big bald spot > for billions and billions of years. > > > Michael > > > --- Gad Horowitz wrote: > > > humans accumulate karma in the recurrent bodymind, no? > > > > > __________________________________ > Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click. > http://farechase.yahoo.com > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From jpeavler at mindspring.com Sun Oct 23 09:59:30 2005 From: jpeavler at mindspring.com (Jim Peavler) Date: Sun Oct 23 10:01:06 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat In-Reply-To: <$tipqrhru4WDFwCe@clara.net> References: <1129953443.4294.20.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1130002461.7608.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1130020339.8104.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> <$tipqrhru4WDFwCe@clara.net> Message-ID: On Oct 23, 2005, at 7:10 AM, Mike Austin wrote: > In message , Jim > Peavler writes > >> We can learn from others, from books, or from deep reflection, but >> the final responsibility for our actions must finally be ourselves. >> Whether or not there are karmic rewards or karmic punishments for >> whatever place we draw that line is irrelevant. I think. > > If one is thinking in terms of future lives with the dedication of > those lives to achieving an improved position from which to help > others, it is important not to compromise those lives by > ill-considered actions in the present life. In this context, one's > karma vipaka is not just a personal reward or punishment, but > something that has implications for others. If such a perspective is > not appreciated, it could appear that concern with karma and its > ripening is merely a narrow and selfish concern. I guess I am confused again. These future lives you are concerned about, which make the concern about karma not a selfish concern, don't they have some direct connect with some form of "you"? Are you most interested in being the best person you can be right now or about making sure you don't somehow, accidentally, blow your next lives? From mike at lamrim.org.uk Sun Oct 23 10:55:00 2005 From: mike at lamrim.org.uk (Mike Austin) Date: Sun Oct 23 11:02:16 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat In-Reply-To: References: <1129953443.4294.20.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1130002461.7608.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1130020339.8104.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> <$tipqrhru4WDFwCe@clara.net> Message-ID: In message , Jim Peavler writes > >> If one is thinking in terms of future lives with the dedication of >>those lives to achieving an improved position from which to help >>others, it is important not to compromise those lives by >>ill-considered actions in the present life. In this context, one's >>karma vipaka is not just a personal reward or punishment, but >>something that has implications for others. If such a perspective is >>not appreciated, it could appear that concern with karma and its >>ripening is merely a narrow and selfish concern. > >I guess I am confused again. These future lives you are concerned >about, which make the concern about karma not a selfish concern, don't >they have some direct connect with some form of "you"? Are you most >interested in being the best person you can be right now or about >making sure you don't somehow, accidentally, blow your next lives? It is because these 'future lives' have some connect with "I" that it is important to consider them. What is the point of being concerned with an "I" that exists right now? I could be the best I can now but, should it be unsustainable, for what purpose would I do that? The "I" that is now is already gone. It is with an "eye" to the future that one improves the "I" now. What is the purpose of being the best person one can be now if there is no time over which this 'best' can manifest - or even be deemed to be a 'best'? It seems to me this is the critical balance for any practitioner: how to balance how one is at present with how one will be in the future - be it seconds, years or lives away. It is how one behaves now and how one will behave in the future. We probably all have different balances according to our dispositions. -- Metta Mike Austin From parisjm2004 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 23 11:03:58 2005 From: parisjm2004 at yahoo.com (Michael Paris) Date: Sun Oct 23 11:11:06 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] On being unarmed and compassionate In-Reply-To: <1130044638.4337.21.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20051023170358.55369.qmail@web32604.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Very selective group, eh? I wonder what other entrance requirements they have. So one has to justify one's beliefs, or even hobbies, in order to belong to this bunch. But, of course, that's their privilege. Many groups practice their version of right-think. Richard, your last comment simply isn't funny, at least to me. Normally I'd say nothing about your sense of humor, but saying something like that, even intended purely in jest, bothers me a lot. Perhaps I'm in a sour mood. On the comics page yesterday, LuAnn, Foxtrot, and Dilbert all dealt with violence and killing, none well. Not that I'm advocating any sort of censorship. Of course not. Perhaps popular humor is reflecting our culture, as art always does. Michael --- "Richard P. Hayes" wrote: [snip] > One of the Buddhist groups I have been involved with has a guideline that anyone who seeks membership in the group either has to disarm or have a very good reason for possessing firearms or other weapons. Although some people seem a bit puzzled by this guideline and wonder whether it isn't in some sense anti-American, they can usually be made to see that being obsessively American is pretty much anti-Buddhist. (I they can't be made to see this, we usually shoot them.) > __________________________________ Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click. http://farechase.yahoo.com From parisjm2004 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 23 11:14:02 2005 From: parisjm2004 at yahoo.com (Michael Paris) Date: Sun Oct 23 11:21:08 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat In-Reply-To: <005901c5d7f5$6c3996c0$7dee6480@chass> Message-ID: <20051023171402.31087.qmail@web32606.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Doesn't sound like orthodox Buddhism. Michael --- Gad Horowitz wrote: > I was just repeating the idea of rebirth every moment > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Michael Paris" > > > Gad, > > > > Can you explain what you mean by "recurrent bodymind" __________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page! http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From parisjm2004 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 23 11:11:56 2005 From: parisjm2004 at yahoo.com (Michael Paris) Date: Sun Oct 23 11:21:15 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051023171156.74643.qmail@web32611.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Yes. Rewards and punishments - not a sound basis for moral actions. IMHO this entire discussion, especially the references to karma, is about morality. In fact, it seems karma directly relates to moral actions. Good karma corresponds to "good" moral acts, and vice versa. Of course, the clincher is the meaning of "good" and "bad." That's what this thread has been about all along. Messy subject. I wonder if Buddhist ethics and morality can be discussed in English terms, without reference to "karma" and other semi-metaphysical terms. That might clarify the arguments. Michael --- Jim Peavler wrote: > Whether or not there are karmic rewards or karmic punishments for whatever place we draw that line is irrelevant. I think. > __________________________________ Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click. http://farechase.yahoo.com From ronleifer at aol.com Sun Oct 23 11:37:26 2005 From: ronleifer at aol.com (ronleifer@aol.com) Date: Sun Oct 23 11:41:09 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat In-Reply-To: <20051023171156.74643.qmail@web32611.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8C7A60F91A32F1E-EA4-3A07@FWM-R19.sysops.aol.com> -----Original Message----- From: Michael Paris To: Buddhist discussion forum Sent: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 10:11:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat In fact, it seems karma directly relates to moral actions. Good karma corresponds to "good" moral acts, and vice versa. Of course, the clincher is the meaning of "good" and "bad." That's what this thread has been about all along. Messy subject. I wonder if Buddhist ethics and morality can be discussed in English terms, without reference to "karma" and other semi-metaphysical terms. That might clarify the arguments. Michael Based on what I have heard, simply stated, karma means intentional action and its consequences. Good action benefits one's self and others. Bad action harms. Ron Leifer __________________________________ Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click. http://farechase.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From parisjm2004 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 23 11:39:20 2005 From: parisjm2004 at yahoo.com (Michael Paris) Date: Sun Oct 23 11:41:16 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Liberal arts technophobia [was: Shingon sutras] In-Reply-To: <1129991144.4374.29.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20051023173920.79390.qmail@web32614.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Not all philosophers are Internet-ignorant. Both Philosophy and Philosophy Now magazines have excellent web sites, with numerous references to online resources. Then there's the philosophy listserv, PHILOS-L, with its companion list. CHORA. There are many online courses (though all I'm familar with are based in Great Britain). I had the privilege of taking an email course in basic Stoicism from the British scholar Dr. Keith Seddon. ... You're referring to MS/PC-DOS or Apple DOS (for the Apple ][, AKA Apple //)? I liked the //e. Command line -- that's for me. Never cared a whit for Macs. Michael --- "Richard P. Hayes" wrote: [snip] > > I suspect there are still folks in the languages, history, philosophy, and other liberal arts who don't read things online, and who would not give much respect to anything published online. > > > > I think you're partially right about philosophers. There is a huge > amount of excellent material available on line. (My students > regularly print it up and hand it in as their own work.) I routinely draw on > on- line materials, many of which are very nicely thought out and well > presented. The resources are stunning. So SOME philosophers are > obviously using the Internet with great skill. On the other hand, I > find that most of my colleagues are pretty much ignorant of what is > available on line. What amazes me is that some of them insist on > getting a new state-of-the-art computer every two years or so, > bemoaning the fact that their machines are obsolete. But all they do > with their expensive machines is read e-mail and write documents in > Word. They could do THAT on DOS 3.3. > __________________________________ Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click. http://farechase.yahoo.com From jpeavler at mindspring.com Sun Oct 23 11:46:34 2005 From: jpeavler at mindspring.com (Jim Peavler) Date: Sun Oct 23 11:51:08 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat In-Reply-To: References: <1129953443.4294.20.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1130002461.7608.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1130020339.8104.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> <$tipqrhru4WDFwCe@clara.net> Message-ID: <1538eeb235d66f6b36c46c13d63e4748@mindspring.com> On Oct 23, 2005, at 10:55 AM, Mike Austin wrote: > What is the purpose of being the best person one can be now if there > is no time over which this 'best' can manifest - or even be deemed to > be a 'best'? The reduction of dukkha? Jim Peavler "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -- Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), reply of the Pennsylvania Assembly to the Governor, November 11, 1755 From richard.nance at gmail.com Sun Oct 23 11:58:08 2005 From: richard.nance at gmail.com (Richard Nance) Date: Sun Oct 23 12:01:09 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat In-Reply-To: <20051023171156.74643.qmail@web32611.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20051023171156.74643.qmail@web32611.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 10/23/05, Michael Paris wrote: > I wonder if Buddhist ethics and morality can be discussed in English > terms, without reference to "karma" and other semi-metaphysical terms. > That might clarify the arguments. The Sanskrit noun "karman" means action, though people tend to forget this. Hence, the term itself is really not any more metaphysical than the English "action". In discussions like the one we're having, the following test might prove useful: when you run across (or feel tempted to make) a claim employing the term karman/karma, replace each instance of the term with the English "action(s)" (or, given that this is a list devoted to Buddhism, "intentional action(s)"). Does the claim still makes sense? If not, then it probably ought to be revised. Best wishes, R. Nance From dylan at tweney.com Sun Oct 23 12:01:51 2005 From: dylan at tweney.com (d f tweney) Date: Sun Oct 23 12:11:08 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat In-Reply-To: <8C7A60F91A32F1E-EA4-3A07@FWM-R19.sysops.aol.com> References: <8C7A60F91A32F1E-EA4-3A07@FWM-R19.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <25c7ad696e4952fbcb4588f08f69e29f@tweney.com> On Oct 23, 2005, at 10:37 AM, ronleifer@aol.com wrote: > Based on what I have heard, simply stated, karma means intentional > action and its consequences. Good action benefits one's self and > others. Bad action harms. > But both "good" and "bad" karma are still karma. The point is not to collect good karma and avoid bad karma. The point of Buddhism is to get to an awareness that goes beyond karma altogether, no? Or, as others in this discussion have said, there is no way to live without implicating yourself in death of some kind. Even if you don't eat meat, your car may have leather seats. Even if you don't ride in cars with leather seats, you may purchase your organic cotton garments from someone who does eat meat -- and thus, by giving them money, facilitate their meat eating. Even if you eat nothing but bread, millions of yeast organisms still have to die in order for you to make that bread. You can't avoid cause-and-effect (or karma). The question is, are you aware of what you're doing? Then you can make decisions about "where to draw the line." --dylan. From rbzeuschner at adelphia.net Sun Oct 23 12:31:29 2005 From: rbzeuschner at adelphia.net (Bob Zeuschner) Date: Sun Oct 23 12:41:08 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: karma and action In-Reply-To: References: <20051023171156.74643.qmail@web32611.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <435BD701.9020708@adelphia.net> Richard Nance wrote: > > The Sanskrit noun "karman" means action, though people tend to forget > this. Hence, the term itself is really not any more metaphysical than > the English "action". > > In discussions like the one we're having, the following test might > prove useful: when you run across (or feel tempted to make) a claim > employing the term karman/karma, replace each instance of the term > with the English "action(s)" (or, given that this is a list devoted to > Buddhism, "intentional action(s)"). Yes, "karman" means action. HOWEVER, the way most people have been using relevant to meat eating, it is a special sub-category of actions. It is those actions which are reflexive, that is, actions such that consequences similar to the act rebound upon the agent. That is what is implied by "good karma" and "bad karma." Actions of certain types (i.e., intentional actions which cause _dukkha_) will have consequences which will resemble the act, and will rebound to affect the actor. This is the metaphysical dimension. The claim is not empirical, is not testable, and makes no predictions which could falsify it. Thus, simply substituting "action" for _karma_ is not quite adequate. Bob Dept. of Philosophy From richard.nance at gmail.com Sun Oct 23 13:16:41 2005 From: richard.nance at gmail.com (Richard Nance) Date: Sun Oct 23 13:21:15 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: karma and action In-Reply-To: <435BD701.9020708@adelphia.net> References: <20051023171156.74643.qmail@web32611.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <435BD701.9020708@adelphia.net> Message-ID: On 10/23/05, Bob Zeuschner wrote: >Yes, "karman" means action. >HOWEVER, the way most people have been using relevant to meat eating, it >is a special sub-category of actions. It is those actions which are reflexive, that is, actions such that consequences similar to the act rebound upon the agent... Bob -- if you reread my comments carefully, you'll see that I've anticipated this objection. I wrote: > given that this is a list devoted to > Buddhism, "intentional action(s)" So far as I'm aware, "intentional actions" and "actions such that consequences similar to the act rebound upon the agent" are presented as coextensive within the tradition. (This leads to the thorny problem of whether and how fully-fledged Buddhas have intentions. Thankfully, for the purposes of this discussion, we don't need to worry about that problem very much.) I still think the test I've proposed can prove useful in clarifying things. If others feel that the test is too reductionistic, then they should feel free to ignore it. Best wishes, R. Nance From joy.vriens at nerim.net Sun Oct 23 13:42:28 2005 From: joy.vriens at nerim.net (Joy Vriens) Date: Sun Oct 23 13:51:08 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat In-Reply-To: References: <20051023171156.74643.qmail@web32611.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <435BE7A4.4020808@nerim.net> Richard Nance wrote: > The Sanskrit noun "karman" means action, though people tend to forget > this. Hence, the term itself is really not any more metaphysical than > the English "action". According to Emile S?nart, "karman" in the sacerdotal tradition refered to ritual acts to which infinite vertues were attributed. He suggests it's not a coincidence that in the ascetic traditions this term was chosen to signifie (moral) actions that became the cause of future exitences. In both magically inclined views the proportions between the acts and their fruits tend to get lost. So "Karman" probably never got completely rid of the metaphysicality it did seem to have at its origins. From parisjm2004 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 23 14:07:13 2005 From: parisjm2004 at yahoo.com (Michael Paris) Date: Sun Oct 23 14:11:11 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051023200713.96721.qmail@web32607.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Or could intention alone be sufficient to create karma? I believe Mike Austin gave an example of karma resulting purely from intention, even though the planned action did not take place. I'm not up on formal Catholic doctrine, but I believe good intentions do count as good works. Honest, serious good intentions, of course, even if circumstances prevent their realization. And likewise, bad intentions. If I wish a person disgraced, even though I cannot bring that about, then I bear some responsibility for that desire. I can't provide justification with formal references, but it makes sense. We are creatures with the capacity to imagine - an extra dimesion of thought that animals seem to lack. Seems we should use that carefully. On a personal note, I dislike villifying even those I despise, e.g., certain political figures discussed at length on this list. I simply feel bad when I act hateful, even in typed words. Michael --- Richard Nance wrote: > On 10/23/05, Michael Paris wrote: > > > I wonder if Buddhist ethics and morality can be discussed in > English terms, without reference to "karma" and other semi-metaphysical terms. That might clarify the arguments. > > > The Sanskrit noun "karman" means action, though people tend to forget this. Hence, the term itself is really not any more metaphysical than the English "action". > > In discussions like the one we're having, the following test might prove useful: when you run across (or feel tempted to make) a claim employing the term karman/karma, replace each instance of the term with the English "action(s)" (or, given that this is a list devoted to Buddhism, "intentional action(s)"). > > Does the claim still makes sense? If not, then it probably ought to > be revised. > > Best wishes, > > R. Nance __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From parisjm2004 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 23 14:17:14 2005 From: parisjm2004 at yahoo.com (Michael Paris) Date: Sun Oct 23 14:21:09 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: karma and action In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051023201715.98187.qmail@web32607.mail.mud.yahoo.com> (Soundsl like an interesting topic to pursue for a thesis.) If, indeed, such entities have ever existed. Or even can exist. I've deliberately avoided broaching enlightenment. That's a question for another day when I don't have homework awaiting my attention (or after I am enlightened ). Michael --- Richard Nance wrote: [snip] > So far as I'm aware, "intentional actions" and "actions such that consequences similar to the act rebound upon the agent" are presented as coextensive within the tradition. (This leads to the thorny problem of whether and how fully-fledged Buddhas have intentions. Thankfully, for the purposes of this discussion, we don't need to worry about that problem very much.) > [snip] __________________________________ Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click. http://farechase.yahoo.com From parisjm2004 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 23 14:12:03 2005 From: parisjm2004 at yahoo.com (Michael Paris) Date: Sun Oct 23 14:21:18 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat In-Reply-To: <25c7ad696e4952fbcb4588f08f69e29f@tweney.com> Message-ID: <20051023201204.4825.qmail@web32612.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Replies below. --- d f tweney wrote: [snip] >The point is not to collect good karma and avoid bad karma. The point > of Buddhism is to get to an awareness that goes beyond karma > altogether, no? Is that possible? Or is it simply a deep awareness, a sensitivity, perhaps, of "karma?" To really give a damn, so to speak. [snip] > You can't avoid cause-and-effect (or karma). The question > is, are you aware of what you're doing? Then you can make decisions > about "where to draw the line." > > --dylan. Yes, exactly my point. Perhaps I'm on a one-person mission to put Buddhism into some sort of basic, common language that I can understand and explain to another in like terms. Why else would I be pursing this "ad irritatem?" I do appreciate everyone's contribution to this perhaps obvious topic. Seems that what's obvious to many isn't the least clear to me. The Columbo Effect, maybe? Michael __________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page! http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From curt at cola.iges.org Sun Oct 23 14:30:45 2005 From: curt at cola.iges.org (curt) Date: Sun Oct 23 14:45:27 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat In-Reply-To: <20051023200713.96721.qmail@web32607.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20051023200713.96721.qmail@web32607.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <435BF2F5.6000907@cola.iges.org> There isn't necessarily (or, really, at all) a distinction between "intention" and "action" - because "intention" itself should be considered an "act" - a "mental" act, if you will. If anything, mental actions are considered more important that mere physical actions. There is degree of "reality" that is readily granted to the inner world in the Buddhist tradition that is at least somewhat foreign to the western/materialist/positivist/"scientific" mind. If the inner world is accorded such a reality then the sharp distinction between such mental acts as imagination and intention, on the one hand, and bodily actions on the other hand, vanishes. With that understanding I think that Richard Nance's substitution of "act" for "kamma" is reasonable - but without it, there are problems. - Curt Michael Paris wrote: >Or could intention alone be sufficient to create karma? > >I believe Mike Austin gave an example of karma resulting purely from >intention, even though the planned action did not take place. > >I'm not up on formal Catholic doctrine, but I believe good intentions >do count as good works. Honest, serious good intentions, of course, >even if circumstances prevent their realization. > >And likewise, bad intentions. If I wish a person disgraced, even though >I cannot bring that about, then I bear some responsibility for that >desire. > >I can't provide justification with formal references, but it makes >sense. We are creatures with the capacity to imagine - an extra >dimesion of thought that animals seem to lack. Seems we should use that >carefully. > >On a personal note, I dislike villifying even those I despise, e.g., >certain political figures discussed at length on this list. I simply >feel bad when I act hateful, even in typed words. > > >Michael > > >--- Richard Nance wrote: > > > >>On 10/23/05, Michael Paris wrote: >> >> >> >>>I wonder if Buddhist ethics and morality can be discussed in >>> >>> >>English terms, without reference to "karma" and other >> >> >semi-metaphysical terms. That might clarify the arguments. > > > > > >>The Sanskrit noun "karman" means action, though people tend to forget >> >> >this. Hence, the term itself is really not any more metaphysical than >the English "action". > > >>In discussions like the one we're having, the following test might >> >> >prove useful: when you run across (or feel tempted to make) a claim >employing the term karman/karma, replace each instance of the term >with the English "action(s)" (or, given that this is a list devoted >to Buddhism, "intentional action(s)"). > > >>Does the claim still makes sense? If not, then it probably ought to >>be revised. >> >>Best wishes, >> >>R. Nance >> >> > > > > > >__________________________________ >Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 >http://mail.yahoo.com >_______________________________________________ >buddha-l mailing list >buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com >http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l > > > > From hans_vandergugten at yahoo.com Sun Oct 23 07:39:41 2005 From: hans_vandergugten at yahoo.com (Hans van der Gugten) Date: Sun Oct 23 14:46:22 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Chen Yen survival or revival? / Free Pruning In-Reply-To: <1130044779.4337.23.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20051023133941.98737.qmail@web32102.mail.mud.yahoo.com> "Richard P. Hayes" wrote: On Sat, 2005-10-22 at 21:37 -0700, Michael Paris wrote: > Isn't there a Critical Buddhist movement? There is indeed. Take a look at a book edited by Paul Swanson, entitled Pruning the Bodhi Tree. ========================= "Richard P. Hayes" yesterday also wrote: > There is a huge amount of excellent material available on line. I happened to google for the mentioned book and found about it: This book may be downloaded in its entirety and read with Adobe Acrobat. ? Nanzan Institute for Religion and Culture. For personal use only. This material may not be distributed without written permission of the copyright holder and the University of Hawai'i Press. It is on this site: http://www.nanzan-u.ac.jp/SHUBUNKEN/publications/nlarc/Pruning_the_bodhi_tree.htm Greetingz, hans www.n0by.de/n0/HansVanDerGugten.htm --------------------------------- Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20051023/c642b07b/attachment.htm From curt at cola.iges.org Sun Oct 23 08:55:28 2005 From: curt at cola.iges.org (curt) Date: Sun Oct 23 14:46:50 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Chen Yen survival or revival? In-Reply-To: <20051023043705.68328.qmail@web32609.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20051023043705.68328.qmail@web32609.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <435BA460.9070308@cola.iges.org> Hutton's case is actually very weak in a number of areas. It is particularly weak on the specific point relevant here - that of "underground" spiritual movements surviving in the face of persecution - an issue that Hutton actually ignores. Much more relevant would be Perez Zagorin's "Ways of Lying: Dissimulation, Persecution, and Conformity in Early Modern Europe". Dissimulation was a well-established phenomenon within Latin Christendom - those who condemned it called it "casuistry", while a theoretical/theological justification was developed for dissimulation under the name "Nicodemism". Calvin, for example, considered Nicodemism a major problem because he wanted his followers to "come out of the closet", but a lot of them thought that unwise. Religious groups that have experienced persecution often do have very tenuous claims to "continuity" with past traditions. But that is not necessarily due to the dishonesty of the leaders of those groups, combined with the gullibility of their followers - it is likely due to the fact that religious persecution finds it easier to destroy the physical evidence of a tradition than the actual tradition itself. - Curt Michael Paris wrote: >Sounds remarkably like Wicca and most of modern-day neo-paganism. > >Cf. Ronald Hutton's Triumph of the Moon for a fine read on the above. >Most unpopular in some circles. > > > > >>I've observed that in many cases claims that a group is secret, >> >> >underground, esoteric, or persecuted are used to mask the group's >recent creation and inability to accurately document their claims. > >[snip] > > > > From rbzeuschner at adelphia.net Sun Oct 23 14:43:30 2005 From: rbzeuschner at adelphia.net (Bob Zeuschner) Date: Sun Oct 23 14:51:12 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: karma and action In-Reply-To: References: <20051023171156.74643.qmail@web32611.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <435BD701.9020708@adelphia.net> Message-ID: <435BF5F2.3050006@adelphia.net> Hi Richard -- Yes, I saw the term "intentional" in your original message. I understood you as suggesting that substituting "action" would reveal that the term karma is not a metaphysical term. As I understand the use of karma on this list and elsewhere, it is so filled with metaphysical implications that I find it not much different from similar unfalsifiable claims of "original sin" or "eternal souls." As such, I find it an interesting way to think about things, and it might even provide a useful guide to personal decisions, BUT I find no reason to accept it as some truth about the way things are. IMHO. Thus, to substitute "action" for "karma" would lose almost all the genuine metaphysical meaning from the term, and mislead the hearer. Best, Bob Richard Nance wrote: > On 10/23/05, Bob Zeuschner wrote: > > >>Yes, "karman" means action. >>HOWEVER, the way most people have been using relevant to meat eating, it >>is a special sub-category of actions. It is those actions which are > > reflexive, that is, actions such that consequences similar to the act > rebound upon the agent... > > Bob -- if you reread my comments carefully, you'll see that I've > anticipated this objection. I wrote: > > >>given that this is a list devoted to >>Buddhism, "intentional action(s)" > > > So far as I'm aware, "intentional actions" and "actions such that > consequences similar to the act rebound upon the agent" are presented > as coextensive within the tradition. (This leads to the thorny problem > of whether and how fully-fledged Buddhas have intentions. Thankfully, > for the purposes of this discussion, we don't need to worry about that > problem very much.) > Bob Zeuschner wrote: > Actions of certain types (i.e., intentional actions which cause > _dukkha_) will have consequences which will resemble the act, and will > rebound to affect the actor. > This is the metaphysical dimension. The claim is not empirical, is not > testable, and makes no predictions which could falsify it. > From rhayes at unm.edu Sun Oct 23 14:42:19 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Sun Oct 23 14:51:22 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] On being unarmed and compassionate In-Reply-To: <20051023170358.55369.qmail@web32604.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20051023170358.55369.qmail@web32604.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1130100139.4371.45.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Sun, 2005-10-23 at 10:03 -0700, Michael Paris wrote: > Very selective group, eh? I wonder what other entrance requirements > they have. So one has to justify one's beliefs, or even hobbies, in > order to belong to this bunch. But, of course, that's their privilege. > Many groups practice their version of right-think. The group I was describing, the Western Buddhist Order, has a pretty definite version of right-do. It is a little less interested in right- think. The kinds of actions it wants its members to avoid are eating meat, having abortions and owning guns. As far as I know, those are considered guidelines only for those who wish to "belong" (in some sense) to the outfit. No one, to the best of my knowledge, has taken the step of suggesting that McDonald's franchises, abortion clinics and sporting goods stores be bombed or that the constitution of the United States be rewritten with new laws banning carnivorism, abortion and gun ownership. (I seem to be the only one crazy enough to advocate banning guns loudly and incessantly, and I am careful not to identify myself as a Buddhist when I do it, lest Buddhism be the target the next Crusades.) What is interesting, I think, about the way some Buddhism has taken shape in the USA is that it has followed the footsteps of Puritanism in so many ways. There were, of course, no such people as the Puritans. That is, nobody seems to have called themselves by that name. It was a label given to them by outsiders at first. Whatever the origins of the name, Puritanism seems to have been a movement that cut across many denominations of Christianity. What most of them had in common was a tendency not to be very much concerned at all with orthodoxy (right thinking). They rejected creeds. Some of them even saw revelation as useless unless it was informed by reason, and some went so far as to say that if one's reason is operating properly, then one needs no revelation at all. But whatever fervor some Christians put into reciting creeds and weeding out unbelievers, the Puritans put into acting reasonably and weeding out (or shunning) miscreants. The WBO strikes me as Puritanical in its emphasis on putting wisdom and compassion into action by avoiding violence to animals (hence the vegetarianism) and to fetuses (hence the stance against abortion) and to people and animals (hence the ban on owning weapons of minor destruction). It bases its Puritanical ethic not so much on reason (as some Congregationalists and the Universalists, for example, did) as on Romanticism. (I am too ignorant of Romanticism to say more about this; I just know that one hears a lot about the Romantics in the WBO, so I gather they are important.) None of these claims I am making are in any way original. The accusation that the WBO is a Protestant form of Buddhism has been made (rightly, I think), and it has also been vehemently denied (wrongly, I think) by some people within the WBO. I myself see nothing at all wrong in Protestant Buddhism. Indeed, it seems an improvement, and I think it is inevitable that Westerners will develop forms of Buddhism that are hybrids of bits and bobs of Asian Buddhism and dribs and drabs of Western culture. As for myself, I stay in the WBO by staying out of all those silly debates among my fellow groupies. There are lots of ways I think the WBO has gone seriously astray and wandered off into being a self-parodying cult in which the principle practice is a kind of ritualized denial of its own mistakes. But that's pretty much the story of all organized religion, n'est-ce pas? Despite its many failings, I applaud what the WBO was trying to do at the beginning, namely, have an organization that embraced all of Buddhism, rather than following any one tradition, and made no distinction between monks and laity or between men and women. (I used to think of them as a a Buddhist group who had learned some important lessons from the Quakers about how to run an outfit.) To this day, I think that is the right direction for Buddhism in the West to take. In fact, I think much of Western Buddhism has in fact taken pretty much that direction, although their have been some major hiccoughs (and not a small amount of belching) along the way. I apologize for making a bad joke in a previous message. I sometimes make the wrong assumption that when I write a message arguing stridently for a position and then end the message by saying something that is obviously diametrically opposed to what I have been stridently arguing, this ham-fisted attempt at corny humor will make someone smile. But I keep forgetting we belong to a culture that has come to take itself so seriously that it can no longer smile at anything---even badly crafted jokes. So I apologize not so much for myself, but for what the society I live in has become. And I apologize not only to Michael Paris but to the universe for the humourlessness of our times. -- Richard (alias Dayamati) From ronleifer at aol.com Sun Oct 23 14:56:01 2005 From: ronleifer at aol.com (ronleifer@aol.com) Date: Sun Oct 23 15:01:13 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat In-Reply-To: <20051023200713.96721.qmail@web32607.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8C7A62B4F93D260-EA4-40F0@FWM-R19.sysops.aol.com> -----Original Message----- From: Michael Paris To: Buddhist discussion forum Sent: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 13:07:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat Or could intention alone be sufficient to create karma? Michael -Yes. In the Gelugpa tradition, at least, intention alone is considered sufficient to create a degree of karma. The degree is heightened by acting out the intention, and heightened further by being satisfied with the consequences. Ron Leifer __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From jpeavler at mindspring.com Sun Oct 23 15:43:43 2005 From: jpeavler at mindspring.com (Jim Peavler) Date: Sun Oct 23 15:51:10 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] On being unarmed and compassionate In-Reply-To: <1130100139.4371.45.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <20051023170358.55369.qmail@web32604.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1130100139.4371.45.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: On Oct 23, 2005, at 2:42 PM, Richard P. Hayes wrote: > I apologize for making a bad joke in a previous message. I sometimes > make the wrong assumption that when I write a message arguing > stridently > for a position and then end the message by saying something that is > obviously diametrically opposed to what I have been stridently arguing, > this ham-fisted attempt at corny humor will make someone smile. I smiled, but I realize that isn't much comfort. From mike at lamrim.org.uk Sun Oct 23 16:15:04 2005 From: mike at lamrim.org.uk (Mike Austin) Date: Sun Oct 23 16:21:11 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat In-Reply-To: <20051023200713.96721.qmail@web32607.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20051023200713.96721.qmail@web32607.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8tTp6rBotAXDFwry@clara.net> In message <20051023200713.96721.qmail@web32607.mail.mud.yahoo.com>, Michael Paris writes > >I believe Mike Austin gave an example of karma resulting purely from >intention, even though the planned action did not take place. > This is what I have heard. However, as I said at the time, I am unclear as to 'complete' karma occasioned through the door of mind. There is an explanation of 'complete' karma of body and speech, but I do not follow explanations I have been given of 'complete' karma of mind. Also, I am unclear about status of 'incomplete' karma. I hear there is some sort of 'stain' or 'imprint' left on the mindstream by this. Either it ripens or it is inert, as far as I can see. I don't know what such an imprint is. -- Metta Mike Austin From rhayes at unm.edu Sun Oct 23 16:34:34 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Sun Oct 23 16:41:11 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: On being unarmed and compassionate In-Reply-To: References: <20051023170358.55369.qmail@web32604.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1130100139.4371.45.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1130106874.5584.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Sun, 2005-10-23 at 15:43 -0600, Jim Peavler wrote: > I smiled, but I realize that isn't much comfort. It depends on whether you smiled one of those arhant smiles, where the corners of the mouth turn up slightly as if you might just be having gas pains, or whether you smiled one of those foolish common-folk smiles in which tears ran down the cheeks as involuntary ejaculations escaped from the vocal cavity, making the neighbors suspect a pair of sea turtles might be mating on the rooftop. Both kinds of smile would bring me psychological comfort, of course, but the latter would probably contribute more to your overall health. I read not long ago in some prestigious medical journal, or perhaps the National Enquirer, that researchers have learned that fifteen minutes of laughter a day is as good for one's heart and lungs as a forty minute bicycle ride behind a city bus. But then you knew that. -- Richard From marshallarts at bigpond.com Sun Oct 23 16:37:50 2005 From: marshallarts at bigpond.com (Kate) Date: Sun Oct 23 16:41:18 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat References: <20051023200713.96721.qmail@web32607.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <435BF2F5.6000907@cola.iges.org> Message-ID: <001501c5d822$66dd6440$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> > There isn't necessarily (or, really, at all) a distinction between > "intention" and "action" - because "intention" itself should be > considered an "act" - a "mental" act, if you will. > - Curt This is my understand of it too. From my teacher's writings: "To be karmically generative (and thus retributive), the Sarvastivada and other sects taught that there are five factors whose presence is necessary for a retributive karmic activity (Karmaphala; Chinese: yeh hua; Japanese: joge) to take place. Such activity is initiated even if the action is completed only mentally, for in such a case a mental karma is created These factors are as follows: Object (vastu), intention (samjna); effort (prayoga); mental stain (klesa); and acomplishment (nispati). This latter factor is an attitude of relief, satisfaction, or gladness at the event being completed. Vasubandhu and others also showed that the act of instigating another person to commit a violent act equally created a karma for the instigator. In any act of violence, the higher the intensity with which the act is carried out, the greater the internal effect to the executor." Just out of interest, in Chen Yen the five element system of analysis is used when considering any matter. Therefore in any act of violence there will be the klesa of hatred (Klesa = Space/Ether) which helps create the attitude necessary for the act; the person who is the Object of the act (Object = Earth); the intention/motivation to do it (intention = Water); seizing an opportunity and carrying it out (Act = Fire); followed by the sense of satisfaction or relief when it has been done (mental satisfaction = Air). "The klesa present can equally be a combination of factors, ie in the case in question [an act of violence], if the act is motivated by envy, the klesa of hatred will be present; the longing to do the act will be the klesa of greed; and belief that the act itself will change the situation will stem from delusion. It can be seen that in some cases an act which is thought about, nurtured and dwelt upon, but not actually carried out, can create more harmful patterns than a brief unplanned action. Similarly, an act of death caused unintentionaly will likewise not carry the causal factors mentioned. "We can see that the various klesa involved here act as conditioning factors of consciousness and are themselves composed of the various forms of mental karma and Dukkha (sufferings). These in turn arise and are dependent upon the various individual samskaras created or maintained by the individual during life. Klesa form the predominant theme in creating the pattern or consciousness, itself, and it is from this pattern that we develop attitudes and desires that induce suffering in oneself and others." Karma is considered to be activities of the mind which modify its condition. There is a lot more to this but the object of using the five element system of analysis is basically to have a tool for understanding consciousness. With a proper teacher it can form a 'ruler' by which a student could orient their progression in modifying their behaviour in certain areas and reorient the student where necessary. Regards Kate From marshallarts at bigpond.com Sun Oct 23 17:16:29 2005 From: marshallarts at bigpond.com (Kate) Date: Sun Oct 23 17:21:11 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] five elements References: <20051023200713.96721.qmail@web32607.mail.mud.yahoo.com><435BF2F5.6000907@cola.iges.org> <001501c5d822$66dd6440$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> Message-ID: <000901c5d827$cc8c5440$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> I mentioned in my last post that CY uses the 5 Element system of analysis. Before participating in this forum I haven't discussed Buddhism with anyone except my two teachers. So thinking about it, perhaps the 5 element system is basic to all schools of Buddhism. If so, please excuse my ignorance and anything I might say at any time that is insultingly basic. Thanks! Regards Kate From chanfu at gmail.com Sun Oct 23 17:23:35 2005 From: chanfu at gmail.com (Chan Fu) Date: Sun Oct 23 17:31:12 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: On being unarmed and compassionate In-Reply-To: <1130106874.5584.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <20051023170358.55369.qmail@web32604.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1130100139.4371.45.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1130106874.5584.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: On 10/23/05, Richard P. Hayes wrote: > On Sun, 2005-10-23 at 15:43 -0600, Jim Peavler wrote: > > > I smiled, but I realize that isn't much comfort. > > It depends on whether you smiled one of those arhant smiles, where the > corners of the mouth turn up slightly as if you might just be having gas > pains, or whether you smiled one of those foolish common-folk smiles in > which tears ran down the cheeks as involuntary ejaculations escaped from > the vocal cavity, making the neighbors suspect a pair of sea turtles > might be mating on the rooftop. > > Both kinds of smile would bring me psychological comfort, of course, but > the latter would probably contribute more to your overall health. I read > not long ago in some prestigious medical journal, or perhaps the > National Enquirer, that researchers have learned that fifteen minutes of > laughter a day is as good for one's heart and lungs as a forty minute > bicycle ride behind a city bus. But then you knew that. > > -- > Richard ":The trouble with being cloned is that you never really know it." --Dolly From laura.castell at jcu.edu.au Sun Oct 23 17:39:31 2005 From: laura.castell at jcu.edu.au (Laura Castell) Date: Sun Oct 23 17:41:12 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat and pets In-Reply-To: <200510192113.j9JLDCJb032756@ns1.swcp.com> Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.0.20051024091333.0123ca00@mail.jcu.edu.au> Hi Richard, The issue of pets is a very interesting one. We can't blame the animals for their actions, they are being their true selves when they go out and hunt. Even the sometimes apparent cruelty of their behaviour I believe is natural (something about nature I struggle to understand ). I still remember images of killer whales "playing" with the poor penguins before finally eating them, and your description of the mice being suffocated/drown I think is extremely common, even if pets are kept well fed. You should see the fights possums get onto for a piece of fruit or territory!, unfortunately the territory is our roof ! I have to confess that I can think of 'karma' as applied to us humans but not as applied to animals because considering how hard it is for us, supposedly the most intelligent species, to act keeping karma in mind, how can animals do it? >>A truly compassionate attitude would be to rejoice at the merits of my >cat for being so good at being a cat and getting something that she >obviously treasures, while feeling compassion for the bird who has died >in the cat's clutches. My aim now is to progress to the stage where I >can just watch the cat catch birds that I feed and feel simultaneous joy >and commiseration. are you serious? (I am really not sure! so I may be silly in my reply to this but I'll have a go anyway). If the cat was a wild animal and catching birds to survive, then I think one can feel compassion for both, the cat and the birds, but when we talk about cats that receive lots of love and attention and food, I think the only recipients of our compassion should be the poor birds! I don't think the cats should be judged, if we think about it, we as owners need to take the blame for our cat's behaviour (I know this sounds a bit extremist), so ideally we should do something about it. Unfortunately asking people not to have pets is like asking people to eat less meat or to take the bus to work instead of their own car, it is very difficult to do. I don't mean to say that having pets is wrong (it is a complex issue and I agree that in some cases the presence of pets is irreplaceable to their owners) but making them vegetarians is not necessarily the solution. All the best, Laura From jpeavler at mindspring.com Sun Oct 23 17:52:07 2005 From: jpeavler at mindspring.com (Jim Peavler) Date: Sun Oct 23 18:01:14 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: On being unarmed and compassionate In-Reply-To: References: <20051023170358.55369.qmail@web32604.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1130100139.4371.45.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1130106874.5584.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: On Oct 23, 2005, at 5:23 PM, Chan Fu wrote: > > ":The trouble with being cloned is that you never really know it." > --Dolly > Baa! From jpeavler at mindspring.com Sun Oct 23 17:56:58 2005 From: jpeavler at mindspring.com (Jim Peavler) Date: Sun Oct 23 18:01:21 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] "Nature" and eating meat In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.0.20051024091333.0123ca00@mail.jcu.edu.au> References: <5.2.1.1.0.20051024091333.0123ca00@mail.jcu.edu.au> Message-ID: <02fd515f489dfa12562d57f7ee62ff91@mindspring.com> On Oct 23, 2005, at 5:39 PM, Laura Castell wrote: > Hi Richard, > The issue of pets is a very interesting one. We can't blame the > animals for their actions, they are being their true selves when they > go out and hunt. Even the sometimes apparent cruelty of their > behaviour I believe is natural (something about nature I struggle to > understand ). I'm likely to get in trouble for this, but people often excuse things because they are "natural". Why is it more natural for a mountain lion or a coyote to kill for food than it is for a human. Humans spent a few million years evolving as hunters, as the long history of artifacts of weapons, scrapers, etc. attest. Perhaps virtue lies in the strength to overcome "nature". But, then, why would that be true? (This here is a whole new subject line of which I tremble to imagine the repercussions. From mike at lamrim.org.uk Sun Oct 23 18:19:25 2005 From: mike at lamrim.org.uk (Mike Austin) Date: Sun Oct 23 18:21:14 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] five elements In-Reply-To: <000901c5d827$cc8c5440$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> References: <20051023200713.96721.qmail@web32607.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <435BF2F5.6000907@cola.iges.org> <001501c5d822$66dd6440$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> <000901c5d827$cc8c5440$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> Message-ID: In message <000901c5d827$cc8c5440$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au>, Kate writes >I mentioned in my last post that CY uses the 5 Element system of analysis. >Before participating in this forum I haven't discussed Buddhism with anyone >except my two teachers. So thinking about it, perhaps the 5 element system >is basic to all schools of Buddhism. If so, please excuse my ignorance and >anything I might say at any time that is insultingly basic. Thanks! Hi Kate, This is also the system used by the Tibetan Gelug tradition. Tsongkhapa writes on the ten paths of non-virtuous action in the Lam Rim Chenmo: "The 'Compendium of Determinations' teaches this in five categories - basis, perception, attitude, affliction, and conclusion. However, you can condense the middle three into the category of attitude and add the category of performance to give a condensed presentation of each of the paths of action in four categories - basis, attitude, performance, and culmination." -- Metta Mike Austin From mike at lamrim.org.uk Sun Oct 23 18:31:15 2005 From: mike at lamrim.org.uk (Mike Austin) Date: Sun Oct 23 18:41:12 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] "Nature" and eating meat In-Reply-To: <02fd515f489dfa12562d57f7ee62ff91@mindspring.com> References: <5.2.1.1.0.20051024091333.0123ca00@mail.jcu.edu.au> <02fd515f489dfa12562d57f7ee62ff91@mindspring.com> Message-ID: In message <02fd515f489dfa12562d57f7ee62ff91@mindspring.com>, Jim Peavler writes > >I'm likely to get in trouble for this, but people often excuse things >because they are "natural". Why is it more natural for a mountain lion >or a coyote to kill for food than it is for a human. Humans spent a few >million years evolving as hunters, as the long history of artifacts of >weapons, scrapers, etc. attest. Perhaps virtue lies in the strength to >overcome "nature". But, then, why would that be true? > Some words are, I feel, loaded. Words such as 'blame' smack of guilt and punishment. If one thinks more in terms of causes and conditions brought about by mistaken ideas, it would be less of a pejorative. And the word 'natural' sounds somehow good and right. 'Habitual' or 'instinctive' may be nearer the mark. In this ugly mess of samsara, it is 'natural' to act habitually in a deluded and unskilful manner. >(This here is a whole new subject line of which I tremble to imagine >the repercussions. Hehe! I hope this repercussion wasn't worth trembling about! -- Metta Mike Austin From rhayes at unm.edu Sun Oct 23 18:50:19 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Sun Oct 23 18:51:18 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: "Nature" and eating meat In-Reply-To: <02fd515f489dfa12562d57f7ee62ff91@mindspring.com> References: <5.2.1.1.0.20051024091333.0123ca00@mail.jcu.edu.au> <02fd515f489dfa12562d57f7ee62ff91@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <1130115019.6215.24.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Sun, 2005-10-23 at 17:56 -0600, Jim Peavler wrote: > I'm likely to get in trouble for this, but people often excuse things > because they are "natural". Why is it more natural for a mountain lion > or a coyote to kill for food than it is for a human. Emerson makes the point that nature has come to mean the world as it would be without human beings in it. So it would seem that, if nature is viewed in that way, it is impossible for a human being to be natural. Needless to say, Emerson was smart enough to see that the view of nature as the world without human beings is a defective view, but it is nevertheless a common one. Even now. > Humans spent a few million years evolving as hunters, as the long history of artifacts of > weapons, scrapers, etc. attest. Good God, Brother James! As I live and breath, I didn't realize you were one of those Evolutionists. To be frank, I lean in that direction myself, but I am learning to keep my thoughts to myself on this matter, at least in this country. It seems the only sort of Darwinianism that most folks in this country subscribe to is the economic version, which gave us the slogan "Survival of the fittest," which was not Darwin's phrase at all, as I recall, but Herbert Spencer's. It is mildly amusing to me that the very people who are fighting to get Intelligent Design taught alongside Darwin's theory of "descent with modification" (as he called it, rather than evolution) in biology 101 so that the next generation will be exposed to decent Christian values seem to be completely opposed to any programs, laws or regulations that would impede the greed of those who are evolving into the obscenely rich while the middle class shrinks and the poor are left to fend for themselves in the wake of hurricanes, floods, epidemics and earthquakes. In these United States it seems to be the plutocrats are chanting "Spencer, si! Darwin, no!" > (This here is a whole new subject line of which I tremble to imagine > the repercussions. You should have realized I would seize upon the opportunity to say something negative about Republicans again. So really it's your fault that I committed criticism. I don't know if you read on the front page of the NY Times this morning that the Bush administration is requiring all universities to upgrade their Internet systems so that Homeland Security can read the e-mail of professors and students more easily to catch any terrorists that may be roaming the halls of ivy. I mention this, because when they come to round me up in the middle of some dark night to pay off my karmic debt for telling the truth about Republicans, I'm going to have to tell them I was only saying what I was pretty sure you wanted me to say. As my favorite philosopher, Red Green, says: "We're all in this together." Now I'm going to go eat a plate of beans. -- Richard From rhayes at unm.edu Sun Oct 23 19:46:34 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Sun Oct 23 19:52:30 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat and pets (I'm against eating pets) In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.0.20051024091333.0123ca00@mail.jcu.edu.au> References: <5.2.1.1.0.20051024091333.0123ca00@mail.jcu.edu.au> Message-ID: <1130118395.6215.71.camel@localhost.localdomain> The pinto beans I just told Brother James I was going to eat still aren't quite cooked, so I'm going to respond to Sister Laura while the beans cook some more. Some time ago I apparently said this: > >My aim now is to progress to the stage where I > >can just watch the cat catch birds that I feed and feel simultaneous joy > >and commiseration. To which on Mon, 2005-10-24 at 09:39 +1000, Sister Laura wrote: > are you serious? (I am really not sure! so I may be silly in my reply to > this but I'll have a go anyway). If even you can't tell whether I'm being serious, how am I supposed to know? I just say things. I really can't be bothered to figure out whether I mean for what I say to be taken seriously. But since you brought this delicate issue up, let me try to say some more. Some years ago I was invited to lead a workshop on mettaa-bhaavanaa (cutivation of loving kindness), a practice I have been doing pretty consistently for close to forty years. (If you think I'm an abrasive asshole now, you should have seen me BEFORE forty years of mettaa meditation made me so mild-mannered.) As I was on my way to the workshop, I was waiting for a bus and happened to see a big raven trying to get some baby birds out of a sparrow's nest that had been built in a hole in the wall of an old brick building. The mother sparrow was doing all kinds of fancy flying to distract the crow from her babies. My first reaction was to think "I hope those baby sparrows get away!" But immediately I realized I also hoped the big raven would get something to eat. Now it was pretty obvious that God wasn't going to open up a can of Paul Newman's organic raven food and put it on a china plate for my handsome black featured friend. If the raven was going to eat, a sparrow was going to die. As soon as that situation became quite clear to me, I had one of those experiences that people who are trying to get some money from you write books about. I felt a deep peace and equanimity, a feeling that everything was really just fine and that nature is good. I was prepared to feel compassion for either the raven or the sparrows, depending on who got what they wanted, and sympathetic joy for the other party. I had not the least feeling of favoritism about which party got what they needed to survive. Unfortunately, while I was feeling all this equanimity up their on my spiritual peak, the raven ate a couple of sparrows. They didn't seem to be having quite as much of a spiritual high as I was having. But hey, spiritual highs are all about me, eh, so forget about the sparrows. > If the cat was a wild animal and catching birds to survive, then I > think one can feel compassion for both, the cat and the birds, but > when we talk about cats that receive lots of love and attention and > food, I think the only recipients of our compassion should be the poor > birds! On this I will have to disagree. You and I know that the cat is going to get her dinner tonight, but she doesn't. She doesn't know much of anything, so far as I can see, except where to hide to be able to sneak up on birds (who also receive lots of love and attention and food chez moi, by the way). The cat is doing what millions of years of evolution prepared her to do, and she shows every sign of getting a lot of joy out of doing her job well. She also shows a LOT of signs of suffering when I intervene and bring her indoors. Cats are outdoor animals. It's insane to keep them indoors, looking pathetically through a window at birds that are out of reach. Making a cat stay indoors and look at birds that remain out of reach is every bit as inhumane as locking up people in Guantanamo because the president of the United States has decided they are vicious terrorists. That notwithstanding, I do try to keep this cat indoors. But I am not so sure it's a good idea. The cat certainly doesn't seem to think so. A the birds don't seem to care much. They watch one of their mates get pounced on, and they just keep eating, probably thinking "Better the cat got that drab female house finch than ME!" As I said before, birds in nature never live to get old. Damn few of them make it to the stage where they reproduce themselves. Most of them become links in the food chain very early on in their careers. It's in the nature of birds to try not to become meals before they replace themselves. It's in the nature of cats and other predators to get a regular meal. And we human beings? What's our nature? Well, our nature is to think about all these things and to try to interpret the text that nature provides for us and to figure out our place in this whole sad situation and to make decisions about what is good for us to do. Like Socrates, I never let a day go by without thinking about where I stand with respect to the good. And, like Socrates, I have only questions but never find answers. > I don't think the cats should be judged, if we think about it, we as > owners need to take the blame for our cat's behaviour If cats shouldn't be blamed, why should we blame ourselves? Because blaming is our nature? Perhaps it is. But I would also say that it is in our nature to strive to transcend the shallowness that manifests itself in praising and blaming. And perhaps we should remember that there is quite a bit of evidence that human beings and dogs and cats have been keep each other company, apparently by mutual consent, for a very long time. Taking care of animals seems to be, well, part of our nature as human beings. And I'm glad it is. I like most dogs and cats quite a bit more than I like most human beings. (That's because, as Brother James will tell you, keeping human company just ain't natural.) Now while you're figuring out whether I was being serious, I'm going to go eat my beans and rice and watch my canine and feline friends eat some bones and mice. -- Richard From laura.castell at jcu.edu.au Sun Oct 23 19:54:16 2005 From: laura.castell at jcu.edu.au (Laura Castell) Date: Sun Oct 23 20:01:15 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: "Nature" and eating meat In-Reply-To: <200510240055.j9O0t6Bw030568@ns1.swcp.com> Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.0.20051024112322.02cb4008@mail.jcu.edu.au> At 06:55 PM 23/10/2005 -0600, you wrote: >I'm likely to get in trouble for this, but people often excuse things >because they are "natural". Why is it more natural for a mountain lion >or a coyote to kill for food than it is for a human. Humans spent a few >million years evolving as hunters, as the long history of artifacts of >weapons, scrapers, etc. attest. Hi Jim, I know that the comment of 'it is natural' is a controversial one, but I think you took my meaning too far back in history. I do not think that eating meat for survival is wrong. In the days when humans were evolving and struggling at a similar level to that of their environment, I think they did an excellent and admirable job, and I think it was at that time a 'natural' thing to do. It still is in many places. The problem is that for most (not all) of the world it has become not a matter of survival and of fighting for it, but instead an excess. The worst of it is that it has serious consequences, for the environment, for the animals involved and for us. That's where the problem lies. >Perhaps virtue lies in the strength to overcome "nature". But, then, why >would that be true? Trying to overcome nature ...... why would there be virtue in that? it implies a competition, seeing nature and us as different things. Isn't this precisely the attitude you should try to avoid? Saludos, Laura From marshallarts at bigpond.com Sun Oct 23 20:03:54 2005 From: marshallarts at bigpond.com (Kate) Date: Sun Oct 23 20:11:15 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] five elements References: <20051023200713.96721.qmail@web32607.mail.mud.yahoo.com><435BF2F5.6000907@cola.iges.org><001501c5d822$66dd6440$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au><000901c5d827$cc8c5440$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> Message-ID: <000501c5d83f$327b2e40$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> > This is also the system used by the Tibetan Gelug tradition. Hi Mike, If it's ok to ask, which colours does the Gelug tradition assign to the different elements. For Tibetan colours in general, I have starting with Earth - Yellow, White (or Black), Red, Black (or Green) and Azure (light Blue). CY uses a different arrangement of yellow, blue, red, white and gold. Thanks. Regards Kate From chanfu at gmail.com Sun Oct 23 20:53:17 2005 From: chanfu at gmail.com (Chan Fu) Date: Sun Oct 23 21:01:15 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: "Nature" and eating meat In-Reply-To: <1130115019.6215.24.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <5.2.1.1.0.20051024091333.0123ca00@mail.jcu.edu.au> <02fd515f489dfa12562d57f7ee62ff91@mindspring.com> <1130115019.6215.24.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: On 10/23/05, Richard P. Hayes wrote: > On Sun, 2005-10-23 at 17:56 -0600, Jim Peavler wrote: > > > I'm likely to get in trouble for this, but people often excuse things > > because they are "natural". Why is it more natural for a mountain lion > > or a coyote to kill for food than it is for a human. > > Emerson makes the point that nature has come to mean the world as it > would be without human beings in it. So it would seem that, if nature is > viewed in that way, it is impossible for a human being to be natural. > Needless to say, Emerson was smart enough to see that the view of nature > as the world without human beings is a defective view, but it is > nevertheless a common one. Even now. > > > Humans spent a few million years evolving as hunters, as the long history of artifacts of > > weapons, scrapers, etc. attest. > > Good God, Brother James! As I live and breath, I didn't realize you were > one of those Evolutionists. To be frank, I lean in that direction > myself, but I am learning to keep my thoughts to myself on this matter, > at least in this country. It seems the only sort of Darwinianism that > most folks in this country subscribe to is the economic version, which > gave us the slogan "Survival of the fittest," which was not Darwin's > phrase at all, as I recall, but Herbert Spencer's. It is mildly amusing > to me that the very people who are fighting to get Intelligent Design > taught alongside Darwin's theory of "descent with modification" (as he > called it, rather than evolution) in biology 101 so that the next > generation will be exposed to decent Christian values seem to be > completely opposed to any programs, laws or regulations that would > impede the greed of those who are evolving into the obscenely rich while > the middle class shrinks and the poor are left to fend for themselves in > the wake of hurricanes, floods, epidemics and earthquakes. In these > United States it seems to be the plutocrats are chanting "Spencer, si! > Darwin, no!" > > > (This here is a whole new subject line of which I tremble to imagine > > the repercussions. > > You should have realized I would seize upon the opportunity to say > something negative about Republicans again. So really it's your fault > that I committed criticism. I don't know if you read on the front page > of the NY Times this morning that the Bush administration is requiring > all universities to upgrade their Internet systems so that Homeland > Security can read the e-mail of professors and students more easily to > catch any terrorists that may be roaming the halls of ivy. I mention > this, because when they come to round me up in the middle of some dark > night to pay off my karmic debt for telling the truth about Republicans, > I'm going to have to tell them I was only saying what I was pretty sure > you wanted me to say. As my favorite philosopher, Red Green, says: > "We're all in this together." > > Now I'm going to go eat a plate of beans. > > -- > Richard http://www.thefrown.com/frowners/becomerepublican.swf From chanfu at gmail.com Sun Oct 23 21:01:54 2005 From: chanfu at gmail.com (Chan Fu) Date: Sun Oct 23 21:11:15 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat and pets In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.0.20051024091333.0123ca00@mail.jcu.edu.au> References: <200510192113.j9JLDCJb032756@ns1.swcp.com> <5.2.1.1.0.20051024091333.0123ca00@mail.jcu.edu.au> Message-ID: If and when Richard becomes serious (ie: takes himself seriously), I shall do likewise and then, well, we all know what would happen... The universe would become purposeful, politics would matter, the religious right would be right, and all hell would break loose, only to be annihilated in a serious storm of seriousness. Buddhists treat karma like religionists treat god, but both sides forget to add the clown nose to that beautiful portrait of some long-haired hippy martyr that they wish they'd been... From rhayes at unm.edu Sun Oct 23 22:22:52 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Sun Oct 23 22:31:15 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] five elements In-Reply-To: <000501c5d83f$327b2e40$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> References: <20051023200713.96721.qmail@web32607.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <435BF2F5.6000907@cola.iges.org> <001501c5d822$66dd6440$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> <000901c5d827$cc8c5440$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> <000501c5d83f$327b2e40$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> Message-ID: <1130127773.6215.75.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Mon, 2005-10-24 at 12:03 +1000, Kate wrote: > If it's ok to ask, which colours does the Gelug tradition assign to the > different elements. At last, after some fourteen years of Mickery Mousery, the denizens of buddha-l sink their teeth into some important issues! -- Richard From marshallarts at bigpond.com Sun Oct 23 23:24:06 2005 From: marshallarts at bigpond.com (Kate) Date: Sun Oct 23 23:31:15 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] five elements References: <20051023200713.96721.qmail@web32607.mail.mud.yahoo.com><435BF2F5.6000907@cola.iges.org><001501c5d822$66dd6440$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au><000901c5d827$cc8c5440$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au><000501c5d83f$327b2e40$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> <1130127773.6215.75.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <000e01c5d85b$27992a60$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> > > > If it's ok to ask, which colours does the Gelug tradition assign to the > > different elements. > > At last, after some fourteen years of Mickery Mousery, the denizens of > buddha-l sink their teeth into some important issues! Why do I get the impression I just asked one of my "insultingly basic" questions........ From rhayes at unm.edu Sun Oct 23 23:45:25 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Sun Oct 23 23:51:23 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating pets for meat In-Reply-To: References: <200510192113.j9JLDCJb032756@ns1.swcp.com> <5.2.1.1.0.20051024091333.0123ca00@mail.jcu.edu.au> Message-ID: <1130132725.6215.153.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Sun, 2005-10-23 at 23:01 -0400, Chan Fu wrote: > If and when Richard becomes serious (ie: takes himself seriously), > I shall do likewise and then, well, we all know what would happen... We're talking black holes, into which all wisdom would be sucked, never again to emerge. > Buddhists treat karma like religionists treat god, but both sides > forget to add the clown nose to that beautiful portrait of some > long-haired hippy martyr that they wish they'd been... Hey, I fled the country during the Vietnam war and lived with a bunch of Quakers (refugees from the McCarthy era) in a remote part of the mountains of western Canada. And I marched in a demonstration once and chanted some anti-American slogans in French in front of the US embassy in Ottawa. Don't I get a few hippie points for THAT---even though I did have my clown nose in the pocket of my coveralls, right next to my copies of the Communist Manifesto, the Sayings of Chairman Mao and the I Ching, and the tattered picture of Che? -- Seriously yours, Richard *** "Everybody's crying `Peace on earth-- just as soon as we win this war.'" -- Mose Allison From mike at lamrim.org.uk Mon Oct 24 01:07:19 2005 From: mike at lamrim.org.uk (Mike Austin) Date: Mon Oct 24 01:11:19 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] five elements In-Reply-To: <000501c5d83f$327b2e40$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> References: <20051023200713.96721.qmail@web32607.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <435BF2F5.6000907@cola.iges.org> <001501c5d822$66dd6440$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> <000901c5d827$cc8c5440$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> <000501c5d83f$327b2e40$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> Message-ID: <9XAJEbJngIXDFwI5@clara.net> In message <000501c5d83f$327b2e40$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au>, Kate writes > >If it's ok to ask, which colours does the Gelug tradition assign to the >different elements. For Tibetan colours in general, I have starting with >Earth - Yellow, White (or Black), Red, Black (or Green) and Azure (light >Blue). I have never paid much attention to these things, but I had a dig round and found that earth is yellow, fire is red, water is green, sky is blue and ether (or mind) is white. -- Metta Mike Austin From joy.vriens at nerim.net Mon Oct 24 01:25:11 2005 From: joy.vriens at nerim.net (Joy Vriens) Date: Mon Oct 24 01:31:21 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] "Nature" and eating meat In-Reply-To: <02fd515f489dfa12562d57f7ee62ff91@mindspring.com> References: <5.2.1.1.0.20051024091333.0123ca00@mail.jcu.edu.au> <02fd515f489dfa12562d57f7ee62ff91@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <435C8C57.5050000@nerim.net> Jim Peavler wrote: > I'm likely to get in trouble for this, but people often excuse things > because they are "natural". Why is it more natural for a mountain lion > or a coyote to kill for food than it is for a human. Because they're natural creatures placidly complying with their nature and humans try to run away from theirs? Hybris? The human project started by the statement that humans are not animals. "We are different! they said in the pathetic joke of a language that was theirs at that time" That made those unwashed savages feel good for a while, but then they had to find ways to show to themselves that they were indeed different. Some scientists believe that is how civilisation started. Before that founding statement humans ate animals because they were animals themselves. After they declared themselves humans they had the right to eat animals because animals weren't humans. Later this *evolved* into the idea that one could also kill and eat humans if one somehow managed to convince oneself that even though they looked a bit like humans (the deceptive evil terrorists), they actually were animals. > Humans spent a few > million years evolving as hunters, as the long history of artifacts of > weapons, scrapers, etc. attest. Perhaps virtue lies in the strength to > overcome "nature". But, then, why would that be true? Overcoming nature? Humans? Human evolution is the continuous refusal of their nature, which happens to create a viscious circle of a continuously changing nature. Human evolution is the continuous running away from their own tail, or whatever is left of it. It's a perversion. From jehms at xs4all.nl Mon Oct 24 02:39:57 2005 From: jehms at xs4all.nl (Jildi Mohamad Sjah) Date: Mon Oct 24 02:41:24 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat In-Reply-To: <20051023201204.4825.qmail@web32612.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20051023201204.4825.qmail@web32612.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <435C9DDD.4080902@xs4all.nl> Michael Paris schreef: >Perhaps I'm on a one-person mission to put Buddhism into some sort of >basic, common language that I can understand and explain to another in >like terms. Why else would I be pursing this "ad irritatem?" > >I do appreciate everyone's contribution to this perhaps obvious topic. >Seems that what's obvious to many isn't the least clear to me. The >Columbo Effect, maybe? > > >Michael > > > > > No Michael, just good intuitions and common sense this threat is supposed to be about action, but it's merely about words (even words for colours). Words people hear from lama's and read in books. One acts with ones body, not with ones intentions or imagination, otherwise those lama's would have to flee from Tibet. There imagination was a lot stronger then Mao's. This maybe materialistic, but it's a simple truth. One even cannot read or have intentions without a nervous system. erik From joy.vriens at nerim.net Mon Oct 24 02:47:09 2005 From: joy.vriens at nerim.net (Joy Vriens) Date: Mon Oct 24 02:52:50 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] On being unarmed and compassionate In-Reply-To: <1130100139.4371.45.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <20051023170358.55369.qmail@web32604.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1130100139.4371.45.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <435C9F8D.4050609@nerim.net> Richard wrote: > What is interesting, I think, about the way some Buddhism has taken > shape in the USA is that it has followed the footsteps of Puritanism in > so many ways. There were, of course, no such people as the Puritans. > That is, nobody seems to have called themselves by that name. It was a > label given to them by outsiders at first. As is often the case. For a very pertinent exemple, my name was given to me by total strangers, before they even knew anything about me. > Whatever the origins of the > name, Puritanism seems to have been a movement that cut across many > denominations of Christianity. What most of them had in common was a > tendency not to be very much concerned at all with orthodoxy (right > thinking). Or speaking more positively, to be concerned with purity. People in that time felt an intense need for purity, a return to the sources of their religion and for some even to the sources of what they thought was the religious experience that gave birth to it (e.g. the mystics and their methods of no thinking). Everybody knows what happens when you live for a long time in the same house. More and more junk gets accumulated in every corner of that house, some pieces of junk supporting others etc. Restoring purity by moving house and getting rid of junk or simply by having an intensive spring cleaning session can be most salutary. > None of these claims I am making are in any way original. The accusation > that the WBO is a Protestant form of Buddhism has been made (rightly, I > think), and it has also been vehemently denied (wrongly, I think) by > some people within the WBO. I myself see nothing at all wrong in > Protestant Buddhism. Indeed, it seems an improvement, and I think it is > inevitable that Westerners will develop forms of Buddhism that are > hybrids of bits and bobs of Asian Buddhism and dribs and drabs of > Western culture. Of course one can bring over some ornements from one's previous house for the sake of nostalgia or out of respect for predecessors. One may even wonder in how far what constitutes the essence of the Buddhist religious experience, destruction of kilesa and dukkha, and the essence/mechanism of its methods is Buddhism? > (I > used to think of them [WBO] as a a Buddhist group who had learned some > important lessons from the Quakers about how to run an outfit.) To this > day, I think that is the right direction for Buddhism in the West to > take. In fact, I think much of Western Buddhism has in fact taken pretty > much that direction, although their have been some major hiccoughs (and > not a small amount of belching) along the way. That's a normal part of the digestion process. Not everything is equally digestible in the lovely panach? called Buddhism. From mike at lamrim.org.uk Mon Oct 24 02:58:11 2005 From: mike at lamrim.org.uk (Mike Austin) Date: Mon Oct 24 03:01:23 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat In-Reply-To: <435C9DDD.4080902@xs4all.nl> References: <20051023201204.4825.qmail@web32612.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <435C9DDD.4080902@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <4RpHUTAjIKXDFwpb@clara.net> In message <435C9DDD.4080902@xs4all.nl>, Jildi Mohamad Sjah writes >One acts with ones body, not with ones intentions or imagination, >otherwise those lama's would have to flee from Tibet. There imagination >was a lot stronger then Mao's. This maybe materialistic, but it's a >simple truth. One even cannot read or have intentions without a nervous >system. >erik 1. Mind is the forerunner of all actions. All deeds are led by mind, created by mind. If one speaks or acts with a corrupt mind, suffering follows, As the wheel follows the hoof of an ox pulling a cart. 2. Mind is the forerunner of all actions. All deeds are led by mind, created by mind. If one speaks or acts with a serene mind, happiness follows, As surely as one's shadow. (Dhammapada) -- Metta Mike Austin From joy.vriens at nerim.net Mon Oct 24 03:14:16 2005 From: joy.vriens at nerim.net (Joy Vriens) Date: Mon Oct 24 03:21:20 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat In-Reply-To: <4RpHUTAjIKXDFwpb@clara.net> References: <20051023201204.4825.qmail@web32612.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <435C9DDD.4080902@xs4all.nl> <4RpHUTAjIKXDFwpb@clara.net> Message-ID: <435CA5E8.4010803@nerim.net> Mike Austin wrote: >> One acts with ones body, not with ones intentions or imagination, >> otherwise those lama's would have to flee from Tibet. There >> imagination was a lot stronger then Mao's. This maybe materialistic, >> but it's a simple truth. One even cannot read or have intentions >> without a nervous system. >> erik > 1. Mind is the forerunner of all actions. > All deeds are led by mind, created by mind. > If one speaks or acts with a corrupt mind, suffering follows, > As the wheel follows the hoof of an ox pulling a cart. > > 2. Mind is the forerunner of all actions. > All deeds are led by mind, created by mind. > If one speaks or acts with a serene mind, happiness follows, > As surely as one's shadow. Were we acting when we were born? What is acting? From mike at lamrim.org.uk Mon Oct 24 03:35:49 2005 From: mike at lamrim.org.uk (Mike Austin) Date: Mon Oct 24 03:41:19 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat In-Reply-To: <435CA5E8.4010803@nerim.net> References: <20051023201204.4825.qmail@web32612.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <435C9DDD.4080902@xs4all.nl> <4RpHUTAjIKXDFwpb@clara.net> <435CA5E8.4010803@nerim.net> Message-ID: In message <435CA5E8.4010803@nerim.net>, Joy Vriens writes >Mike Austin wrote: > >> 1. Mind is the forerunner of all actions. >> All deeds are led by mind, created by mind. >> If one speaks or acts with a corrupt mind, suffering follows, >> As the wheel follows the hoof of an ox pulling a cart. >> 2. Mind is the forerunner of all actions. >> All deeds are led by mind, created by mind. >> If one speaks or acts with a serene mind, happiness follows, >> As surely as one's shadow. > >Were we acting when we were born? What is acting? "All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players" (Shakespeare) -- Metta Mike Austin From joy.vriens at nerim.net Mon Oct 24 03:50:11 2005 From: joy.vriens at nerim.net (Joy Vriens) Date: Mon Oct 24 03:51:23 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat In-Reply-To: References: <20051023201204.4825.qmail@web32612.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <435C9DDD.4080902@xs4all.nl> <4RpHUTAjIKXDFwpb@clara.net> <435CA5E8.4010803@nerim.net> Message-ID: <435CAE53.3040103@nerim.net> Mike Austin wrote: > In message <435CA5E8.4010803@nerim.net>, Joy Vriens > writes > >> Mike Austin wrote: >> >>> 1. Mind is the forerunner of all actions. >>> All deeds are led by mind, created by mind. >>> If one speaks or acts with a corrupt mind, suffering follows, >>> As the wheel follows the hoof of an ox pulling a cart. >>> 2. Mind is the forerunner of all actions. >>> All deeds are led by mind, created by mind. >>> If one speaks or acts with a serene mind, happiness follows, >>> As surely as one's shadow. >> >> >> Were we acting when we were born? What is acting? > > > "All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players" > (Shakespeare) > "All the world's a reality show, and all the men and women merely houseguests" ?But for the present age, which prefers the sign to the thing signified, the copy to the original, representation to reality, appearance to essence . . . truth is considered profane, and only illusion is sacred. Sacredness is in fact held to be enhanced in proportion as truth decreases and illusion increases, so that the highest degree of illusion comes to be the highest degree of sacredness.? ?Feuerbach, Preface to the second edition of The Essence of Christianity http://www.bopsecrets.org/SI/debord/1.htm From stefan.detrez at gmail.com Mon Oct 24 03:52:19 2005 From: stefan.detrez at gmail.com (Stefan Detrez) Date: Mon Oct 24 04:01:22 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] "Nature" and eating meat In-Reply-To: <435C8C57.5050000@nerim.net> References: <5.2.1.1.0.20051024091333.0123ca00@mail.jcu.edu.au> <02fd515f489dfa12562d57f7ee62ff91@mindspring.com> <435C8C57.5050000@nerim.net> Message-ID: <4526ba440510240252m5e2a2990i@mail.gmail.com> It's interesting and reflectively profitable to do some moral reflection on the case of the plane crash in the Andes. There, people were so desperate for food they started cutting lumps of meat off of the killed passengers. Something which at first seemed revolting, and maybe to some, even immoral, soon evolved into a situation which demanded such supererogatory solutions that eating dead humans' flesh was the only means to stay alive. Now, if we reason that keeping other (human) beings alive is virtuous, and the meat is provided by beings who were not killed for culinary purposes (what about the bodhisattva who had himself eaten by the lioness to feed her cup?), then one could claim that eating meat in this situation is not immoral, and can even be considered morally justified. The dead were put to use by helping people stay alive until other means of survival became available. Regarding the debate on 'onvercoming' human nature, it seems to point at a pretty universal aspiration in most religions and ideologies: leading a virtuous/politically/socially correct life is cutting off that behaviour which is illustrative of 'the animal' (sex, killing, egoism, possessiveness, impulsivity) in man. My personal opinion is that most of which is considered as a vice is actually that which erupts from basic needs for survival and which are Amoral, in contrast to IMmoral. The projection of 'immorality' is probably inspired by the socially, culturally, etc disruptive effects of these vices. Applied to the eating meat, one can say eating meat is only immoral insofar the animal is killed for entertainment purposes. The rest is, I'd say, Amoral. Stefan 2005/10/24, Joy Vriens : Jim Peavler wrote: > I'm likely to get in trouble for this, but people often excuse things > because they are "natural". Why is it more natural for a mountain lion > or a coyote to kill for food than it is for a human. From c_castell at yahoo.com Mon Oct 24 03:51:36 2005 From: c_castell at yahoo.com (Catalina Castell-du Payrat) Date: Mon Oct 24 04:01:34 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] "Nature" and eating meat In-Reply-To: <02fd515f489dfa12562d57f7ee62ff91@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <20051024095136.80199.qmail@web60815.mail.yahoo.com> You can say animals have an intention when they eat, hunt, etc. to me the intention there would be: I have to do that in order to survive, I don't even think about it, I just do it......... I understand that we call "natural" or "instinct" behaviours that animal have for survival without having a kind of "knowing" if it is good or bad for the hunted or eated, etc, is just good for them. It is a survival situation. I don't think the comparison between humans and most animals at this respect is fair for the animals. I said most animals because some species (the closest to us by the way.....) cheat in a very sophisticated way to obtain what they want (not talking about hunting here). We should know first the degree of conciousness accompanying those acts. But then, we could just say that yes, animals accumulate bad karma because even if some behaviours are meant to allowed them to survive, the animal condition is like this, so how could an animal (a carnivorous hunter par example) accumulate good karma.......? Catalina Catalina Castell - du Payrat c_castell@yahoo.com --------------------------------- Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20051024/1ab8b323/attachment.html From jpeavler at mindspring.com Mon Oct 24 05:30:00 2005 From: jpeavler at mindspring.com (Jim Peavler) Date: Mon Oct 24 05:31:21 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat In-Reply-To: References: <20051023201204.4825.qmail@web32612.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <435C9DDD.4080902@xs4all.nl> <4RpHUTAjIKXDFwpb@clara.net> <435CA5E8.4010803@nerim.net> Message-ID: On Oct 24, 2005, at 3:35 AM, Mike Austin wrote: > > "All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players" > (Shakespeare) Bacon (who wrote the works of Shakespeare), unlike Shakespeare (who may have written the works of Marlow), was not a Buddhist. From mike at lamrim.org.uk Mon Oct 24 05:45:07 2005 From: mike at lamrim.org.uk (Mike Austin) Date: Mon Oct 24 05:51:21 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat In-Reply-To: References: <20051023201204.4825.qmail@web32612.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <435C9DDD.4080902@xs4all.nl> <4RpHUTAjIKXDFwpb@clara.net> <435CA5E8.4010803@nerim.net> Message-ID: In message , Jim Peavler writes > >On Oct 24, 2005, at 3:35 AM, Mike Austin wrote: >> >> "All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players" >> (Shakespeare) > >Bacon (who wrote the works of Shakespeare), unlike Shakespeare (who may >have written the works of Marlow), was not a Buddhist. "They have their exits and their entrances." Aha - rebirth! -- Metta Mike Austin From joy.vriens at nerim.net Mon Oct 24 06:24:56 2005 From: joy.vriens at nerim.net (Joy Vriens) Date: Mon Oct 24 06:32:50 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] "Nature" and eating meat In-Reply-To: <4526ba440510240252m5e2a2990i@mail.gmail.com> References: <5.2.1.1.0.20051024091333.0123ca00@mail.jcu.edu.au> <02fd515f489dfa12562d57f7ee62ff91@mindspring.com> <435C8C57.5050000@nerim.net> <4526ba440510240252m5e2a2990i@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <435CD298.9090503@nerim.net> Stefan Detrez wrote: > It's interesting and reflectively profitable to do some moral reflection on the case of the plane crash in the Andes. There, people were so desperate for food they started cutting lumps of meat off of the killed passengers. Something which at first seemed revolting, and maybe to some, even immoral, soon evolved into a situation which demanded such supererogatory solutions that eating dead humans' flesh was the only means to stay alive. This is about eating meat as a means of survival, regardless of moral concerns. It is also about eating meat by others, who don't necessarily share the same moral quest as those who regard eating human flesh immoral. Morality on a spiritual level can only be an individual aspiration. Another interesting point in the Andes cannibalism case is the legal aspect of it. Did any laws apply that forbid the eating of human flesh, were there any charges pressed to the eaters by the families of the deceased or by a general attorney? And if not why? Compare with the donation of organs. Body organs donated to people suffering from defective organs can also save lives. But doing so without the approval of the deceased or of his family, I am sure that charges will be pressed and those transplanting or receiving the organs will be condamned. Why? > Now, if we reason that keeping other (human) beings alive is virtuous, and the meat is provided by beings who were not killed for culinary purposes (what about the bodhisattva who had himself eaten by the lioness to feed her cup?), then one could claim that eating meat in this situation is not immoral, and can even be considered morally justified. The dead were put to use by helping people stay alive until other means of survival became available. The case of the Bodhisattva is a mythical story that tells me more about non duality (exchange/equivalence of self and other) than about any moral issue as far as I am concerned. > Regarding the debate on 'onvercoming' human nature, it seems to point at a pretty universal aspiration in most religions and ideologies: leading a virtuous/politically/socially correct life is cutting off that behaviour which is illustrative of 'the animal' (sex, killing, egoism, possessiveness, impulsivity) in man. Yes humanism, the Human project is a project. We can't judge the whole project on the basis of somme rotten pears (as the Curt doctrine would require us to do). ;-) Some religions or religious currents want to go even further than that and would like to cut off that behaviour which is illustrative of 'man' and have even "higher" aspirations. > My personal opinion is that most of which is considered as a vice is actually that which erupts from basic needs for survival and which are Amoral, in contrast to IMmoral. The projection of 'immorality' is probably inspired by the socially, culturally, etc disruptive effects of these vices. For survival? I don't understand. A vice is that which erupts from basic *individual* needs and that is considered as a vice by the society in which that individual lives. E.g. excising and circumcising children out of an "individual need" would be a vice/crime, but when it's done for the sake of religion or society, then it's considered a virtue by that society. > Applied to the eating meat, one can say eating meat is only immoral insofar the animal is killed for entertainment purposes. The rest is, I'd say, Amoral. But that's one the points made. If it isn't really necessary to eat meat for survival for all, then the "entertainment" (pleasure, culture etc.) factor of eating meat is going up. From chanfu at gmail.com Mon Oct 24 06:59:45 2005 From: chanfu at gmail.com (Chan Fu) Date: Mon Oct 24 07:01:23 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating pets for meat In-Reply-To: <1130132725.6215.153.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <200510192113.j9JLDCJb032756@ns1.swcp.com> <5.2.1.1.0.20051024091333.0123ca00@mail.jcu.edu.au> <1130132725.6215.153.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: On 10/24/05, Richard P. Hayes wrote: > On Sun, 2005-10-23 at 23:01 -0400, Chan Fu wrote: > > > If and when Richard becomes serious (ie: takes himself seriously), > > I shall do likewise and then, well, we all know what would happen... > > We're talking black holes, into which all wisdom would be sucked, never > again to emerge. Black Hole of Compassionate Ignorance - good name for a line of buddhist vacuum cleaners. We'll design them to be self-emptying. > > Buddhists treat karma like religionists treat god, but both sides > > forget to add the clown nose to that beautiful portrait of some > > long-haired hippy martyr that they wish they'd been... > > Hey, I fled the country during the Vietnam war and lived with a bunch of > Quakers (refugees from the McCarthy era) in a remote part of the > mountains of western Canada. And I marched in a demonstration once and > chanted some anti-American slogans in French in front of the US embassy > in Ottawa. Don't I get a few hippie points for THAT---even though I did > have my clown nose in the pocket of my coveralls, right next to my > copies of the Communist Manifesto, the Sayings of Chairman Mao and the I > Ching, and the tattered picture of Che? packed neatly in two suitcases down in the cellar my ideals. > Seriously yours, :-) likewise From rhayes at unm.edu Mon Oct 24 07:59:58 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Mon Oct 24 08:01:23 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] five elements In-Reply-To: <000e01c5d85b$27992a60$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> References: <20051023200713.96721.qmail@web32607.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <435BF2F5.6000907@cola.iges.org> <001501c5d822$66dd6440$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> <000901c5d827$cc8c5440$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> <000501c5d83f$327b2e40$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> <1130127773.6215.75.camel@localhost.localdomain> <000e01c5d85b$27992a60$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> Message-ID: <1130162398.4518.8.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Mon, 2005-10-24 at 15:24 +1000, Kate wrote: > Why do I get the impression I just asked one of my "insultingly basic" > questions........ No, it's not a basic question at all. I have no idea what the answer to your question is. I was taken by surprise by it, because it had never occurred to me that Buddhist scholastics had busied themselves with associating the five basic elements with colours. That sounds very Chinese to me. Everything comes in fives for the Chinese, and all sorts of associations are made between the groups of five. The five vital organs, the five spices, the five fingers of the left hand, the five cardinal directions, the fifty ways to leave your lover.... All this reminds me of an observation that Edward Conze made once about abhidharma. Monks did not have enough to do, he said, so they kept themselves busy by putting every teaching into a neat category and then drawing an infinite number of meaningless correlations between one category and another. Better to do that, I guess, than starting wars. -- Richard From mike at lamrim.org.uk Mon Oct 24 08:17:15 2005 From: mike at lamrim.org.uk (Mike Austin) Date: Mon Oct 24 08:21:27 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] five elements In-Reply-To: <1130162398.4518.8.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <20051023200713.96721.qmail@web32607.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <435BF2F5.6000907@cola.iges.org> <001501c5d822$66dd6440$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> <000901c5d827$cc8c5440$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> <000501c5d83f$327b2e40$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> <1130127773.6215.75.camel@localhost.localdomain> <000e01c5d85b$27992a60$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> <1130162398.4518.8.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: In message <1130162398.4518.8.camel@localhost.localdomain>, Richard P. Hayes writes >On Mon, 2005-10-24 at 15:24 +1000, Kate wrote: > >> Why do I get the impression I just asked one of my "insultingly basic" >> questions........ > >No, it's not a basic question at all. I have no idea what the answer to >your question is. I was taken by surprise by it, because it had never >occurred to me that Buddhist scholastics had busied themselves with >associating the five basic elements with colours. There is an association of colours with elements in various texts such as the Tibetan Book of the Dead. During the process of death, elements dissolve into each other (thus I have heard). The process is described in colours. What colours mean when the eye ceases to function, I don't know. Moreover, the colours are described differently according to the different traditions. -- Metta Mike Austin From parisjm2004 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 24 08:59:18 2005 From: parisjm2004 at yahoo.com (Michael Paris) Date: Mon Oct 24 09:01:25 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] five elements In-Reply-To: <1130162398.4518.8.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20051024145918.22325.qmail@web32611.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Sounds exactly like what a bureaucracy would do. Michael --- "Richard P. Hayes" wrote: [snip] > All this reminds me of an observation that Edward Conze made once > about > abhidharma. Monks did not have enough to do, he said, so they kept > themselves busy by putting every teaching into a neat category and > then > drawing an infinite number of meaningless correlations between one > category and another. __________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page! http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From joy.vriens at nerim.net Mon Oct 24 09:08:18 2005 From: joy.vriens at nerim.net (Joy Vriens) Date: Mon Oct 24 09:11:25 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] five elements In-Reply-To: <000501c5d83f$327b2e40$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> References: <20051023200713.96721.qmail@web32607.mail.mud.yahoo.com><435BF2F5.6000907@cola.iges.org><001501c5d822$66dd6440$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au><000901c5d827$cc8c5440$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> <000501c5d83f$327b2e40$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> Message-ID: <435CF8E2.60606@nerim.net> Kate wrote: > If it's ok to ask, which colours does the Gelug tradition assign to the > different elements. For Tibetan colours in general, I have starting with > Earth - Yellow, White (or Black), Red, Black (or Green) and Azure (light > Blue). Colours and elements are often associated to Buddha families. The attributions may vary according to school, tantra etc. Perhaps the following will be of some interest http://www.berzinarchives.com/tantra/5_Buddha_family_traits_daily_life.htm From rhayes at unm.edu Mon Oct 24 09:44:28 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Mon Oct 24 09:51:24 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat In-Reply-To: References: <20051023201204.4825.qmail@web32612.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <435C9DDD.4080902@xs4all.nl> <4RpHUTAjIKXDFwpb@clara.net> <435CA5E8.4010803@nerim.net> Message-ID: <1130168668.5424.1.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Mon, 2005-10-24 at 05:30 -0600, Jim Peavler wrote: > Bacon (who wrote the works of Shakespeare), unlike Shakespeare (who may > have written the works of Marlow), was not a Buddhist. There are a lot of people on this list trying to be vegetarians. Do you think it is appropriate to remind them of Bacon? -- Richard From horowitz at chass.utoronto.ca Mon Oct 24 12:54:15 2005 From: horowitz at chass.utoronto.ca (Gad Horowitz) Date: Mon Oct 24 09:51:37 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat References: <20051023171402.31087.qmail@web32606.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <003201c5d8cc$5661b8a0$7dee6480@chass> who is it that cares whether it is orthodox or not? a moment ago "I" cared. Good karma kicked in and the"I" of this moment doesnt give a fig, creating good karma for the next moment's "I". This is the moment I've been waiting for all my life. here it comes....there it goes.. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Paris" To: "Buddhist discussion forum" Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2005 10:14 AM Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat > Doesn't sound like orthodox Buddhism. > > > Michael > > > --- Gad Horowitz wrote: > > > I was just repeating the idea of rebirth every moment > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Michael Paris" > > > > > Gad, > > > > > > Can you explain what you mean by "recurrent bodymind" > > > > > __________________________________ > Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page! > http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From horowitz at chass.utoronto.ca Mon Oct 24 12:59:54 2005 From: horowitz at chass.utoronto.ca (Gad Horowitz) Date: Mon Oct 24 09:51:47 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] On being unarmed and compassionate References: <20051023170358.55369.qmail@web32604.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1130100139.4371.45.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <007601c5d8cd$20bd4f60$7dee6480@chass> How does the WBO deal with homosexuality? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard P. Hayes" To: "Buddhist discussion forum" Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2005 1:42 PM Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] On being unarmed and compassionate > On Sun, 2005-10-23 at 10:03 -0700, Michael Paris wrote: > > > Very selective group, eh? I wonder what other entrance requirements > > they have. So one has to justify one's beliefs, or even hobbies, in > > order to belong to this bunch. But, of course, that's their privilege. > > Many groups practice their version of right-think. > > The group I was describing, the Western Buddhist Order, has a pretty > definite version of right-do. It is a little less interested in right- > think. The kinds of actions it wants its members to avoid are eating > meat, having abortions and owning guns. As far as I know, those are > considered guidelines only for those who wish to "belong" (in some > sense) to the outfit. No one, to the best of my knowledge, has taken the > step of suggesting that McDonald's franchises, abortion clinics and > sporting goods stores be bombed or that the constitution of the United > States be rewritten with new laws banning carnivorism, abortion and gun > ownership. (I seem to be the only one crazy enough to advocate banning > guns loudly and incessantly, and I am careful not to identify myself as > a Buddhist when I do it, lest Buddhism be the target the next > Crusades.) > > What is interesting, I think, about the way some Buddhism has taken > shape in the USA is that it has followed the footsteps of Puritanism in > so many ways. There were, of course, no such people as the Puritans. > That is, nobody seems to have called themselves by that name. It was a > label given to them by outsiders at first. Whatever the origins of the > name, Puritanism seems to have been a movement that cut across many > denominations of Christianity. What most of them had in common was a > tendency not to be very much concerned at all with orthodoxy (right > thinking). They rejected creeds. Some of them even saw revelation as > useless unless it was informed by reason, and some went so far as to say > that if one's reason is operating properly, then one needs no revelation > at all. But whatever fervor some Christians put into reciting creeds and > weeding out unbelievers, the Puritans put into acting reasonably and > weeding out (or shunning) miscreants. > > The WBO strikes me as Puritanical in its emphasis on putting wisdom and > compassion into action by avoiding violence to animals (hence the > vegetarianism) and to fetuses (hence the stance against abortion) and to > people and animals (hence the ban on owning weapons of minor > destruction). It bases its Puritanical ethic not so much on reason (as > some Congregationalists and the Universalists, for example, did) as on > Romanticism. (I am too ignorant of Romanticism to say more about this; I > just know that one hears a lot about the Romantics in the WBO, so I > gather they are important.) > > None of these claims I am making are in any way original. The accusation > that the WBO is a Protestant form of Buddhism has been made (rightly, I > think), and it has also been vehemently denied (wrongly, I think) by > some people within the WBO. I myself see nothing at all wrong in > Protestant Buddhism. Indeed, it seems an improvement, and I think it is > inevitable that Westerners will develop forms of Buddhism that are > hybrids of bits and bobs of Asian Buddhism and dribs and drabs of > Western culture. > > As for myself, I stay in the WBO by staying out of all those silly > debates among my fellow groupies. There are lots of ways I think the WBO > has gone seriously astray and wandered off into being a self-parodying > cult in which the principle practice is a kind of ritualized denial of > its own mistakes. But that's pretty much the story of all organized > religion, n'est-ce pas? Despite its many failings, I applaud what the > WBO was trying to do at the beginning, namely, have an organization that > embraced all of Buddhism, rather than following any one tradition, and > made no distinction between monks and laity or between men and women. (I > used to think of them as a a Buddhist group who had learned some > important lessons from the Quakers about how to run an outfit.) To this > day, I think that is the right direction for Buddhism in the West to > take. In fact, I think much of Western Buddhism has in fact taken pretty > much that direction, although their have been some major hiccoughs (and > not a small amount of belching) along the way. > > I apologize for making a bad joke in a previous message. I sometimes > make the wrong assumption that when I write a message arguing stridently > for a position and then end the message by saying something that is > obviously diametrically opposed to what I have been stridently arguing, > this ham-fisted attempt at corny humor will make someone smile. But I > keep forgetting we belong to a culture that has come to take itself so > seriously that it can no longer smile at anything---even badly crafted > jokes. So I apologize not so much for myself, but for what the society I > live in has become. And I apologize not only to Michael Paris but to the > universe for the humourlessness of our times. > > -- > Richard (alias Dayamati) > > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From horowitz at chass.utoronto.ca Mon Oct 24 13:09:17 2005 From: horowitz at chass.utoronto.ca (Gad Horowitz) Date: Mon Oct 24 10:01:30 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] "Nature" and eating meat References: <5.2.1.1.0.20051024091333.0123ca00@mail.jcu.edu.au> <02fd515f489dfa12562d57f7ee62ff91@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <00ad01c5d8ce$70566560$7dee6480@chass> human nature is not as simple as that of animals. we ate of the fruit of the (bo)tree of knowledge. we desire good and evil and the wisdom to know the difference. good luck! ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Peavler" To: "Buddhist discussion forum" Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2005 4:56 PM Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] "Nature" and eating meat > > On Oct 23, 2005, at 5:39 PM, Laura Castell wrote: > > > Hi Richard, > > The issue of pets is a very interesting one. We can't blame the > > animals for their actions, they are being their true selves when they > > go out and hunt. Even the sometimes apparent cruelty of their > > behaviour I believe is natural (something about nature I struggle to > > understand ). > > I'm likely to get in trouble for this, but people often excuse things > because they are "natural". Why is it more natural for a mountain lion > or a coyote to kill for food than it is for a human. Humans spent a few > million years evolving as hunters, as the long history of artifacts of > weapons, scrapers, etc. attest. Perhaps virtue lies in the strength to > overcome "nature". But, then, why would that be true? > > (This here is a whole new subject line of which I tremble to imagine > the repercussions. > > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From rhayes at unm.edu Mon Oct 24 10:04:31 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Mon Oct 24 10:11:24 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] On being unarmed and compassionate In-Reply-To: <007601c5d8cd$20bd4f60$7dee6480@chass> References: <20051023170358.55369.qmail@web32604.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1130100139.4371.45.camel@localhost.localdomain> <007601c5d8cd$20bd4f60$7dee6480@chass> Message-ID: <1130169871.5424.20.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Mon, 2005-10-24 at 11:59 -0700, Gad Horowitz wrote: > How does the WBO deal with homosexuality? Enthusiastically. From curt at cola.iges.org Mon Oct 24 08:08:58 2005 From: curt at cola.iges.org (curt) Date: Mon Oct 24 10:32:37 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] "Nature" and eating meat In-Reply-To: <435CD298.9090503@nerim.net> References: <5.2.1.1.0.20051024091333.0123ca00@mail.jcu.edu.au> <02fd515f489dfa12562d57f7ee62ff91@mindspring.com> <435C8C57.5050000@nerim.net> <4526ba440510240252m5e2a2990i@mail.gmail.com> <435CD298.9090503@nerim.net> Message-ID: <435CEAFA.209@cola.iges.org> Joy Vriens wrote: > Yes humanism, the Human project is a project. We can't judge the whole > project on the basis of somme rotten pears (as the Curt doctrine would > require us to do). ;-) I wonder what is motivating you to say such an unpleasant thing? My psychic powers are extremely limited - but if I try to read your mind it seems to me that you misunderstood what I said during the discussion concerning pacifism (and if that is the case, then I must first blame myself). To clarify very briefly: I never intended that Buddhism should be judged by "rotten pears" - in particular I do not consider the first 13 Dalai Lamas, nor King Asoka nor the less well known Sosan Taesa to have been "rotten" at all - merely counter-examples to the claim that Buddhism is inherently pacifist. I hold all of them in the highest regard (well, alright - I don't know that much about each and every Dalai Lama - but I am more than willing to give them the benefit of the doubt). I regret that I expressed myself so poorly as to lead to such a misunderstanding. But on the subject of "nature": I know it is something of a truism, but I also think that it may be at least in part true, that Buddhism's attitude toward nature changed as it moved out of India, and especially as it moved North and East. But even in India the later development of Tantric Buddhism also represents a more "positive" view of nature than that found in early Buddhism. In the case of Chinese Buddhism a lot of mileage has been gotten out of ideas about Taoist influences making Buddhism more natural and earthy and so forth. I think there is some truth to that - but there must have been something in Buddhism that was able to adapt to that different intellectual environment - I don't think it was just a matter of rank opportunism. The situation in Central Asia is even more interesting and messy - where the interpenetration of Buddhism and Shamanism has been quite deep. - Curt From rhayes at unm.edu Mon Oct 24 11:46:52 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Mon Oct 24 11:51:26 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] "Nature" and eating meat In-Reply-To: <00ad01c5d8ce$70566560$7dee6480@chass> References: <5.2.1.1.0.20051024091333.0123ca00@mail.jcu.edu.au> <02fd515f489dfa12562d57f7ee62ff91@mindspring.com> <00ad01c5d8ce$70566560$7dee6480@chass> Message-ID: <1130176012.5784.26.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Mon, 2005-10-24 at 12:09 -0700, Gad Horowitz wrote: > human nature is not as simple as that of animals. we ate of the fruit of the > (bo)tree of knowledge. we desire good and evil and the wisdom to know the > difference. You must be thinking of some other tradition. I am not aware of any Buddhist texts that discuss eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. -- Richard From s-sarbacker at northwestern.edu Mon Oct 24 12:28:14 2005 From: s-sarbacker at northwestern.edu (Stuart Ray Sarbacker) Date: Mon Oct 24 12:31:28 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] 'apple' of eden In-Reply-To: <200510241800.j9OI0HuN015206@ns1.swcp.com> References: <200510241800.j9OI0HuN015206@ns1.swcp.com> Message-ID: >Message: 7 >Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 11:46:52 -0600 >From: "Richard P. Hayes" >Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] "Nature" and eating meat >To: Buddhist discussion forum >Message-ID: <1130176012.5784.26.camel@localhost.localdomain> >Content-Type: text/plain > >On Mon, 2005-10-24 at 12:09 -0700, Gad Horowitz wrote: > > > human nature is not as simple as that of animals. we ate of the >fruit of the > > (bo)tree of knowledge. we desire good and evil and the wisdom to know the > > difference. > >You must be thinking of some other tradition. I am not aware of any >Buddhist texts that discuss eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of >good and evil. > >-- >Richard > Isn't there the Buddhist 'cosmogony' of the tasty samsaric 'crust' in the Agganna sutta of the DN? There is an interesting connection (though obviously not identity)... -Stuart From jpeavler at mindspring.com Mon Oct 24 12:50:05 2005 From: jpeavler at mindspring.com (Jim Peavler) Date: Mon Oct 24 12:51:27 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] "Nature" and eating meat In-Reply-To: <00ad01c5d8ce$70566560$7dee6480@chass> References: <5.2.1.1.0.20051024091333.0123ca00@mail.jcu.edu.au> <02fd515f489dfa12562d57f7ee62ff91@mindspring.com> <00ad01c5d8ce$70566560$7dee6480@chass> Message-ID: On Oct 24, 2005, at 1:09 PM, Gad Horowitz wrote: > we ate of the fruit of the > (bo)tree of knowledge. we desire good and evil and the wisdom to know > the > difference. I, personally, eschewed the fruit of the tree of knowledge. From junger at samsara.law.cwru.edu Mon Oct 24 12:21:26 2005 From: junger at samsara.law.cwru.edu (Peter D. Junger) Date: Mon Oct 24 13:21:27 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] "Nature" and eating meat In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 24 Oct 2005 12:50:05 MDT." Message-ID: <200510241821.j9OILRUN001183@samsara.law.cwru.edu> Jim Peavler writes: : : On Oct 24, 2005, at 1:09 PM, Gad Horowitz wrote: : : > we ate of the fruit of the : > (bo)tree of knowledge. we desire good and evil and the wisdom to know : > the : > difference. : : I, personally, eschewed the fruit of the tree of knowledge. And after you eschewed it did you spit it out? -- Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH EMAIL: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu URL: http://samsara.law.cwru.edu From horowitz at chass.utoronto.ca Mon Oct 24 13:32:46 2005 From: horowitz at chass.utoronto.ca (horowitz@chass.utoronto.ca) Date: Mon Oct 24 13:41:27 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] 'Nature' and eating meat In-Reply-To: <1130176012.5784.26.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <5.2.1.1.0.20051024091333.0123ca00@mail.jcu.edu.au> <02fd515f489dfa12562d57f7ee62ff91@mindspring.com> <00ad01c5d8ce$70566560$7dee6480@chass> <1130176012.5784.26.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <2417.128.100.178.185.1130182366.squirrel@128.100.178.185> > Doctor Hayes, you are such a misnagged! On Mon, 2005-10-24 at 12:09 -0700, Gad Horowitz wrote: > >> human nature is not as simple as that of animals. we ate of the fruit of >> the >> (bo)tree of knowledge. we desire good and evil and the wisdom to know >> the >> difference. > > You must be thinking of some other tradition. I am not aware of any > Buddhist texts that discuss eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of > good and evil. > > -- > Richard > > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l > From mlatorra at nmsu.edu Mon Oct 24 13:26:13 2005 From: mlatorra at nmsu.edu (Mr Michael A. La Torra) Date: Mon Oct 24 14:26:30 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Conze on monks' busywork Message-ID: <2392939.1130181973928.JavaMail.mlatorra@nmsu.edu> Richard P. Hayes wrote: ... >All this reminds me of an observation that Edward Conze made once about >abhidharma. Monks did not have enough to do, he said, so they kept >themselves busy by putting every teaching into a neat category and then >drawing an infinite number of meaningless correlations between one >category and another. Better to do that, I guess, than starting wars. I quite agree with Conze about this! I've often wondered how much better those monks could have contributed to the reduction of human suffering if they had spent their time in other ways. Too much intellectual effort was expended for the small return of value. I am reminded of a cartoon I once saw in some magazine (possibly a science periodical). The drawing showed a Buddhist abbot standing before a seated monk. The abbot says: "I want you to think about the protein folding problem." I biochemical joke here is that no one has yet discovered a method for predicting how very large protein molecules fold into the shapes that make them effective as catalysts. If such a method could be developed, it could lead to vast improvements in the design and manufacture of medicines. Now THAT could relieve a LOT of suffering! --------------------------- Regards, Michael LaTorra mlatorra@nmsu.edu Department of English New Mexico State University MSC 3E, PO Box 30001 Las Cruces, NM 88003 From mike at lamrim.org.uk Mon Oct 24 15:00:40 2005 From: mike at lamrim.org.uk (Mike Austin) Date: Mon Oct 24 15:01:30 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Conze on monks' busywork In-Reply-To: <2392939.1130181973928.JavaMail.mlatorra@nmsu.edu> References: <2392939.1130181973928.JavaMail.mlatorra@nmsu.edu> Message-ID: In message <2392939.1130181973928.JavaMail.mlatorra@nmsu.edu>, Mr Michael A. La Torra writes >Richard P. Hayes wrote: >... >>All this reminds me of an observation that Edward Conze made once about >>abhidharma. Monks did not have enough to do, he said, so they kept >>themselves busy by putting every teaching into a neat category and then >>drawing an infinite number of meaningless correlations between one >>category and another. Better to do that, I guess, than starting wars. > >I quite agree with Conze about this! I've often wondered how much >better those monks could have contributed to the reduction of human >suffering if they had spent their time in other ways. Too much >intellectual effort was expended for the small return of value. Monks at Nalanda thought that Shantideva just ate, slept and defecated. It later transpired that he had reached a high level of realisation. His text "Guide to the Bodhisattva's Way of Life" has since helped others to reduce dukkha. We should not be too hasty in our judgement. -- Metta Mike Austin From brburl at mailbag.com Mon Oct 24 15:10:15 2005 From: brburl at mailbag.com (Bruce Burrill) Date: Mon Oct 24 15:11:30 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Conze on monks' busywork In-Reply-To: <2392939.1130181973928.JavaMail.mlatorra@nmsu.edu> References: <2392939.1130181973928.JavaMail.mlatorra@nmsu.edu> Message-ID: <7.0.0.10.2.20051024160847.0216f788@mailbag.com> At 02:26 PM 10/24/2005, you wrote: > >All this reminds me of an observation that Edward Conze made once about > >abhidharma. Monks did not have enough to do, he said, so they kept > >themselves busy by putting every teaching into a neat category and then > >drawing an infinite number of meaningless correlations between one > >category and another. Better to do that, I guess, than starting wars. > >I quite agree with Conze about this! This is a bit funny, given that the Prajnaparamita texts are really nothing more than illustrated Abdhidharma. From rhayes at unm.edu Mon Oct 24 15:14:52 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Mon Oct 24 15:21:28 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Conze on monks' busywork In-Reply-To: References: <2392939.1130181973928.JavaMail.mlatorra@nmsu.edu> Message-ID: <1130188492.4585.39.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Mon, 2005-10-24 at 22:00 +0100, Mike Austin wrote: > Monks at Nalanda thought that Shantideva just ate, slept and defecated. > It later transpired that he had reached a high level of realisation. His > text "Guide to the Bodhisattva's Way of Life" has since helped others to > reduce dukkha. We should not be too hasty in our judgement. So what's your point? Are you suggesting that every apparent drone is really a literary genius hiding his light under a bushel? Are you suggesting that one monk, Shantideva, is evidence that every monk who spent his energy studying abhidharma made a contribution as great as Shantideva's to the reduction of dukkha in this world? -- Richard From jpeavler at mindspring.com Mon Oct 24 15:27:27 2005 From: jpeavler at mindspring.com (Jim Peavler) Date: Mon Oct 24 15:31:30 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] "Nature" and eating meat In-Reply-To: <200510241821.j9OILRUN001183@samsara.law.cwru.edu> References: <200510241821.j9OILRUN001183@samsara.law.cwru.edu> Message-ID: <7e928b9d3eed7b824fab656644c7dcd9@mindspring.com> On Oct 24, 2005, at 12:21 PM, Peter D. Junger wrote: > And after you eschewed it did you spit it out? > Well, I didn't inhale, if that's what you are getting at! From mike at lamrim.org.uk Mon Oct 24 15:39:40 2005 From: mike at lamrim.org.uk (Mike Austin) Date: Mon Oct 24 15:41:30 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Conze on monks' busywork In-Reply-To: <1130188492.4585.39.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <2392939.1130181973928.JavaMail.mlatorra@nmsu.edu> <1130188492.4585.39.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: In message <1130188492.4585.39.camel@localhost.localdomain>, Richard P. Hayes writes >On Mon, 2005-10-24 at 22:00 +0100, Mike Austin wrote: > >> Monks at Nalanda thought that Shantideva just ate, slept and defecated. >> It later transpired that he had reached a high level of realisation. His >> text "Guide to the Bodhisattva's Way of Life" has since helped others to >> reduce dukkha. We should not be too hasty in our judgement. > >So what's your point? Are you suggesting that every apparent drone is >really a literary genius hiding his light under a bushel? Are you >suggesting that one monk, Shantideva, is evidence that every monk who >spent his energy studying abhidharma made a contribution as great as >Shantideva's to the reduction of dukkha in this world? No. -- Metta Mike Austin From horowitz at chass.utoronto.ca Mon Oct 24 15:32:29 2005 From: horowitz at chass.utoronto.ca (horowitz@chass.utoronto.ca) Date: Mon Oct 24 15:41:40 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] 'Nature' and eating meat In-Reply-To: <2417.128.100.178.185.1130182366.squirrel@128.100.178.185> References: <5.2.1.1.0.20051024091333.0123ca00@mail.jcu.edu.au> <02fd515f489dfa12562d57f7ee62ff91@mindspring.com> <00ad01c5d8ce$70566560$7dee6480@chass> <1130176012.5784.26.camel@localhost.localdomain> <2417.128.100.178.185.1130182366.squirrel@128.100.178.185> Message-ID: <1798.128.100.178.176.1130189549.squirrel@128.100.178.176> > Sorry if this response was inappropriate. I thought you might ask what misnagged means. In the Jewish tradition it means, roughly, one who is so devoted to rational thinking that he has little patience with myth (like the Tree, or the Lotus Sutra)little patience with paradox (Nagarjuna,Zen,Derrida, Magliola)... And you are one of the sharpest wits I have ever encountered. Please accept my apology.I promise no more obfuscatory ad hominems. > Doctor Hayes, you are such a misnagged! > > > > > On Mon, 2005-10-24 at 12:09 -0700, Gad Horowitz wrote: >> >>> human nature is not as simple as that of animals. we ate of the fruit >>> of >>> the >>> (bo)tree of knowledge. we desire good and evil and the wisdom to know >>> the >>> difference. >> >> You must be thinking of some other tradition. I am not aware of any >> Buddhist texts that discuss eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of >> good and evil. >> >> -- >> Richard >> >> _______________________________________________ >> buddha-l mailing list >> buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com >> http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l >> > > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l > From jpeavler at mindspring.com Mon Oct 24 15:32:38 2005 From: jpeavler at mindspring.com (Jim Peavler) Date: Mon Oct 24 15:41:47 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] five elements In-Reply-To: <1130162398.4518.8.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <20051023200713.96721.qmail@web32607.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <435BF2F5.6000907@cola.iges.org> <001501c5d822$66dd6440$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> <000901c5d827$cc8c5440$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> <000501c5d83f$327b2e40$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> <1130127773.6215.75.camel@localhost.localdomain> <000e01c5d85b$27992a60$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> <1130162398.4518.8.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <2dbd73e249d756954345a2a7d90a1c8c@mindspring.com> On Oct 24, 2005, at 7:59 AM, Richard P. Hayes wrote: > > All this reminds me of an observation that Edward Conze made once about > abhidharma. Monks did not have enough to do, he said, so they kept > themselves busy by putting every teaching into a neat category and then > drawing an infinite number of meaningless correlations between one > category and another. Better to do that, I guess, than starting wars. > This is not entirely unlike the age of the scholastics in mediaeval Europe. How many lives were wasted arguing between the Universalists and the Nominalists. Perhaps such minute reasoning is a disease of monastic life. In my opinion none of this nonsense would have happened if they had had enough contact with women, who are far to pragmatic and practical to have ever engaged in such nonsense. Probably a little sexual relief would not have hurt them either. From tatelman at sympatico.ca Mon Oct 24 16:27:52 2005 From: tatelman at sympatico.ca (Joel Tatelman) Date: Mon Oct 24 16:31:30 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Conze on monks' busywork In-Reply-To: References: <2392939.1130181973928.JavaMail.mlatorra@nmsu.edu> Message-ID: > Richard et al, In graduate school, I wrote a paper on Conze's contribution to Buddhist studies and remember quite clearly a remark in praise of abhidharma in one of his published pieces (can't give a reference right now though). The context was EC's criticism of Western Buddhists' enthusiasm for Zen and Madhyamaka. Conze remarked that it we want to run before we can walk, that we wish to engage the most advanced Buddhist teachings when most of us would benefit far more from disciplined analysis of and meditation on the rise and fall of dharmas as set out in the various Abhidharma traditions. > If the mark of genius is freedom from having to be consistent, I guess > that's a few points for Conze. Regards, Joel Tatelman. >> Richard P. Hayes wrote: >> ... >>> All this reminds me of an observation that Edward Conze made once >>> about >>> abhidharma. Monks did not have enough to do, he said, so they kept >>> themselves busy by putting every teaching into a neat category and >>> then >>> drawing an infinite number of meaningless correlations between one >>> category and another. Better to do that, I guess, than starting wars. From chanfu at gmail.com Mon Oct 24 17:32:22 2005 From: chanfu at gmail.com (Chan Fu) Date: Mon Oct 24 17:41:31 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] 'Nature' and eating meat In-Reply-To: <1798.128.100.178.176.1130189549.squirrel@128.100.178.176> References: <5.2.1.1.0.20051024091333.0123ca00@mail.jcu.edu.au> <02fd515f489dfa12562d57f7ee62ff91@mindspring.com> <00ad01c5d8ce$70566560$7dee6480@chass> <1130176012.5784.26.camel@localhost.localdomain> <2417.128.100.178.185.1130182366.squirrel@128.100.178.185> <1798.128.100.178.176.1130189549.squirrel@128.100.178.176> Message-ID: on 10/24/05, horowitz@chass.utoronto.ca wrote: > > Sorry if this response was inappropriate. I thought you might ask what > misnagged means. In the Jewish tradition it means, roughly, one who is > so devoted to rational thinking that he has little patience with myth > (like the Tree, or the Lotus Sutra)little patience with paradox > (Nagarjuna,Zen,Derrida, Magliola)... And you are one of the sharpest > wits I have ever encountered. Please accept my apology.I promise no > more obfuscatory ad hominems. In the buddhist tradition, it means, roughly, that papanca is a lot of fun if you don't take it seriously. Even more so if your eyebrows knit up and you wonder, "Just what are they knitting, those eyebrows?" As wits go, Richard is my better half. From rhayes at unm.edu Mon Oct 24 17:40:59 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Mon Oct 24 17:41:44 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] 'Nature' and eating meat In-Reply-To: <1798.128.100.178.176.1130189549.squirrel@128.100.178.176> References: <5.2.1.1.0.20051024091333.0123ca00@mail.jcu.edu.au> <02fd515f489dfa12562d57f7ee62ff91@mindspring.com> <00ad01c5d8ce$70566560$7dee6480@chass> <1130176012.5784.26.camel@localhost.localdomain> <2417.128.100.178.185.1130182366.squirrel@128.100.178.185> <1798.128.100.178.176.1130189549.squirrel@128.100.178.176> Message-ID: <1130197259.5476.75.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Mon, 2005-10-24 at 17:32 -0400, horowitz@chass.utoronto.ca wrote: > Sorry if this response was inappropriate. I thought you might ask what > misnagged means. I assumed it means nagged inappropriately or for the wrong reasons. For example, when my wife asks me to do something that I have already done, she is misnagging me. (That's just a hypothetical example. In fact my wife neither nags nor misnags me.) > In the Jewish tradition it means, roughly, one who is > so devoted to rational thinking that he has little patience with myth > (like the Tree, or the Lotus Sutra)little patience with paradox > (Nagarjuna,Zen,Derrida, Magliola). That would be a sad and impoverished state of affairs to be in. In fact, it sounds dangerously close to being a Republican. As you probably realize, I have nothing at all against myth and paradox. I do tend to feel that systems of mythology that have evolved over centuries and millennia work best when they are not mixed up with one another. For this reason, it tends to strike me as a pity when one speaks of, say, Christ as a bodhisattva or an enlightened being. That does violence to the tradition in which he placed himself, so I would rather show respect for that tradition and historical context by not importing too many alienisms into it. Having said that, I am well aware that myth is very dynamic and is constantly being renewed through redefinition, as when Paul redefined all manner of Jewish terms and symbols to arrive at a new mythology, or when the Buddha deliberately redefined a bunch of brahmanical terms to come up with a new mythology. Redefining a former myth to arrive at a new mythology is a way of keeping mythology relevant. The danger, as we all know only too well, is when acceptance of the new myth leads to a denigration of the older one, and of the people who still abide by it. Thus we have the ugly history of anti-Semiticism in much of Christianity, and the equally ugly phenomenon of dismissive rhetoric in the Lotus Sutra. > Please accept my apology. I don't need it, but if you are giving them away, what the hell, eh? Maybe I can give it to someone who needs it more than I do. Who knows, I might someday misnag somebody and then need to apologize to them. > I promise no more obfuscatory ad hominems. A really nicely turned ad hominem is pretty hard to resist. And, as the history of democracy show us, a good ad hominem, tu quoque, straw man or slippery slope fallacy will almost always get more votes than a valid argument. So never sell fallacies short. But if one is going to use a fallacy, it is better not to mix it with obfuscation, lest the fools whom the fallacy is intended to dupe miss the point and vote for the wrong party. Be well, my friend, and give Toronto a hug for me. (But not Mississauga, eh?) -- Richard From rhayes at unm.edu Mon Oct 24 19:04:43 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Mon Oct 24 19:11:31 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] 'Nature' and eating meat In-Reply-To: References: <5.2.1.1.0.20051024091333.0123ca00@mail.jcu.edu.au> <02fd515f489dfa12562d57f7ee62ff91@mindspring.com> <00ad01c5d8ce$70566560$7dee6480@chass> <1130176012.5784.26.camel@localhost.localdomain> <2417.128.100.178.185.1130182366.squirrel@128.100.178.185> <1798.128.100.178.176.1130189549.squirrel@128.100.178.176> Message-ID: <1130202283.5476.151.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Mon, 2005-10-24 at 19:32 -0400, Chan Fu wrote: > As wits go, Richard is my better half. If two half wits added up to a whole wit, we might be getting some good ideas from the White House. Unfortunately, I think the operative function is multiplication, not addition. One half wit by another yields a quarter wit. -- Richard From marshallarts at bigpond.com Mon Oct 24 20:03:26 2005 From: marshallarts at bigpond.com (Kate) Date: Mon Oct 24 20:11:32 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] five elements References: <20051023200713.96721.qmail@web32607.mail.mud.yahoo.com><435BF2F5.6000907@cola.iges.org><001501c5d822$66dd6440$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au><000901c5d827$cc8c5440$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au><000501c5d83f$327b2e40$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au><1130127773.6215.75.camel@localhost.localdomain><000e01c5d85b$27992a60$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> <1130162398.4518.8.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <000d01c5d908$4a016ba0$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> Hi Richard, > No, it's not a basic question at all. I have no idea what the answer to > your question is. I was taken by surprise by it, because it had never > occurred to me that Buddhist scholastics had busied themselves with > associating the five basic elements with colours. Well, I don't know about Budhist scholastics, but certainly some Buddhist sects do, and not only colours but shapes, animals, directions etc - the primary examples of colours and shapes associated with elements being of course mandalas and stupas. >That sounds very > Chinese to me. Everything comes in fives for the Chinese, and all sorts > of associations are made between the groups of five. The five vital > organs, the five spices, the five fingers of the left hand, the five > cardinal directions, the fifty ways to leave your lover.... The traditional Chinese method is Daoist and uses different elements and views them in a different way. The Chinese Buddhist elements are the same as the Indian Buddhist elements, though different mikkyo texts allot different colours (or rather a different order of colours) to the elements. All systems contain the primary colours of yellow, blue and red. The other two colours are usually black and white, but some use green, gold or transparent instead. > All this reminds me of an observation that Edward Conze made once about > abhidharma. Monks did not have enough to do, he said, so they kept > themselves busy by putting every teaching into a neat category and then > drawing an infinite number of meaningless correlations between one > category and another. Better to do that, I guess, than starting wars. Not "meaningless". The Elements and their associated properties and symbols form a very useful tool to make a complex subject easier to understand, and to clarify many levels of doctrine by utilizing very simple and experiential principles. Once a Buddhist student understood the Doctrine of Elements, it was symbolically represented in special patterns that described the inter-relationship between its different constituent parts and forces. These special patterns were eventually called mandalas. In mikkyo sects, a mandala takes the teachings of a doctrine and presents them in a physical form, either as a picture, sound, shapes, movement etc. or any combination of these. By doing this, highly technical and intricate Buddhist Mikkyo teachings could be conveyed in simplified forms through the medium of the Mandala, preserving the information for future generations. The elements along with their respective colours and other qualities formed the subject of the most basic meditations used within early Buddhism to undover the nature of subjective and objective reality. Regards Kate From marshallarts at bigpond.com Mon Oct 24 21:20:53 2005 From: marshallarts at bigpond.com (Kate) Date: Mon Oct 24 21:31:36 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] five elements References: <20051023200713.96721.qmail@web32607.mail.mud.yahoo.com><435BF2F5.6000907@cola.iges.org><001501c5d822$66dd6440$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au><000901c5d827$cc8c5440$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au><000501c5d83f$327b2e40$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> <9XAJEbJngIXDFwI5@clara.net> Message-ID: <000701c5d913$1b9542e0$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> > > I have never paid much attention to these things, but I had a dig round > and found that earth is yellow, fire is red, water is green, sky is blue > and ether (or mind) is white. Thanks for your trouble in finding this info, Mike. I haven't come across this particular colour to element correspondence before. The Chen Yen colours are in accord with the Visudhi Magga (The Path to Purification) description. Regards Kate From s.hodge at padmacholing.freeserve.co.uk Mon Oct 24 22:17:09 2005 From: s.hodge at padmacholing.freeserve.co.uk (Stephen Hodge) Date: Mon Oct 24 22:21:35 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] five elements References: <20051023200713.96721.qmail@web32607.mail.mud.yahoo.com><435BF2F5.6000907@cola.iges.org><001501c5d822$66dd6440$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au><000901c5d827$cc8c5440$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au><000501c5d83f$327b2e40$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au><1130127773.6215.75.camel@localhost.localdomain><000e01c5d85b$27992a60$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au><1130162398.4518.8.camel@localhost.localdomain> <000d01c5d908$4a016ba0$6900a8c0@vic.bigpond.net.au> Message-ID: <008701c5d91b$1a646a60$63694e51@zen> Dear Kate, > Well, I don't know about Budhist scholastics, but certainly some Buddhist > sects do, and not only colours but shapes, animals, directions etc - the > primary examples of colours and shapes associated with elements being of > course mandalas and stupas. If anybody is interested, the technical name for these sequences of identification in Sanskrit is "bandhu" -- very well-attested throughout much of Indian religious literature and they can run into dozens for one set. Best wishes, Stephen Hodge From joy.vriens at nerim.net Mon Oct 24 23:31:04 2005 From: joy.vriens at nerim.net (Joy Vriens) Date: Mon Oct 24 23:31:36 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] "Nature" and eating meat In-Reply-To: <435CEAFA.209@cola.iges.org> References: <5.2.1.1.0.20051024091333.0123ca00@mail.jcu.edu.au> <02fd515f489dfa12562d57f7ee62ff91@mindspring.com> <435C8C57.5050000@nerim.net> <4526ba440510240252m5e2a2990i@mail.gmail.com> <435CD298.9090503@nerim.net> <435CEAFA.209@cola.iges.org> Message-ID: <435DC318.2050802@nerim.net> curt wrote: >> Yes humanism, the Human project is a project. We can't judge the whole >> project on the basis of somme rotten pears (as the Curt doctrine would >> require us to do). ;-) > I wonder what is motivating you to say such an unpleasant thing? It wasn't meant to be unpleasant, sorry for that, but it was my understanding that you based your assessment of a religion, not on its self proclaimed objectives and methods, but on how (some) influencial Buddhists put their religion into practice, and especially politically. I already mistrust the Buddhism of Buddhists in high power positions, especially in the times when conquering power really meant that: conquering power. A very naive view if this were a forum on political science, but on a Buddhist forum I have a right to judge (predemocratic) politics (guided, misguided or not guided by religious principles) from a (intimate) religious point of view. > My > psychic powers are extremely limited - but if I try to read your mind it > seems to me that you misunderstood what I said during the discussion > concerning pacifism (and if that is the case, then I must first blame > myself). To clarify very briefly: I never intended that Buddhism should > be judged by "rotten pears" - in particular I do not consider the first > 13 Dalai Lamas, nor King Asoka nor the less well known Sosan Taesa to > have been "rotten" at all - merely counter-examples to the claim that > Buddhism is inherently pacifist. I hold all of them in the highest > regard (well, alright - I don't know that much about each and every > Dalai Lama - but I am more than willing to give them the benefit of the > doubt). I regret that I expressed myself so poorly as to lead to such a > misunderstanding. You expressed yourself quite clearly, and your explanation above leaves no doubt. The misunderstanding was partly intentional on my part in that it was a caricature of your position, but there was a part of misunderstanding too, which you have now clarified. There is still one more thing I would like to clarify. It isn't very reasonable and equitable (of me) to want to judge Buddhist rulers of the past by the standards of today's political tendancies. But it is my conviction that one doesn't end up in a power position without having fought for it and having wanted it very hard. A Buddhist fighting for power in order to then be able to impose Buddhist values, a Dharmaraja, doesn't make any sense to me. Buddhism is not something that can be imposed through force and laws etc. I don't believe the Buddhist legends about its Dharmarajas and don't trust the motivations of the latter. But my conception of Buddhism is one with a very individual approach and I can imagine that other conceptions that are more society-based are possible too. So in my politically very naive view of Buddhist rulers, those mighty ones can only be "rotten pears" (caricaturised). One doesn't use Buddhism on others, one can only use it on oneself. > But on the subject of "nature": I know it is something of a truism, but > I also think that it may be at least in part true, that Buddhism's > attitude toward nature changed as it moved out of India, and especially > as it moved North and East. Nature being the physical, the corporal, the "animal" in us? > But even in India the later development of > Tantric Buddhism also represents a more "positive" view of nature than > that found in early Buddhism. Yes one of the qualities of Tantrism IMO was that it revalorised the body and human needs. Initially by transmuting it, which is still a form of refusal, but it's a more balanced view of the physical. > In the case of Chinese Buddhism a lot of > mileage has been gotten out of ideas about Taoist influences making > Buddhism more natural and earthy and so forth. I think there is some > truth to that - but there must have been something in Buddhism that was > able to adapt to that different intellectual environment - I don't think > it was just a matter of rank opportunism. No, I don't think so either. Mixtures happen naturally, out of a need. They aren't planned. There can be reinterpretations of course. Look at what happens to Western Buddhism. > The situation in Central Asia > is even more interesting and messy - where the interpenetration of > Buddhism and Shamanism has been quite deep. One needs to feed, one's whole being, all aspects of it. Or rather one shouldn't let any aspects starve purposely IMO. From stefan.detrez at gmail.com Mon Oct 24 23:45:52 2005 From: stefan.detrez at gmail.com (Stefan Detrez) Date: Mon Oct 24 23:51:45 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] "Nature" and eating meat In-Reply-To: <435CD298.9090503@nerim.net> References: <5.2.1.1.0.20051024091333.0123ca00@mail.jcu.edu.au> <02fd515f489dfa12562d57f7ee62ff91@mindspring.com> <435C8C57.5050000@nerim.net> <4526ba440510240252m5e2a2990i@mail.gmail.com> <435CD298.9090503@nerim.net> Message-ID: <4526ba440510242245v1a37161fq@mail.gmail.com> 2005/10/24, Joy Vriens : > > > Another interesting point in the Andes cannibalism case is the legal > aspect of it. Did any laws apply that forbid the eating of human flesh, > were there any charges pressed to the eaters by the families of the > deceased or by a general attorney? And if not why? When people get into survival mode, moral concerns are far away. Brecht's 'Erst dass Fressen, dann die Moral' illustrates this very nicely. Even IF they were concerned with legal matters, they would still take that chance to keep alive. Maybe that's a good reason why self defence with lethal results for the assaulter are not punished according to standards for judging 'killers'. If you're on a life boat and it's overloaded and you push someone off, nobody will press charges for having succesfully saved your life and that of others. That would be quite contradictory. You might choose to sacrifice yourself. Would that be illegal suicide? > > The case of the Bodhisattva is a mythical story that tells me more about > non duality (exchange/equivalence of self and other) than about any > moral issue as far as I am concerned. Some myths set examples. Think of what the Jains do when they offer dead bodies to vultures. I don't know about the case of Buddhists. But it can be understood as a form of noblesse (oblig?) to sacrifice your life to help others (fill thier tummies). > > Yes humanism, the Human project is a project. We can't judge the whole > project on the basis of somme rotten pears (as the Curt doctrine would > require us to do). ;-) Some religions or religious currents want to go > even further than that and would like to cut off that behaviour which is > illustrative of 'man' and have even "higher" aspirations. And your point being? > My personal opinion is that most of which is considered as a vice is > actually that which erupts from basic needs for survival and which are > Amoral, in contrast to IMmoral. The projection of 'immorality' is probably > inspired by the socially, culturally, etc disruptive effects of these vices. > > For survival? I don't understand. A vice is that which erupts from basic > *individual* needs and that is considered as a vice by the society in > which that individual lives. E.g. excising and circumcising children out > of an "individual need" would be a vice/crime, but when it's done for > the sake of religion or society, then it's considered a virtue by that > society. >From an evolutionary point of view controlling women's sexuality in such a violent way might serve the propagation of male genes. So in this sense, it's basically a cultural expression of the male's biological procreative urge. That it's done might be something cultural relativists have understanding for (not me who tend to universalize my humanist values), howit's done is an issue concerning ethics. > Applied to the eating meat, one can say eating meat is only immoral > insofar the animal is killed for entertainment purposes. The rest is, I'd > say, Amoral. > > But that's one the points made. If it isn't really necessary to eat meat > for survival for all, then the "entertainment" (pleasure, culture etc.) > factor of eating meat is going up. Maybe it's not necessary (yet sometimes beneficial in moderate quantities) , but I wouldn't want to be the one to go and convert meat eating Tibetans or blood drinking Masai to eat strictly vegetarian. Doe jij dat maar :) Stefan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20051025/b1650b99/attachment.html From joy.vriens at nerim.net Tue Oct 25 00:26:03 2005 From: joy.vriens at nerim.net (Joy Vriens) Date: Tue Oct 25 00:31:35 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] "Nature" and eating meat In-Reply-To: <4526ba440510242245v1a37161fq@mail.gmail.com> References: <5.2.1.1.0.20051024091333.0123ca00@mail.jcu.edu.au> <02fd515f489dfa12562d57f7ee62ff91@mindspring.com> <435C8C57.5050000@nerim.net> <4526ba440510240252m5e2a2990i@mail.gmail.com> <435CD298.9090503@nerim.net> <4526ba440510242245v1a37161fq@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <435DCFFB.8010000@nerim.net> Stefan Detrez wrote: > Another interesting point in the Andes cannibalism case is the legal > aspect of it. Did any laws apply that forbid the eating of human flesh, > were there any charges pressed to the eaters by the families of the > deceased or by a general attorney? And if not why? > When people get into survival mode, moral concerns are far away. > Brecht's 'Erst dass Fressen, dann die Moral' illustrates this very > nicely. I am a big fan of the Dreigroschen-Oper! Thanks for putting this tune in my head. > Even IF they were concerned with legal matters, they would still > take that chance to keep alive. Maybe that's a good reason why self > defence with lethal results for the assaulter are not punished according > to standards for judging 'killers'. > If you're on a life boat and it's overloaded and you push someone off, > nobody will press charges for having succesfully saved your life and > that of others. That would be quite contradictory. You might choose to > sacrifice yourself. Would that be illegal suicide? I agree with all this, but I was just wondering about the legal treament it would get from a moral point of view of those who weren't in the Andes or on the lifeboat. In both cases people are in risk of dying. One eats someone's liver and survives. Another one receives someone's transplanted liver and survives. You can be sure that in case a surgeon would use an organ of someone who recently died in a hospital to save the life of a patient without the permission of the deceased (written declaration) or of the family, that he will be prosecuted. I don't remember anything of the sort happening after the Andes disaster. Is it perhaps because the story is more dramatic, or the situation more urgent? Morally, it looks likes a very similar case to me. > The case of the Bodhisattva is a mythical story that tells me more about > non duality (exchange/equivalence of self and other) than about any > moral issue as far as I am concerned. > > > Some myths set examples. Think of what the Jains do when they offer dead > bodies to vultures. I don't know about the case of Buddhists. But it can > be understood as a form of noblesse (oblig?) to sacrifice your life to > help others (fill thier tummies). The same "funeral" ritual existed in Tibet too. One could be fed to the fish too I once read. I agree, it is very noble and at the same time an exercice or a proof of detachment from one's body. But eating the body of someone who is not ready to have their body eaten is something else. > > Yes humanism, the Human project is a project. We can't judge the whole > project on the basis of somme rotten pears (as the Curt doctrine would > require us to do). ;-) Some religions or religious currents want to go > even further than that and would like to cut off that behaviour which is > illustrative of 'man' and have even "higher" aspirations. > > > And your point being? That for some religions even the human project needs to be surpassed (cut off). In Buddhism the human rebirth is dissatisfying and not an aspiration. Similar approach in Neoplatonistic views. > >From an evolutionary point of view controlling women's sexuality in > such a violent way might serve the propagation of male genes. So in this > sense, it's basically a cultural expression of the male's biological > procreative urge. That it's done might be something cultural relativists > have understanding for (not me who tend to universalize my humanist > values), how it's done is an issue concerning ethics. I agree. > Maybe it's not necessary (yet sometimes beneficial in moderate > quantities) , but I wouldn't want to be the one to go and convert meat > eating Tibetans or blood drinking Masai to eat strictly vegetarian. Doe > jij dat maar :) And end up with my bloody cloths being exposed in a Mission Museum? (Ken jij het Missiemuseum in Tegelen, bij Venlo?). Not being a vegetarian or a much of a bodhisattva myself I think we ought to let Richard and other vegetarians on Buddha-L deal with it. We could send them over there on an expedition with pinto beans, tofu and soya sauce. From stefan.detrez at gmail.com Tue Oct 25 05:15:47 2005 From: stefan.detrez at gmail.com (Stefan Detrez) Date: Tue Oct 25 05:22:52 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: "Nature" and eating meat In-Reply-To: <435DCFFB.8010000@nerim.net> References: <5.2.1.1.0.20051024091333.0123ca00@mail.jcu.edu.au> <02fd515f489dfa12562d57f7ee62ff91@mindspring.com> <435C8C57.5050000@nerim.net> <4526ba440510240252m5e2a2990i@mail.gmail.com> <435CD298.9090503@nerim.net> <4526ba440510242245v1a37161fq@mail.gmail.com> <435DCFFB.8010000@nerim.net> Message-ID: <4526ba440510250415y669294ecr@mail.gmail.com> > > Even IF they were concerned with legal matters, they would still > > take that chance to keep alive. Maybe that's a good reason why self > > defence with lethal results for the assaulter are not punished according > > to standards for judging 'killers'. > > If you're on a life boat and it's overloaded and you push someone off, > > nobody will press charges for having succesfully saved your life and > > that of others. That would be quite contradictory. You might choose to > > sacrifice yourself. Would that be illegal suicide? > > I agree with all this, but I was just wondering about the legal treament > it would get from a moral point of view of those who weren't in the > Andes or on the lifeboat. In both cases people are in risk of dying. One > eats someone's liver and survives. Another one receives someone's > transplanted liver and survives. You can be sure that in case a surgeon > would use an organ of someone who recently died in a hospital to save > the life of a patient without the permission of the deceased (written > declaration) or of the family, that he will be prosecuted. I don't > remember anything of the sort happening after the Andes disaster. Is it > perhaps because the story is more dramatic, or the situation more > urgent? Morally, it looks likes a very similar case to me. Cases of Westerners eating human flesh are scarce as far as I know. Maybe Jeffrey Dahmer, 'the human cannibal' can serve as a bad example of someone eating humans against their will. That is morally not justifiable and neither amoral. And then there's the artist who asked permission to eat a volunteer after his death (which he did). Curiously enough, the artist was convicted of something, I don't know what. But here the issue should have been that one should have the right to be eaten, not so much that eating someone is illegal. I think for that matter legal matters and moral matters are not always that closely connected as one tends to think. Laws are for keeping social order, morals are for personal order. It would be a question of taste whether eating human flesh is moral or immoral. And, as you probably know, taste are not good moral pointers. To make the discussion peppered, I think that counts also for bestiality (provided the animal does not suffer. Whether you suffer from being penetrated by an animal more 'royally' endowed than you can take is your own business). > > Maybe it's not necessary (yet sometimes beneficial in moderate > > quantities) , but I wouldn't want to be the one to go and convert meat > > eating Tibetans or blood drinking Masai to eat strictly vegetarian. Doe > > jij dat maar :) > > And end up with my bloody cloths being exposed in a Mission Museum? (Ken > jij het Missiemuseum in Tegelen, bij Venlo?). Not being a vegetarian or > a much of a bodhisattva myself I think we ought to let Richard and other > vegetarians on Buddha-L deal with it. We could send them over there on > an expedition with pinto beans, tofu and soya sauce. I wonder what die hard vegetarians have to say about that. Now, to be fair, one can criticize the way animal suffer in presumably a majority of slaughterhouses in the West. But to universalize this critique and, especially, to try and change peoples who've been living off of meat consumption for centuries might be one bus stop too far. Unfortunately, I never saw those bloody clothes, but it's a comic to imagine what happens to such 'revolutionaries'. And that's where I, together with you, look forward to see what Richard and other veggies reply to that. :) Cheers, Stefan From jpeavler at mindspring.com Tue Oct 25 08:05:20 2005 From: jpeavler at mindspring.com (Jim Peavler) Date: Tue Oct 25 08:11:42 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: "Nature" and eating meat In-Reply-To: <4526ba440510250415y669294ecr@mail.gmail.com> References: <5.2.1.1.0.20051024091333.0123ca00@mail.jcu.edu.au> <02fd515f489dfa12562d57f7ee62ff91@mindspring.com> <435C8C57.5050000@nerim.net> <4526ba440510240252m5e2a2990i@mail.gmail.com> <435CD298.9090503@nerim.net> <4526ba440510242245v1a37161fq@mail.gmail.com> <435DCFFB.8010000@nerim.net> <4526ba440510250415y669294ecr@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <88698ef0ce99a43ceb81edea0409d2d6@mindspring.com> On Oct 25, 2005, at 5:15 AM, Stefan Detrez wrote: > > Cases of Westerners eating human flesh are scarce as far as I know. > Colorado has its cannibal. In 1873 he was with a party of prospectors who got isolated by a blizzard not to far from Lake City, Colorado in the San Juan Mountains. They never arrived at their destination, and when Alfred was finally rescued it was discovered that he had eaten some of his companions. It was later claimed that Alfred, a Democrat, had eaten the only Republicans in the county. Alfred lived to be a rather unhealthy old man. In the late 50s or early 60s sometime a group of us started a movement to rename the student cafeteria at the University of Colorado, then called the Indian Grill (this name would be outlawed by the NCAA I am sure), to the Alfred Packer Memorial Cafeteria. We were not successful, but serious-minded students within the next decade were finally succeeded in this noble cause. From curt at cola.iges.org Tue Oct 25 06:28:31 2005 From: curt at cola.iges.org (curt) Date: Tue Oct 25 08:27:31 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] "Nature" and eating meat In-Reply-To: <435DC318.2050802@nerim.net> References: <5.2.1.1.0.20051024091333.0123ca00@mail.jcu.edu.au> <02fd515f489dfa12562d57f7ee62ff91@mindspring.com> <435C8C57.5050000@nerim.net> <4526ba440510240252m5e2a2990i@mail.gmail.com> <435CD298.9090503@nerim.net> <435CEAFA.209@cola.iges.org> <435DC318.2050802@nerim.net> Message-ID: <435E24EF.2060002@cola.iges.org> Joy Vriens wrote: > curt wrote: > >>> Yes humanism, the Human project is a project. We can't judge the >>> whole project on the basis of somme rotten pears (as the Curt >>> doctrine would require us to do). ;-) >> > >> I wonder what is motivating you to say such an unpleasant thing? > > > It wasn't meant to be unpleasant, sorry for that, but it was my > understanding that you > based your assessment of a religion, not on its self proclaimed > objectives and methods, but on how (some) influencial Buddhists put > their religion into practice, and especially politically. Thank you for your very kind reply to my rather over-sensitive protestation. You are correct in that I am more insterested in "what do buddhists do?" rather than "what would buddha do?" It is not that I am some kind of rank materialist - its just that I tend to agree with Goethe who said "In the beginning was the Deed." > I already > mistrust the Buddhism of Buddhists in high power positions, especially > in the times when conquering power really meant that: conquering power. > A very naive view if this were a forum on political science, but on a > Buddhist forum I have a right to judge (predemocratic) politics > (guided, misguided or not guided by religious principles) from a > (intimate) religious point of view. Yes you certainly do have that right - and I think that your mistrust is not completely unreasonable. But I do think that Buddhism has had a positive impact on Asian society - and that this has sometimes been a top-down phenomenon from "Buddhist rulers". > > <.... snip snip snip.....> > >> But on the subject of "nature": I know it is something of a truism, >> but I also think that it may be at least in part true, that >> Buddhism's attitude toward nature changed as it moved out of India, >> and especially as it moved North and East. > > > Nature being the physical, the corporal, the "animal" in us? In Buddhist terms I would take "nature" to be everything that is subject to change - (which doesn't really leave much else, does it?). - Curt From ghoti at consultron.ca Tue Oct 25 08:24:02 2005 From: ghoti at consultron.ca (Tom Troughton) Date: Tue Oct 25 08:31:44 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: "Nature" and eating meat In-Reply-To: <88698ef0ce99a43ceb81edea0409d2d6@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <200510251424.j9PEO6rm004988@mail4.magma.ca> On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 08:05:20 -0600, Jim Peavler wrote: > >On Oct 25, 2005, at 5:15 AM, Stefan Detrez wrote: >> >> Cases of Westerners eating human flesh are scarce as far as I know. >> > >Colorado has its cannibal. In 1873 he was with a party of prospectors >who got isolated by a blizzard not to far from Lake City, Colorado in >the San Juan Mountains. They never arrived at their destination, and >when Alfred was finally rescued it was discovered that he had eaten >some of his companions. It was later claimed that Alfred, a Democrat, >had eaten the only Republicans in the county. Alfred lived to be a >rather unhealthy old man. > >In the late 50s or early 60s sometime a group of us started a movement >to rename the student cafeteria at the University of Colorado, then >called the Indian Grill (this name would be outlawed by the NCAA I am >sure), to the Alfred Packer Memorial Cafeteria. We were not successful, >but serious-minded students within the next decade were finally >succeeded in this noble cause. You know of course that in a thousand years or so, serious academics are going to see this as evidence of transgressive morality in the ruling elite. -- Best wishes Tom Troughton From horowitz at chass.utoronto.ca Tue Oct 25 12:10:14 2005 From: horowitz at chass.utoronto.ca (Gad Horowitz) Date: Tue Oct 25 09:01:46 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] 'Nature' and eating meat References: <5.2.1.1.0.20051024091333.0123ca00@mail.jcu.edu.au><02fd515f489dfa12562d57f7ee62ff91@mindspring.com><00ad01c5d8ce$70566560$7dee6480@chass><1130176012.5784.26.camel@localhost.localdomain><2417.128.100.178.185.1130182366.squirrel@128.100.178.185><1798.128.100.178.176.1130189549.squirrel@128.100.178.176> <1130197259.5476.75.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <00fe01c5d98f$5b0a9ca0$7dee6480@chass> thank you. while stewing over this, I unsubscribed. I have now resubscribed as gary harrow at boltfarb@hotmail.com. but I shall always be yours, gad ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard P. Hayes" To: "Buddhist discussion forum" Sent: Monday, October 24, 2005 4:40 PM Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] 'Nature' and eating meat > On Mon, 2005-10-24 at 17:32 -0400, horowitz@chass.utoronto.ca wrote: > > > Sorry if this response was inappropriate. I thought you might ask what > > misnagged means. > > I assumed it means nagged inappropriately or for the wrong reasons. For > example, when my wife asks me to do something that I have already done, > she is misnagging me. (That's just a hypothetical example. In fact my > wife neither nags nor misnags me.) > > > In the Jewish tradition it means, roughly, one who is > > so devoted to rational thinking that he has little patience with myth > > (like the Tree, or the Lotus Sutra)little patience with paradox > > (Nagarjuna,Zen,Derrida, Magliola). > > That would be a sad and impoverished state of affairs to be in. In fact, > it sounds dangerously close to being a Republican. > > As you probably realize, I have nothing at all against myth and paradox. > I do tend to feel that systems of mythology that have evolved over > centuries and millennia work best when they are not mixed up with one > another. For this reason, it tends to strike me as a pity when one > speaks of, say, Christ as a bodhisattva or an enlightened being. That > does violence to the tradition in which he placed himself, so I would > rather show respect for that tradition and historical context by not > importing too many alienisms into it. Having said that, I am well aware > that myth is very dynamic and is constantly being renewed through > redefinition, as when Paul redefined all manner of Jewish terms and > symbols to arrive at a new mythology, or when the Buddha deliberately > redefined a bunch of brahmanical terms to come up with a new mythology. > > Redefining a former myth to arrive at a new mythology is a way of > keeping mythology relevant. The danger, as we all know only too well, is > when acceptance of the new myth leads to a denigration of the older one, > and of the people who still abide by it. Thus we have the ugly history > of anti-Semiticism in much of Christianity, and the equally ugly > phenomenon of dismissive rhetoric in the Lotus Sutra. > > > Please accept my apology. > > I don't need it, but if you are giving them away, what the hell, eh? > Maybe I can give it to someone who needs it more than I do. Who knows, I > might someday misnag somebody and then need to apologize to them. > > > I promise no more obfuscatory ad hominems. > > A really nicely turned ad hominem is pretty hard to resist. And, as the > history of democracy show us, a good ad hominem, tu quoque, straw man or > slippery slope fallacy will almost always get more votes than a valid > argument. So never sell fallacies short. But if one is going to use a > fallacy, it is better not to mix it with obfuscation, lest the fools > whom the fallacy is intended to dupe miss the point and vote for the > wrong party. > > Be well, my friend, and give Toronto a hug for me. (But not Mississauga, > eh?) > > -- > Richard > > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From jpeavler at mindspring.com Tue Oct 25 09:05:58 2005 From: jpeavler at mindspring.com (Jim Peavler) Date: Tue Oct 25 09:11:43 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: "Nature" and eating meat In-Reply-To: <200510251424.j9PEO6rm004988@mail4.magma.ca> References: <200510251424.j9PEO6rm004988@mail4.magma.ca> Message-ID: On Oct 25, 2005, at 8:24 AM, Tom Troughton wrote: > On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 08:05:20 -0600, Jim Peavler wrote: > >> In the late 50s or early 60s sometime a group of us started a movement >> to rename the student cafeteria at the University of Colorado, then >> called the Indian Grill (this name would be outlawed by the NCAA I am >> sure), to the Alfred Packer Memorial Cafeteria. We were not >> successful, >> but serious-minded students within the next decade were finally >> succeeded in this noble cause. > > You know of course that in a thousand years or so, serious academics > are going to see this as evidence of transgressive morality in the > ruling elite. > That was probably our hope. From jpeavler at mindspring.com Tue Oct 25 09:05:16 2005 From: jpeavler at mindspring.com (Jim Peavler) Date: Tue Oct 25 09:12:53 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] "Nature" and "Natural" In-Reply-To: <435E24EF.2060002@cola.iges.org> References: <5.2.1.1.0.20051024091333.0123ca00@mail.jcu.edu.au> <02fd515f489dfa12562d57f7ee62ff91@mindspring.com> <435C8C57.5050000@nerim.net> <4526ba440510240252m5e2a2990i@mail.gmail.com> <435CD298.9090503@nerim.net> <435CEAFA.209@cola.iges.org> <435DC318.2050802@nerim.net> <435E24EF.2060002@cola.iges.org> Message-ID: <561e190e1581ae625a7fbeae84be3a9f@mindspring.com> On Oct 25, 2005, at 6:28 AM, curt wrote: > > In Buddhist terms I would take "nature" to be everything that is > subject to change - (which doesn't really leave much else, does it?). Being the one guilt of bringing "nature" and "natural" into the discussion of meat eating, I must confess that the discussion has convinced me that bringing these concepts into a discussion of buddhist thought may be similar to claiming Christ is a bodhisattva. It is a part of western mythology that doesn't mix well with eastern mythology (eastern and western and also parts of western mythology probably). Anyhow, of importance to Buddhism, I think are the noble truths and the 8-fold path and ideas derived from them. I doubt that Buddhists n the formative years (which years haven't been formative I wonder) ever had the concept "nature" or "natural" and did not prohibit meat eating because it was "unnatural" but because is was a cause of unpleasantness to a fellow sentient being. About all the discussion of "Nature" with a capital "N" that I can think of in Buddhism is that all sentient beings suffer discomfort and pain and death. That is pretty much an empirical fact. The other major principle is that all things are conditioned, which, clearly makes no distinction between humans or angels or beasts or inanimate objects, of universes. The idea of "Nature" as "all that out there in the universe that isn't a product of man" seems not to have occurred in Buddhism. If somebody knows different, then I will be proud to read about it. From eklektik at gmail.com Tue Oct 25 09:16:08 2005 From: eklektik at gmail.com (Hugo) Date: Tue Oct 25 09:21:48 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat In-Reply-To: References: <1130002461.7608.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1130020339.8104.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> <$tipqrhru4WDFwCe@clara.net> Message-ID: <7964f6db0510250816v429bff1dg31609267be73b677@mail.gmail.com> Hello Mike, On 10/23/05, Mike Austin wrote: > It is because these 'future lives' have some connect with "I" that it is > important to consider them. What is the point of being concerned with an > "I" that exists right now? What is the "I"? Does the "I" exist continuously at every single moment? Are there times where the "I" doesn't manifest? > I could be the best I can now but, should it > be unsustainable, for what purpose would I do that? The "I" that is now > is already gone. It is with an "eye" to the future that one improves the > "I" now. What is the purpose of being the best person one can be now if > there is no time over which this 'best' can manifest - or even be deemed > to be a 'best'? If you try to be something, be either the best person, or the worse person, dukkha will arise. Why does something dies? because it was born, ergo when "a good person" is born, it will get sick, old and die, which is not a path to the Deathless. > It seems to me this is the critical balance for any practitioner: how to > balance how one is at present with how one will be in the future - be it > seconds, years or lives away. It is how one behaves now and how one will > behave in the future. If one keeps looking at the future, thinking "I need to do this or that so in the future I will attain Nibbana", one will never reach Nibbana because one is conceptualizing Nibbana, thus one is seeing a concept, not reality. I think it was Luang Po Atulo who was asked "Which defilement should I get rid of first?", his reply: "the one that appears first". Greetings, -- Hugo From horowitz at chass.utoronto.ca Tue Oct 25 12:56:36 2005 From: horowitz at chass.utoronto.ca (Gad Horowitz) Date: Tue Oct 25 09:51:49 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] 'Nature' and eating meat References: <5.2.1.1.0.20051024091333.0123ca00@mail.jcu.edu.au><02fd515f489dfa12562d57f7ee62ff91@mindspring.com><00ad01c5d8ce$70566560$7dee6480@chass><1130176012.5784.26.camel@localhost.localdomain><2417.128.100.178.185.1130182366.squirrel@128.100.178.185><1798.128.100.178.176.1130189549.squirrel@128.100.178.176><1130197259.5476.75.camel@localhost.localdomain> <00fe01c5d98f$5b0a9ca0$7dee6480@chass> Message-ID: <001a01c5d995$d4ff9000$7dee6480@chass> gee. Actually I havent unsubscribed. but y'all feel free to write to gary. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gad Horowitz" To: "Buddhist discussion forum" Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 11:10 AM Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] 'Nature' and eating meat > thank you. while stewing over this, I unsubscribed. I have now > resubscribed as gary harrow at boltfarb@hotmail.com. but I shall always be > yours, gad > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Richard P. Hayes" > To: "Buddhist discussion forum" > Sent: Monday, October 24, 2005 4:40 PM > Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] 'Nature' and eating meat > > > > On Mon, 2005-10-24 at 17:32 -0400, horowitz@chass.utoronto.ca wrote: > > > > > Sorry if this response was inappropriate. I thought you might ask what > > > misnagged means. > > > > I assumed it means nagged inappropriately or for the wrong reasons. For > > example, when my wife asks me to do something that I have already done, > > she is misnagging me. (That's just a hypothetical example. In fact my > > wife neither nags nor misnags me.) > > > > > In the Jewish tradition it means, roughly, one who is > > > so devoted to rational thinking that he has little patience with myth > > > (like the Tree, or the Lotus Sutra)little patience with paradox > > > (Nagarjuna,Zen,Derrida, Magliola). > > > > That would be a sad and impoverished state of affairs to be in. In fact, > > it sounds dangerously close to being a Republican. > > > > As you probably realize, I have nothing at all against myth and paradox. > > I do tend to feel that systems of mythology that have evolved over > > centuries and millennia work best when they are not mixed up with one > > another. For this reason, it tends to strike me as a pity when one > > speaks of, say, Christ as a bodhisattva or an enlightened being. That > > does violence to the tradition in which he placed himself, so I would > > rather show respect for that tradition and historical context by not > > importing too many alienisms into it. Having said that, I am well aware > > that myth is very dynamic and is constantly being renewed through > > redefinition, as when Paul redefined all manner of Jewish terms and > > symbols to arrive at a new mythology, or when the Buddha deliberately > > redefined a bunch of brahmanical terms to come up with a new mythology. > > > > Redefining a former myth to arrive at a new mythology is a way of > > keeping mythology relevant. The danger, as we all know only too well, is > > when acceptance of the new myth leads to a denigration of the older one, > > and of the people who still abide by it. Thus we have the ugly history > > of anti-Semiticism in much of Christianity, and the equally ugly > > phenomenon of dismissive rhetoric in the Lotus Sutra. > > > > > Please accept my apology. > > > > I don't need it, but if you are giving them away, what the hell, eh? > > Maybe I can give it to someone who needs it more than I do. Who knows, I > > might someday misnag somebody and then need to apologize to them. > > > > > I promise no more obfuscatory ad hominems. > > > > A really nicely turned ad hominem is pretty hard to resist. And, as the > > history of democracy show us, a good ad hominem, tu quoque, straw man or > > slippery slope fallacy will almost always get more votes than a valid > > argument. So never sell fallacies short. But if one is going to use a > > fallacy, it is better not to mix it with obfuscation, lest the fools > > whom the fallacy is intended to dupe miss the point and vote for the > > wrong party. > > > > Be well, my friend, and give Toronto a hug for me. (But not Mississauga, > > eh?) > > > > -- > > Richard > > > > _______________________________________________ > > buddha-l mailing list > > buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com > > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l > > > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From eklektik at gmail.com Tue Oct 25 09:58:00 2005 From: eklektik at gmail.com (Hugo) Date: Tue Oct 25 10:01:45 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat and pets In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.0.20051024091333.0123ca00@mail.jcu.edu.au> References: <200510192113.j9JLDCJb032756@ns1.swcp.com> <5.2.1.1.0.20051024091333.0123ca00@mail.jcu.edu.au> Message-ID: <7964f6db0510250858w3db82d27q59245dbea85cae63@mail.gmail.com> Hello Laura, On 10/23/05, Laura Castell wrote: > The issue of pets is a very interesting one. We can't blame the animals > for their actions, they are being their true selves when they go out and > hunt. How is it different from Humans? Aren't humans being their true selves when they go out and hunt? > Even the sometimes apparent cruelty of their behaviour I believe is > natural (something about nature I struggle to understand ). Aren't the cruel acts of humans also natural? Why do you think you like certain things and not others? Why do you think you do certain things and not others? If certain conditions are present you will like this and not that, if certain conditions are present you will do this and not that. But all conditions are "natural", thus all reactions are "natural". If you have been conditioned to think that in order to be happy you have to accumulate money, you will like to save money, you will think that accumulating money is "The Right Thing" to do. Your reactions, your likes and dislikes are conditioned, they come out of supported by something, they are not self-inherent. > are you serious? (I am really not sure! so I may be silly in my reply to > this but I'll have a go anyway). If the cat was a wild animal and catching > birds to survive, then I think one can feel compassion for both, the cat > and the birds, but when we talk about cats that receive lots of love and > attention and food, I think the only recipients of our compassion should be > the poor birds! What about the case when you see somebody angry, screaming and yelling to another person. Should we feel compassion only for the one being screamed at? Why is the angry person screaming and yelling? Because he is suffering, otherwise he wouldn't do it. If he is suffering, then, shouldn't we feel compassion for him too? Greetings, -- Hugo From mike at lamrim.org.uk Tue Oct 25 09:53:26 2005 From: mike at lamrim.org.uk (Mike Austin) Date: Tue Oct 25 10:01:55 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat In-Reply-To: <7964f6db0510250816v429bff1dg31609267be73b677@mail.gmail.com> References: <1130002461.7608.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1130020339.8104.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> <$tipqrhru4WDFwCe@clara.net> <7964f6db0510250816v429bff1dg31609267be73b677@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <9u82LqB2TlXDFw6m@clara.net> In message <7964f6db0510250816v429bff1dg31609267be73b677@mail.gmail.com>, Hugo writes >Hello Mike, > >On 10/23/05, Mike Austin wrote: >> It is because these 'future lives' have some connect with "I" that it is >> important to consider them. What is the point of being concerned with an >> "I" that exists right now? > >What is the "I"? > >Does the "I" exist continuously at every single moment? > >Are there times where the "I" doesn't manifest? Hi Hugo, Of course, every Buddhist practitioner reflects on such things. And yet we live from day to day. We do our shopping for the evening meal because we expect to be around to eat. That is the way it is for us because that is the way we currently see things. We have to start from where we are, with the views and experiences we have, and gradually change it around. >If you try to be something, be either the best person, or the worse >person, dukkha will arise. If you do nothing to stop dukkha, dukkha will arise. Our habits are more often the cause of dukkha than of happiness. They need to be changed. >Why does something dies? because it was born, ergo when "a good >person" is born, it will get sick, old and die, which is not a path to >the Deathless. Birth, sickness, old age, death, can be accompanied by different levels of dukkha according to the mental state of the individual. >> It seems to me this is the critical balance for any practitioner: how to >> balance how one is at present with how one will be in the future - be it >> seconds, years or lives away. It is how one behaves now and how one will >> behave in the future. > >If one keeps looking at the future, thinking "I need to do this or >that so in the future I will attain Nibbana", one will never reach >Nibbana because one is conceptualizing Nibbana, thus one is seeing a >concept, not reality. Quite. That is why I said it is a critical balance. Sitting on one's bum 'in the moment' without purpose or effort, one would never reach Nirvana either. And one sees concepts of the present just as easily as one sees concepts of the future. >I think it was Luang Po Atulo who was asked "Which defilement should I >get rid of first?", his reply: "the one that appears first". That is because it is the strongest one - at that moment. -- Metta Mike Austin From richard.nance at gmail.com Tue Oct 25 10:25:47 2005 From: richard.nance at gmail.com (Richard Nance) Date: Tue Oct 25 10:31:43 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] "Nature" and eating meat In-Reply-To: <435E24EF.2060002@cola.iges.org> References: <5.2.1.1.0.20051024091333.0123ca00@mail.jcu.edu.au> <02fd515f489dfa12562d57f7ee62ff91@mindspring.com> <435C8C57.5050000@nerim.net> <4526ba440510240252m5e2a2990i@mail.gmail.com> <435CD298.9090503@nerim.net> <435CEAFA.209@cola.iges.org> <435DC318.2050802@nerim.net> <435E24EF.2060002@cola.iges.org> Message-ID: Curt wrote: > In Buddhist terms I would take "nature" to be everything that is subject > to change - (which doesn't really leave much else, does it?). That depends on whom you ask. In Mahaayaana texts, a number of things are presented as imperishable (ak.saya) and unchanging (avikaara) -- among them suchness (tathataa), emptiness ("suunyataa), the perfection of insight (pranj~naapaaramitaa), empty space (aakaa"sa), the dharmadhaatu, the dharmakaaya, the tathaagatagarbha, etc. Jens Braarvig has written at length on what he terms "the tradition of imperishability in Buddhist thought," evinced in Mahaayaana suutras such as the Ak.sayamatinirde"sa. If you can find a copy of his study and translation of the text, it's definitely worth reading (he's a superb philologist). Braarvig, Jens. 1993. Ak.sayamatinirde"sasuutra, Volume II: The Tradition of Imperishability in Buddhist Thought. Oslo: Solum Forlag. (Volume I provides an excellent edition of the Tibetan text, but I don't know whether you'd find that useful at all.) Best wishes, R. Nance From eklektik at gmail.com Tue Oct 25 11:31:09 2005 From: eklektik at gmail.com (Hugo) Date: Tue Oct 25 11:31:48 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat In-Reply-To: <9u82LqB2TlXDFw6m@clara.net> References: <1130020339.8104.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> <$tipqrhru4WDFwCe@clara.net> <7964f6db0510250816v429bff1dg31609267be73b677@mail.gmail.com> <9u82LqB2TlXDFw6m@clara.net> Message-ID: <7964f6db0510251031k42f7ddddped5a712a4fce0610@mail.gmail.com> Hello Mike, On 10/25/05, Mike Austin wrote: > Of course, every Buddhist practitioner reflects on such things. I wouldn't be so sure about that. > And yet > we live from day to day. We do our shopping for the evening meal because > we expect to be around to eat. That is the way it is for us because that > is the way we currently see things. We have to start from where we are, > with the views and experiences we have, and gradually change it around. I agree. > >If you try to be something, be either the best person, or the worse > >person, dukkha will arise. > > If you do nothing to stop dukkha, dukkha will arise. Our habits are more > often the cause of dukkha than of happiness. They need to be changed. You have to do something but in a skilfull way. If you see that somebody is doing harm to himself and you want to help him you need to find a skilfull way to do it otherwise it may be worse. Sometimes it is precisely the wanting to stop dukkha what makes dukkha arise. There I would say it is an unskilfull wanting. Let me give you a real-life example......I am reading a book (from Ajahn Buddhadasa), why? because I want to stop dukkha..........people are making noise........I can't concentrate.....I can't read.....I get angry....... huh? Why do I get angry? Because I can't read the book. I can't read the book, so what?, well, I believe that if I don't read the book I will not be helping in my attaining of Nibbana, but now I am angry! which is 180 degrees opposite to the reason why I am reading the book! I stopped reading and started contemplating the anger, the noise, etc.....then peace arose.....do I need to read that book now? no. > >Why does something dies? because it was born, ergo when "a good > >person" is born, it will get sick, old and die, which is not a path to > >the Deathless. > > Birth, sickness, old age, death, can be accompanied by different levels > of dukkha according to the mental state of the individual. You didn't get the point I was making. Let's try with Ajahn Chah: One person asked Ajahn Chah what was better to try to become a Bodhisatva or an Arahant. His reply "Don't become anything". > Quite. That is why I said it is a critical balance. Sitting on one's bum > 'in the moment' without purpose or effort, one would never reach Nirvana > either. With "no purpose or effort" I agree. But it has to be a skilfull purpose and effort. > >I think it was Luang Po Atulo who was asked "Which defilement should I > >get rid of first?", his reply: "the one that appears first". > > That is because it is the strongest one - at that moment. No, that is because stopping the defilement immediately will prevent other defilements to arise. -- Hugo From junger at samsara.law.cwru.edu Tue Oct 25 11:02:21 2005 From: junger at samsara.law.cwru.edu (Peter D. Junger) Date: Tue Oct 25 12:01:46 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: "Nature" and eating meat In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 25 Oct 2005 13:15:47 +0200." <4526ba440510250415y669294ecr@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200510251702.j9PH2M9D016330@samsara.law.cwru.edu> Stefan Detrez writes: : Cases of Westerners eating human flesh are scarce as far as I know. The case most often discussed in law schools in Common Law countries is the 19th Century Case of Dudley v. Stevens. There several sailors were shipwrecked, and one---a cabin boy---was killed and eaten. The survivors were rescued and then tried in an English court for murder. The defense of "necessity" was rejected; but, as I recall the defendants got a very light sentence. Note however that the offense was in the killing, not in the cannabalism. More difficult problems arise with "mercy" killings. The United States Supreme Court is shortly going to rule in a case where the Federal government seeks to treat as criminal acts that are permitted under a state's "assisted suicide" law. A case---not a law case---that is more relevant to Buddha-L is that of a Soto Zen teacher who is, I believe, the most compasionate person whom I have ever met and who works for a local humane society, where his duties include being an "euthanasia officer." He has killed many a rabid raccoon and cancerous cat and in my estimation is as close to being a true Bodhisattva as is possible in these degenerate times. (And, being allergic to all wheat products he does occasionally eat meat---even Bodhisattva's cannot live by rice crackers alone.) -- Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH EMAIL: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu URL: http://samsara.law.cwru.edu From junger at samsara.law.cwru.edu Tue Oct 25 11:34:43 2005 From: junger at samsara.law.cwru.edu (Peter D. Junger) Date: Tue Oct 25 12:31:46 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: "Nature" and eating meat In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 25 Oct 2005 08:05:20 MDT." <88698ef0ce99a43ceb81edea0409d2d6@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <200510251734.j9PHYhgi016473@samsara.law.cwru.edu> Jim Peavler writes: : : On Oct 25, 2005, at 5:15 AM, Stefan Detrez wrote: : > : > Cases of Westerners eating human flesh are scarce as far as I know. : > : : Colorado has its cannibal. In 1873 he was with a party of prospectors : who got isolated by a blizzard not to far from Lake City, Colorado in : the San Juan Mountains. They never arrived at their destination, and : when Alfred was finally rescued it was discovered that he had eaten : some of his companions. It was later claimed that Alfred, a Democrat, : had eaten the only Republicans in the county. Alfred lived to be a : rather unhealthy old man. : : In the late 50s or early 60s sometime a group of us started a movement : to rename the student cafeteria at the University of Colorado, then : called the Indian Grill (this name would be outlawed by the NCAA I am : sure), to the Alfred Packer Memorial Cafeteria. We were not successful, : but serious-minded students within the next decade were finally : succeeded in this noble cause. Legend has it that when sentencing Alfred Packer for murder the judge said: "...There was siven Dimmycrats in Hinsdale County! But you, yah voracious, main-eatin son of a bitch, yah et five of them, therefor I sentence ye T' be hanged by the neck until y're dead, dead, dead!" A musical was made about Packer, which brings to mind the fact that a musical was also made about Sweeney Todd. But note that there appears to be no case where someone was convicted of cannibalism rather than some form of homicide. But cf., _The reluctant cannibal_, by Flanders & Swann, circa 1956, , where the objection was to the eating, not the killing. CORRIGENDUM: In an earlier message I referred incorrectly to a case that I called "Dudley v. Stephens.'' The actual case name is "Regina v. Dudley and Stephens." The opinion of the court can be found at: . -- Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH EMAIL: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu URL: http://samsara.law.cwru.edu From jpeavler at mindspring.com Tue Oct 25 12:47:28 2005 From: jpeavler at mindspring.com (Jim Peavler) Date: Tue Oct 25 12:51:47 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: "Nature" and eating meat In-Reply-To: <200510251734.j9PHYhgi016473@samsara.law.cwru.edu> References: <200510251734.j9PHYhgi016473@samsara.law.cwru.edu> Message-ID: <5fd4bcba8bddda58457aa58684daa715@mindspring.com> > Jim Peavler said: > It was later claimed that Alfred, a Democrat, > : had eaten the only Republicans in the county. Alfred lived to be a > : rather unhealthy old man. > : cause. > On Oct 25, 2005, at 11:34 AM, Peter D. Junger wrote: > Legend has it that when sentencing Alfred Packer for murder the > judge said: > > "...There was siven Dimmycrats in Hinsdale County! But you, yah > voracious, main-eatin son of a bitch, yah et five of them, > therefor I sentence ye T' be hanged by the neck until y're dead, > dead, dead!" Just wishful thinking on my part to remember Alfred eating Republicans. But, now that you point it out it is much more likely that a cannibal would be a Republican and eating poor ragged Democrats. And the son of a bitch wasn't even hung, but died of more or less natural causes and is, I believe, buried up in Denver. From junger at samsara.law.cwru.edu Tue Oct 25 13:10:42 2005 From: junger at samsara.law.cwru.edu (Peter D. Junger) Date: Tue Oct 25 14:11:46 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: "Nature" and eating meat In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 25 Oct 2005 13:34:43 EDT." <200510251734.j9PHYhgi016473@samsara.law.cwru.edu> Message-ID: <200510251910.j9PJAgJE017227@samsara.law.cwru.edu> Still another case of cannibalism in the West is that of the Donner Party: . -- Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH EMAIL: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu URL: http://samsara.law.cwru.edu From vicen.bcn at gmail.com Tue Oct 25 16:02:48 2005 From: vicen.bcn at gmail.com (Vicente Gonzalez) Date: Tue Oct 25 16:11:52 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat In-Reply-To: References: <20051023171156.74643.qmail@web32611.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <594988566.20051026000248@gmail.com> Richard Nance wrote: RN> The Sanskrit noun "karman" means action, though people tend to forget RN> this. Hence, the term itself is really not any more metaphysical than RN> the English "action". well, I think it is not very right. Action here is part of a metaphysical discourse because karma is devoted to explain the relation between causes and effects. Therefore, it is part of a discourse about time, space and causality. This three things are in the same core of any metaphysics. As you well says, in Buddhism the karma notion points directly to our intentional action. The most important thing here is that this has a direct connection with the investigation of a moral basis in Buddhism. I'm reading now some recent papers in the JBE site leading with this subject but mostly without remarkable news, at least in my view. It is logical at all, because in Buddhism doesn't exist some discourse devoted to explain the metaphysical basis of his moral which, as everybody knows, it's compassion. This absence forces to some authors to a hard wandering by different western philosophical references. It's logical because in Buddhism, the final point of such investigation is practical, not intellectual. In this way, the same practice of compassion already shows the best moral that we can know, and any rational demonstration of this immediate experience supposes a road in the inverse order. It becomes a very hard task for our understanding, while developing any compassionate action is an instantaneous possibility to experience this truth for anyone. Because in Buddhism the metaphysics always is subdued to the practice, then such intellectual demonstration doesn't have many sense. However, because in the West the religion was centered in a God who was understood as the supreme good in itself and auto-explained by the faith, the philosophy and rationalism had the task to investigate the qualities of such thing. Therefore the investigation of the basis of Moral had firstly the high interest of knowing if our actions were in concordance with the God's qualities. In this way, the western philosophy starts a way in where we find developments to investigate the metaphysic of this problem. Across the history, we see that of all western philosophers, only Schopenhauer arrive to the same conclusion of Buddhism. In Schopenhauer, compassion appears in his metaphysic system as the only basis of any moral ("On the Basis of Morality", Arthur Schopenhauer, Tr. E.F.J. Payne"). Being the only philosopher in the West and East who has become fully coincident with Buddhism in a metaphysical investigation in this subject, his work would have to be a fundamental reference for any western investigation around the matter. However, it's really astonishing to see how no Buddhist scholar has take care of this. On the contrary, we only can find a pair of generalist, scarce and clumsy analyses about Schopenhauer and Buddhism, i.e. "Schopenhauer and Buddhism", Peter Abelson, Philosophy East and West,V.43, 2. Knowing the ancient prejudices in front this author in the intellectual western world, his absence today still is quite significant. However, I want to recommend the reading of this book to any searcher; I mean not mainly a communist searcher, fascist, liberal, democrat, devotes to the many promises lands, enemies or friends of various intelligent projects, etc... but to any Buddhist searcher, son of the Buddha message, and truly interested in knowing why compassion is the only basis of any moral and ethics. Surely he will find that this work can be a very good help to investigate the metaphysic fit of compassion inside the Buddhist karma and causality. Later, he can wander across books and works around this topic, and maybe he will be aware of some obvious things that probably before were invisible for him. br, "When the words lose their meaning, people lose her freedom." Confucius From chanfu at gmail.com Tue Oct 25 16:17:01 2005 From: chanfu at gmail.com (Chan Fu) Date: Tue Oct 25 16:21:55 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] 'Nature' and eating meat In-Reply-To: <001a01c5d995$d4ff9000$7dee6480@chass> References: <5.2.1.1.0.20051024091333.0123ca00@mail.jcu.edu.au> <02fd515f489dfa12562d57f7ee62ff91@mindspring.com> <00ad01c5d8ce$70566560$7dee6480@chass> <1130176012.5784.26.camel@localhost.localdomain> <2417.128.100.178.185.1130182366.squirrel@128.100.178.185> <1798.128.100.178.176.1130189549.squirrel@128.100.178.176> <1130197259.5476.75.camel@localhost.localdomain> <00fe01c5d98f$5b0a9ca0$7dee6480@chass> <001a01c5d995$d4ff9000$7dee6480@chass> Message-ID: On 10/25/05, Gad Horowitz wrote: > gee. Actually I havent unsubscribed. but y'all feel free to write to gary. Good inspiration for my next paper - "Equinamity - A Danger to Both Squirrels and Humans?" From mike at lamrim.org.uk Tue Oct 25 16:15:22 2005 From: mike at lamrim.org.uk (Mike Austin) Date: Tue Oct 25 16:22:06 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat In-Reply-To: <7964f6db0510251031k42f7ddddped5a712a4fce0610@mail.gmail.com> References: <1130020339.8104.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> <$tipqrhru4WDFwCe@clara.net> <7964f6db0510250816v429bff1dg31609267be73b677@mail.gmail.com> <9u82LqB2TlXDFw6m@clara.net> <7964f6db0510251031k42f7ddddped5a712a4fce0610@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6hPH4eD65qXDFwLA@clara.net> In message <7964f6db0510251031k42f7ddddped5a712a4fce0610@mail.gmail.com>, Hugo writes >Sometimes it is precisely the wanting to stop dukkha what makes dukkha >arise. There I would say it is an unskilfull wanting. Hi Hugo, If we get it right, there is a bit of Dukkha now and less Dukkha later. >I stopped reading and started contemplating the anger, the noise, >etc.....then peace arose.....do I need to read that book now? no. Er - yes. Have you severed the roots of the anger? External conditions may have subsided, but the root is still there. Reading texts can be a good preparation for contemplation. Samsara starts easy and becomes difficult. Dharma starts difficult and becomes easy. The problem is that difficulties are too often attributed to Dharma, when it is really samsara to blame. >One person asked Ajahn Chah what was better to try to become a >Bodhisatva or an Arahant. His reply "Don't become anything". OK, one should avoid existence conditioned by delusion and karma etc. In that way, one should not 'become'. And the epithet for the Buddha - the Tathagata means thus come (or thus gone, depending on how it is parsed). So I guess it is OK to 'thus come' (or perhaps 'to boldly go' as in Star Trek). >> >I think it was Luang Po Atulo who was asked "Which defilement should I >> >get rid of first?", his reply: "the one that appears first". >> >> That is because it is the strongest one - at that moment. > >No, that is because stopping the defilement immediately will prevent >other defilements to arise. It appears immediately because, at that moment, it is the strongest - or at least, the one in the way. -- Metta Mike Austin From zelders.yh at wxs.nl Tue Oct 25 17:15:19 2005 From: zelders.yh at wxs.nl (Zelders.YH) Date: Tue Oct 25 17:21:51 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: "Nature" and eating meat In-Reply-To: <200510251127.j9PBRW10031134@ns1.swcp.com> References: <200510251127.j9PBRW10031134@ns1.swcp.com> Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.2.20051026004701.02833db8@pop.wxs.nl> >Stefan : > . . . I wouldn't want to be the one to go and convert meat > > eating Tibetans or blood drinking Masai to eat strictly vegetarian. Doe > > jij dat maar :) > >Joy : And end up with my bloody cloths being exposed in a Mission Museum? >(Ken >jij het Missiemuseum in Tegelen, bij Venlo?) . . . Next to those bloody clothes in the old exposition - (clothes from missionaries killed in China during the Boxer Uprising) - there was a small bronze Omito Fo-statue with a yellowed card that read "Pagan Idol from Heathen Temple" ("Afgodsbeeld uit heidensche tempel"). That was only twenty years ago. Nice to be so unexpectedly reminded of it on Buddha-l. Herman Zelders . From alex at chagchen.org Tue Oct 25 17:11:34 2005 From: alex at chagchen.org (Alex Wilding) Date: Tue Oct 25 17:22:00 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat and pets References: <200510192113.j9JLDCJb032756@ns1.swcp.com><5.2.1.1.0.20051024091333.0123ca00@mail.jcu.edu.au> <7964f6db0510250858w3db82d27q59245dbea85cae63@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <007401c5d9b9$838a8e40$a4d4869f@f6p6e4> I'm disconcertingly busy at the moment, but picking up a thought (there are messages from a number of posters I could have started from, but this one is a good enough example): ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hugo" > On 10/23/05, Laura Castell wrote: > > The issue of pets is a very interesting one. We can't blame the animals > > for their actions, they are being their true selves when they go out and > > hunt. > > How is it different from Humans? > Aren't humans being their true selves when they go out and hunt? > > > Even the sometimes apparent cruelty of their behaviour I believe is > > natural (something about nature I struggle to understand ). > > Aren't the cruel acts of humans also natural? > I suspect that, looking at history, it is just as "natural" (scare quotes because I don't want to get bogged down in the admittedly thorny question of what "natural" means anyway) for humans to be cruel as any other hunting creature (due to our ingenuety, perhaps distressingly more so). What is different about humans ("precious human birth" and all that, and I think the Christians have some similar thinking here) is that it is much easier for humans to reflect on our natural urges and to *choose* to either obey or reject them. We are, it seems to me (as what I believe to be a human), in position where it can be natural for us to choose to ignore our first urges for the sake of someone else, where the reflectivity of even someone as intelligent and as intensely empathic as a collie dog seems to be, if not absent, at least very weak compared to the scope of human choice. AW From laura.castell at jcu.edu.au Tue Oct 25 17:53:06 2005 From: laura.castell at jcu.edu.au (Laura Castell) Date: Tue Oct 25 17:54:10 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat and pets In-Reply-To: <200510251800.j9PI0PHV008485@ns1.swcp.com> Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.0.20051026085724.010fa338@mail.jcu.edu.au> >Hola Hugo > >On 10/23/05, Laura Castell wrote: > > The issue of pets is a very interesting one. We can't blame the animals > > for their actions, they are being their true selves when they go out and > > hunt. > >How is it different from Humans? Aren't humans being their true selves >when they go out and hunt? >I see it as a difference between the actions of non-human animals and >humans that we can think and control our insticts a bit more, ideally for >the good. Can a killer whale feel sad after having enjoyed a cruel play >with a prey? we are not sure but most likely not. Do we feel good after >being cruel? I would dare say that most of us don't. When we go out >hunting because we are catching our food, it is ok, but I don't agree with >hunting for the pleasure of it. Are we being our true selves in the second >case? may be yes but is that a good thing? I guess my attitude is that we >can excuse 'animals' in their behaviour more easily than we can excuse >ourselves. It is possible that at the end all behaviours could be >considered ''true' behaviours, so I can see why saying 'we can't blame >them because they are being themselves' is not correct. > > > Even the sometimes apparent cruelty of their behaviour I believe is > > natural (something about nature I struggle to understand ). > >Aren't the cruel acts of humans also natural? >Yes, most of them are, we want to survive and leave our genes behind so >basically on that basis we humans are inherently selfish. I don't judge >that, in fact I don't mean to judge anything as being good or bad, I am >just trying to understand. When I was a teenager I went on a trip to a >very isolated place and met indians that were not often in contact with >'white fellows from the city'. I found greed and selfishness and at that >time it made me very sad because I had naively thought it was the >opposite, we are basically good and turn ugly as we grow. I see it >differently now, we have the basic instincts to be the ones who win the >best piece of food and provide the best for our family, etc etc. This is >making me think that what I think of the 'Buddha Nature' is completely the >opposite of our 'true self' as 'animals' . So is that the quest, to >develop our Buddha nature and consequently 'extinguish' the other? I know >this is an extremely simplified view, but it is complex enough for me! > > > > are you serious? (I am really not sure! so I may be silly in my reply to > > this but I'll have a go anyway). If the cat was a wild animal and catching > > birds to survive, then I think one can feel compassion for both, the cat > > and the birds, but when we talk about cats that receive lots of love and > > attention and food, I think the only recipients of our compassion should be > > the poor birds! > >What about the case when you see somebody angry, screaming and yelling >to another person. Should we feel compassion only for the one being >screamed at? > >Why is the angry person screaming and yelling? Because he is >suffering, otherwise he wouldn't do it. > >If he is suffering, then, shouldn't we feel compassion for him too? Yes, of course I think the unhappy, angry person deserves compassion. What I am trying to understand is why a happy cat that just had a nice meal needs compassion. I don't see the cat as a nasty creature, I see the cat as an animal that is being an animal (please don't think I am using 'animal' as derogative...), and in this moment the cat is having a good experience, and that's ok. I would feel compassion for the cat if it goes hungry or if the owners don't treat him well or if it has a fight. Otherwise we would need to learn to feel compassion for everything good as well as for everything bad. Is that the aim? Best, Laura From bsimon at toad.net Tue Oct 25 17:55:44 2005 From: bsimon at toad.net (Bernie Simon) Date: Tue Oct 25 18:01:51 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Microsoft's curious aversion Message-ID: <73ded27716300a44da5c732a40fb048b@toad.net> I thought the list might be interested in this curious case of political correctness. > Microsoft has barred the use of the Bhutanese government?s official > term for the Bhutanese language, Dzongkha, in any of its products, > citing that the term had affiliations with the Dalai Lama. In an > internal memorandum, Microsoft employees were told not to use the term > Dzongkha in any Microsoft software, language lists or promotional > materials since ?Doing so implies affiliation with the Dalai Lama, > which is not acceptable to the government of China. In this instance, > replace ?Dzongkha? with ?Tibetan - Bhutan?.? > The use of the word Dzongkha was graded by Microsoft as a > ?ship-stopper?, which means that a product may not be produced in any > form until the problem is resolved. Microsoft has four levels of error > severity, ship-stopper being the most severe. http://pinyin.info/news/?p=181 ---- I didn't know this game we're playing even had a set of rules From smith at wheelwrightassoc.com Tue Oct 25 13:28:21 2005 From: smith at wheelwrightassoc.com (Timothy Smith) Date: Tue Oct 25 18:05:16 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: "Nature" and eating meat In-Reply-To: <5fd4bcba8bddda58457aa58684daa715@mindspring.com> References: <200510251734.j9PHYhgi016473@samsara.law.cwru.edu> <5fd4bcba8bddda58457aa58684daa715@mindspring.com> Message-ID: Damn Jim, no need to get personal, even if he was Republican. Timothy Smith Wheelwright Associates www.wheelwrightassoc.com > > > And the son of a bitch wasn't even hung, but died of more or less > natural causes and is, I believe, buried up in Denver. > > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 444 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20051025/c40015ba/attachment.bin From horowitz at chass.utoronto.ca Tue Oct 25 22:09:12 2005 From: horowitz at chass.utoronto.ca (Gad Horowitz) Date: Tue Oct 25 19:01:53 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] 'Nature' and eating meat References: <5.2.1.1.0.20051024091333.0123ca00@mail.jcu.edu.au><02fd515f489dfa12562d57f7ee62ff91@mindspring.com><00ad01c5d8ce$70566560$7dee6480@chass><1130176012.5784.26.camel@localhost.localdomain><2417.128.100.178.185.1130182366.squirrel@128.100.178.185><1798.128.100.178.176.1130189549.squirrel@128.100.178.176><1130197259.5476.75.camel@localhost.localdomain><00fe01c5d98f$5b0a9ca0$7dee6480@chass><001a01c5d995$d4ff9000$7dee6480@chass> Message-ID: <004101c5d9e3$073effe0$7dee6480@chass> touche' ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chan Fu" To: "Buddhist discussion forum" Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 3:17 PM Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] 'Nature' and eating meat > On 10/25/05, Gad Horowitz wrote: > > gee. Actually I havent unsubscribed. but y'all feel free to write to gary. > > > Good inspiration for my next paper - > > "Equinamity - A Danger to Both Squirrels and Humans?" > > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From s.hodge at padmacholing.freeserve.co.uk Tue Oct 25 19:26:52 2005 From: s.hodge at padmacholing.freeserve.co.uk (Stephen Hodge) Date: Tue Oct 25 19:31:50 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Microsoft's curious aversion References: <73ded27716300a44da5c732a40fb048b@toad.net> Message-ID: <001801c5d9cc$73d06480$69644e51@zen> Bernie Simon wrote: >> Microsoft has barred the use of the Bhutanese government?s official term >> for the Bhutanese language, Dzongkha, in any of its products, citing that >> the term had affiliations with the Dalai Lama. Sounds as though some idiot has confused Dzongkha with Tsongkha-[pa] ! Stephen Hodge From eklektik at gmail.com Tue Oct 25 19:33:12 2005 From: eklektik at gmail.com (Hugo) Date: Tue Oct 25 19:41:54 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat In-Reply-To: <6hPH4eD65qXDFwLA@clara.net> References: <$tipqrhru4WDFwCe@clara.net> <7964f6db0510250816v429bff1dg31609267be73b677@mail.gmail.com> <9u82LqB2TlXDFw6m@clara.net> <7964f6db0510251031k42f7ddddped5a712a4fce0610@mail.gmail.com> <6hPH4eD65qXDFwLA@clara.net> Message-ID: <7964f6db0510251833w17715e2cl5132c5c3507af707@mail.gmail.com> Hello Mike, On 10/25/05, Mike Austin wrote: > If we get it right, there is a bit of Dukkha now and less Dukkha later. I agree. Or sometimes there is like a "peak" of Dukkha now but from there on it will be stepping down. > >I stopped reading and started contemplating the anger, the noise, > >etc.....then peace arose.....do I need to read that book now? no. > > Er - yes. Have you severed the roots of the anger? External conditions > may have subsided, but the root is still there. Reading texts can be a > good preparation for contemplation. I meant to say to read the book NOW as in at that particular moment. I agree, reading is important, but its place of importance tends to diminish once one is more into actually "putting it to practice". > >One person asked Ajahn Chah what was better to try to become a > >Bodhisatva or an Arahant. His reply "Don't become anything". > > OK, one should avoid existence conditioned by delusion and karma etc. In > that way, one should not 'become'. That was the point, thanks. Greetings, -- Hugo From eklektik at gmail.com Tue Oct 25 19:37:56 2005 From: eklektik at gmail.com (Hugo) Date: Tue Oct 25 19:42:05 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat and pets In-Reply-To: <007401c5d9b9$838a8e40$a4d4869f@f6p6e4> References: <200510192113.j9JLDCJb032756@ns1.swcp.com> <5.2.1.1.0.20051024091333.0123ca00@mail.jcu.edu.au> <7964f6db0510250858w3db82d27q59245dbea85cae63@mail.gmail.com> <007401c5d9b9$838a8e40$a4d4869f@f6p6e4> Message-ID: <7964f6db0510251837s4297547cg5d68a5432e9c897e@mail.gmail.com> Hello Alex, On 10/25/05, Alex Wilding wrote: > I suspect that, looking at history, it is just as "natural" (scare quotes > because I don't want to get bogged down in the admittedly thorny question of > what "natural" means anyway) for humans to be cruel as any other hunting > creature (due to our ingenuety, perhaps distressingly more so). What is > different about humans ("precious human birth" and all that, and I think the > Christians have some similar thinking here) is that it is much easier for > humans to reflect on our natural urges and to *choose* to either obey or > reject them. We are, it seems to me (as what I believe to be a human), in > position where it can be natural for us to choose to ignore our first urges > for the sake of someone else, where the reflectivity of even someone as > intelligent and as intensely empathic as a collie dog seems to be, if not > absent, at least very weak compared to the scope of human choice. I agree as long as we qualify that it is much easier for "most" humans, but maybe not for all. What about those with brain problems that doesn't let them have empathy or some other disorder directly related to their physical condition? Even those who are physically fit but are heavely conditioned by their environment to be agressive or defensive? -- Hugo From chanfu at gmail.com Tue Oct 25 19:53:17 2005 From: chanfu at gmail.com (Chan Fu) Date: Tue Oct 25 20:01:52 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] 'Nature' and eating meat In-Reply-To: <004101c5d9e3$073effe0$7dee6480@chass> References: <5.2.1.1.0.20051024091333.0123ca00@mail.jcu.edu.au> <00ad01c5d8ce$70566560$7dee6480@chass> <1130176012.5784.26.camel@localhost.localdomain> <2417.128.100.178.185.1130182366.squirrel@128.100.178.185> <1798.128.100.178.176.1130189549.squirrel@128.100.178.176> <1130197259.5476.75.camel@localhost.localdomain> <00fe01c5d98f$5b0a9ca0$7dee6480@chass> <001a01c5d995$d4ff9000$7dee6480@chass> <004101c5d9e3$073effe0$7dee6480@chass> Message-ID: On 10/26/05, Gad Horowitz wrote: > touche' ghesundheit From eklektik at gmail.com Tue Oct 25 19:53:01 2005 From: eklektik at gmail.com (Hugo) Date: Tue Oct 25 20:02:05 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat and pets In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.0.20051026085724.010fa338@mail.jcu.edu.au> References: <200510251800.j9PI0PHV008485@ns1.swcp.com> <5.2.1.1.0.20051026085724.010fa338@mail.jcu.edu.au> Message-ID: <7964f6db0510251853q7d201ce2jb926544970000c09@mail.gmail.com> Hola Laura, On 10/25/05, Laura Castell wrote: > >I see it as a difference between the actions of non-human animals and > >humans that we can think and control our insticts a bit more, ideally for > >the good. Some humans...........just think of some drug addicts that kill for money because they feel the need to consume more drugs...........or rapists. > >When I was a teenager I went on a trip to a > >very isolated place and met indians that were not often in contact with > >'white fellows from the city'. I found greed and selfishness and at that > >time it made me very sad because I had naively thought it was the > >opposite, we are basically good and turn ugly as we grow. I see it > >differently now, we have the basic instincts to be the ones who win the > >best piece of food and provide the best for our family, etc etc. The root of all that is the sense of "I" and "mine". For most people if they see two men fighting on the street they won't stop to do something, but if one of the men is their father, their son, their brother, etc. they will stop. > Yes, of course I think the unhappy, angry person deserves compassion. What > I am trying to understand is why a happy cat that just had a nice meal > needs compassion. Compassion is something that "comes from within", thus if the conditions are proper compassion will arise, it doesn't matter if the "target" "deserves" it or not. If you "evaluate" and determine that the "target" does need "compassion" then I think that whatever you are feeling is not true compassion but something else. > Otherwise we would > need to learn to feel compassion for everything good as well as for > everything bad. Is that the aim? Compassion (Pali: Karuna) is related to when suffering arises, sympathetic joy (Pali: Mudita) is related to when something good happens. (search for 4 Brahmaviharas for more details) Greetings, -- Hugo From ellwbj at nus.edu.sg Tue Oct 25 20:04:00 2005 From: ellwbj at nus.edu.sg (John Whalen-Bridge) Date: Tue Oct 25 20:11:52 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: "Nature" and eating meat Message-ID: "A case---not a law case---that is more relevant to Buddha-L is that of a Soto Zen teacher who is, I believe, the most compasionate person whom I have ever met and who works for a local humane society, where his duties include being an "euthanasia officer." He has killed many a rabid raccoon and cancerous cat and in my estimation is as close to being a true Bodhisattva as is possible in these degenerate times. (And, being allergic to all wheat products he does occasionally eat meat---even Bodhisattva's cannot live by rice crackers alone.)" The situation Peter Junger describes parallels the ending of Coetzee's DISGRACE very closely. Could I know, on-list or off, the name of the Soto Zen teacher, and how widely known is his/her activity? Am wondering if it is coincindence or influence/analogue. Thanks--John Whalen-Bridge From joy.vriens at nerim.net Wed Oct 26 00:15:50 2005 From: joy.vriens at nerim.net (Joy Vriens) Date: Wed Oct 26 00:21:56 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: "Nature" and eating meat In-Reply-To: <4526ba440510250415y669294ecr@mail.gmail.com> References: <5.2.1.1.0.20051024091333.0123ca00@mail.jcu.edu.au> <02fd515f489dfa12562d57f7ee62ff91@mindspring.com> <435C8C57.5050000@nerim.net> <4526ba440510240252m5e2a2990i@mail.gmail.com> <435CD298.9090503@nerim.net> <4526ba440510242245v1a37161fq@mail.gmail.com> <435DCFFB.8010000@nerim.net> <4526ba440510250415y669294ecr@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <435F1F16.9080807@nerim.net> Stefan Detrez wrote: > And then there's the artist who asked permission to eat a volunteer > after his death (which he did). > Curiously enough, the artist was convicted of something, I don't know > what. Procedures of dealing with corpses are pretty strict and complex. The person would need to be declared deceased by a doctor etc. If the cannibal ate him before the doctor's visit, the cause of death would be more difficult to establish and it could be deduced also that he may have been in it for something himself etc. Plenty of possibilities for prosecuting him. > But here the issue should have been that one should have the > right to be eaten, not so much that eating someone is illegal. I think > for that matter legal matters and moral matters are not always that > closely connected as one tends to think. Laws are for keeping social > order, morals are for personal order. Eating others is a good way to perturb the public order it would seem to me. And it seems a good indication to me that apart from a legal matter and a moral matter, it may also be a matter of mental sanity and the lack thereof. > It would be a question of taste whether eating human flesh is moral or > immoral. And, as you probably know, taste are not good moral pointers. > To make the discussion peppered, I think that counts also for > bestiality (provided the animal does not suffer. Whether you suffer > from being penetrated by an animal more 'royally' endowed than you can > take is your own business). Tastes are not good moral pointers? And you use these exemples to make your point? Why not add necrophilia to your exemples? All these things will get your morally free man arrested by the vice squad. Try it. ;-) Joy From joy.vriens at nerim.net Wed Oct 26 00:31:36 2005 From: joy.vriens at nerim.net (Joy Vriens) Date: Wed Oct 26 00:31:55 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] "Nature" and "Natural" In-Reply-To: <561e190e1581ae625a7fbeae84be3a9f@mindspring.com> References: <5.2.1.1.0.20051024091333.0123ca00@mail.jcu.edu.au> <02fd515f489dfa12562d57f7ee62ff91@mindspring.com> <435C8C57.5050000@nerim.net> <4526ba440510240252m5e2a2990i@mail.gmail.com> <435CD298.9090503@nerim.net> <435CEAFA.209@cola.iges.org> <435DC318.2050802@nerim.net> <435E24EF.2060002@cola.iges.org> <561e190e1581ae625a7fbeae84be3a9f@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <435F22C8.5030601@nerim.net> Jim Peavler wrote: > The idea of "Nature" as "all that out there in the universe that isn't a > product of man" seems not to have occurred in Buddhism. That is only one idea about nature/Nature. There have been many others, some of which more inclusive, not unlike the All. Joy From joy.vriens at nerim.net Wed Oct 26 00:24:29 2005 From: joy.vriens at nerim.net (Joy Vriens) Date: Wed Oct 26 00:32:07 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] "Nature" and eating meat In-Reply-To: <435E24EF.2060002@cola.iges.org> References: <5.2.1.1.0.20051024091333.0123ca00@mail.jcu.edu.au> <02fd515f489dfa12562d57f7ee62ff91@mindspring.com> <435C8C57.5050000@nerim.net> <4526ba440510240252m5e2a2990i@mail.gmail.com> <435CD298.9090503@nerim.net> <435CEAFA.209@cola.iges.org> <435DC318.2050802@nerim.net> <435E24EF.2060002@cola.iges.org> Message-ID: <435F211D.3080006@nerim.net> curt wrote: > Thank you for your very kind reply to my rather over-sensitive > protestation. You are correct in that I am more insterested in "what do > buddhists do?" rather than "what would buddha do?" It is not that I am > some kind of rank materialist - its just that I tend to agree with > Goethe who said "In the beginning was the Deed." I used to think like that too (I say this so you can skip a whole lot of thinking and simply hop aboard my latest thought to win time). Now, I am more thinking along the lines of Dostoiewski (sp?) who said that man isn't the sum of his deeds. And even if it weren't true, I like that thought a lot more. Not only because it is true, but it also comes with a nicer approach to life, others and oneself. Although it's probably not as hard on crime as the first one, which is a huge inconvenient for many these days. > Yes you certainly do have that right - and I think that your mistrust is > not completely unreasonable. But I do think that Buddhism has had a > positive impact on Asian society - and that this has sometimes been a > top-down phenomenon from "Buddhist rulers". I never know which comes first, perhaps Asian society was such that Buddhism could and had to develop the way it did. I tend to avoid the trap of thinking of -isms as independent living things. Buddhism is hard to define between primitive Buddhism (my Chaos Buddhism, not Theravada Sarvastivada), "main Buddhism" etc etc. What would be the core of those Buddhisms that had a positive impact? >> Nature being the physical, the corporal, the "animal" in us? > In Buddhist terms I would take "nature" to be everything that is subject > to change - (which doesn't really leave much else, does it?). The All, as opposed to Nirvana? Joy From joy.vriens at nerim.net Wed Oct 26 00:42:01 2005 From: joy.vriens at nerim.net (Joy Vriens) Date: Wed Oct 26 00:51:56 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: "Nature" and eating meat In-Reply-To: <200510251734.j9PHYhgi016473@samsara.law.cwru.edu> References: <200510251734.j9PHYhgi016473@samsara.law.cwru.edu> Message-ID: <435F2539.6070703@nerim.net> Peter D. Junger wrote: > But note that there appears to be no case where someone was convicted > of cannibalism rather than some form of homicide. I tried to find some facts about the recent German cannibal case and found the same: "Cannibalism is not a recognised offence under German law and the defence will argue that, since the victim volunteered, this was no murder." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3286721.stm Kind of strange since necrophilia is an offence, isn't it? From joy.vriens at nerim.net Wed Oct 26 00:48:22 2005 From: joy.vriens at nerim.net (Joy Vriens) Date: Wed Oct 26 00:52:03 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat In-Reply-To: <594988566.20051026000248@gmail.com> References: <20051023171156.74643.qmail@web32611.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <594988566.20051026000248@gmail.com> Message-ID: <435F26B6.6070509@nerim.net> Vicente Gonzalez wrote: > Across the history, we see that of all > western philosophers, only Schopenhauer arrive to the same conclusion > of Buddhism. In Schopenhauer, compassion appears in his metaphysic > system as the only basis of any moral ("On the Basis of Morality", > Arthur Schopenhauer, Tr. E.F.J. Payne"). > However, I want to recommend the reading of this book to any searcher; > I mean not mainly a communist searcher, fascist, liberal, democrat, > devotes to the many promises lands, enemies or friends of various > intelligent projects, etc... but to any Buddhist searcher, son of the > Buddha message, and truly interested in knowing why compassion is the > only basis of any moral and ethics. Thanks for the book tip. From joy.vriens at nerim.net Wed Oct 26 01:09:15 2005 From: joy.vriens at nerim.net (Joy Vriens) Date: Wed Oct 26 01:12:08 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: "Nature" and eating meat In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.2.20051026004701.02833db8@pop.wxs.nl> References: <200510251127.j9PBRW10031134@ns1.swcp.com> <6.2.0.14.2.20051026004701.02833db8@pop.wxs.nl> Message-ID: <435F2B9B.30501@nerim.net> Zelders.YH wrote: > Next to those bloody clothes in the old exposition - (clothes from > missionaries killed in China during the Boxer Uprising) - there was a > small bronze Omito Fo-statue with a yellowed card that read "Pagan Idol > from Heathen Temple" ("Afgodsbeeld uit heidensche tempel"). That was > only twenty years ago. Nice to be so unexpectedly reminded of it on > Buddha-l. It was probably my first visit of a museum (40 years ago) and a case of love at first sight. So wonderfully heteroclite and politically incorrect (the museum guide's website describes it as "a sort of museum"). http://www.steyler.nl/html_nl/08_2_voelkerkunde.htm http://195.202.176.112/freinademetz/Ausstellung/tafel11.htm The Austrian missionary Freinademetz, who adored China and the Chinese, said he was ready to die a thousands deaths for this country and that even after his death he wanted to stay in the Chinese quarter in Heaven. And linking this to a recent discussion on Buddha-L, he also was of the opinion that a religion can not be reduced to the practice of it ?Dass doch die Europ?er durch ihr schlechtes Beispiel immer die Feinde des Christentums sein m?ssen !" From junger at samsara.law.cwru.edu Wed Oct 26 09:05:03 2005 From: junger at samsara.law.cwru.edu (Peter D. Junger) Date: Wed Oct 26 10:02:05 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: "Nature" and eating meat In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 26 Oct 2005 10:04:00 +0800." Message-ID: <200510261505.j9QF540b020179@samsara.law.cwru.edu> "John Whalen-Bridge" writes: : The situation Peter Junger describes parallels the ending of Coetzee's DISGRA : CE very closely. Could I know, on-list or off, the name of the Soto Zen teac : her, and how widely known is his/her activity? Am wondering if it is coincind : ence or influence/analogue. Thanks--John Whalen-Bridge His name is Tim McCarthy and his transmission is from Kobun Chino Roshi. He is the founder and head of the Kent Zendo in Kent, Ohio, and keeps a very low profile. (He won't even let me call his "Sensei.") He is also a collector of master degrees and teaches or has taught at many universities and colleges in the Northeast Ohio region---and he regularly conducts introduction to Buddhism classes at the Cleveland Buddhist Temple (which is a Shin Temple) and also conducts biannual memorial services for animals there. I gather that far more cats than people are resident at the Kent Zendo and that most of the people who are resident there are in especial need of loving kindness. I am not familiar with Coetzee's DISGRACE, but after a quick check of reviews on Amazon, I can assure you that Tim in no way resembles the protagonist of that work. Tim's compassion and loving kindness for animals is something that, from what he has told me, he has always had. -- Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH EMAIL: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu URL: http://samsara.law.cwru.edu From dmahinda at yahoo.com Wed Oct 26 09:45:10 2005 From: dmahinda at yahoo.com (Mahinda Deegalle) Date: Wed Oct 26 10:11:46 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Census of Buddhists in the Western Hemisphere In-Reply-To: <435F2539.6070703@nerim.net> Message-ID: <20051026154510.61453.qmail@web52508.mail.yahoo.com> Dear Buddha-Ls: I am just wondering how many Buddhists are in Europe and North America. Are there any census reports available to account for the gradual growth of Buddhist communities in the Western world from 1970s onwards? Any help on this greatly appreciated. Thanks Sincerely Mahinda Deegalle Dr. Mahinda Deegalle Senior Lecturer in the Study of Religions School of Historical and Cultural Studies Bath Spa University Newton Park Bath BA2 9BN, United Kingdom Phone: 44+(0)1225-875429(W); Fax: 44+(0)1225-875605(W) --------------------------------- Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20051026/6d6f7926/attachment.html From junger at samsara.law.cwru.edu Wed Oct 26 09:12:54 2005 From: junger at samsara.law.cwru.edu (Peter D. Junger) Date: Wed Oct 26 10:12:03 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: "Nature" and eating meat In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 26 Oct 2005 08:42:01 +0200." <435F2539.6070703@nerim.net> Message-ID: <200510261512.j9QFCsnf020305@samsara.law.cwru.edu> Joy Vriens writes: : Peter D. Junger wrote: : : > But note that there appears to be no case where someone was convicted : > of cannibalism rather than some form of homicide. : : I tried to find some facts about the recent German cannibal case and : found the same: : : "Cannibalism is not a recognised offence under German law and the : defence will argue that, since the victim volunteered, this was no murder." : http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3286721.stm : : Kind of strange since necrophilia is an offence, isn't it? Not really. The cases where there was cannibalism but no homicide seem all to involve people who were starving and whose bad taste was therefor forgivable. There are few laws against actions (karma (?)) that either don't happen or, if they do, don't offend anyone. -- Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH EMAIL: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu URL: http://samsara.law.cwru.edu From csp1 at psu.edu Thu Oct 27 13:14:52 2005 From: csp1 at psu.edu (Charles Prebish) Date: Thu Oct 27 13:22:24 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Call for Assistant JBE Technical Editors Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20051027151315.02970ac8@email.psu.edu> The Journal of Buddhist Ethics seeks two additional individuals to help with technical editing. Interested individuals should have experience in web publishing, or other relevant experience and willingness to learn about web publishing. Helpful skills include familiarity with HTML and Unix/Linux, including command-line file manipulation and transfer using SSH. Experience working with regular expressions, LaTeX and InDesign a plus. As with all positions at the Journal of Buddhist Ethics, these are volunteer positions. Interested individuals should contact Christian Coseru at coseruc@cofc.edu. Charles S. Prebish Professor of Religious Studies Pennsylvania State University Religious Studies Program 108 Weaver Building University Park, Pa. 16802 USA Voice Mail: 814-865-1121 Fax: 814-863-7840 http://jbe.gold.ac.uk From junger at samsara.law.cwru.edu Thu Oct 27 16:16:04 2005 From: junger at samsara.law.cwru.edu (Peter D. Junger) Date: Thu Oct 27 17:22:26 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Have all blind passions been extinguished? Message-ID: <200510272216.j9RMG5J2025328@samsara.law.cwru.edu> The Buddha-Hell list has been remarkably quiet. Is everyone but me enlightened now? -- Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH EMAIL: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu URL: http://samsara.law.cwru.edu From franzmetcalf at earthlink.net Thu Oct 27 18:28:32 2005 From: franzmetcalf at earthlink.net (Franz Metcalf) Date: Thu Oct 27 18:32:29 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Have all blind passions been extinguished? In-Reply-To: <200510272216.j9RMG5J2025328@samsara.law.cwru.edu> References: <200510272216.j9RMG5J2025328@samsara.law.cwru.edu> Message-ID: Peter, You asked, > The Buddha-Hell list has been remarkably quiet. Is everyone but me > enlightened now? Ah, you see, that's what you get for following Shinran: hell is the only place for you. But it seems this eclectic icchantika is still here with you, and if Shinran is with us we're in some pretty good company. Cheers, Franz From brburl at mailbag.com Thu Oct 27 19:44:55 2005 From: brburl at mailbag.com (Bruce Burrill) Date: Thu Oct 27 19:52:28 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Have all blind passions been extinguished? In-Reply-To: <200510272216.j9RMG5J2025328@samsara.law.cwru.edu> References: <200510272216.j9RMG5J2025328@samsara.law.cwru.edu> Message-ID: <7.0.0.10.2.20051027204437.05482e18@mailbag.com> At 05:16 PM 10/27/2005, you wrote: >The Buddha-Hell list has been remarkably quiet. Is everyone >but me enlightened now? I am, but I have to attain awakening. From parisjm2004 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 27 22:11:35 2005 From: parisjm2004 at yahoo.com (Michael Paris) Date: Thu Oct 27 22:12:33 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Have all blind passions been extinguished? In-Reply-To: <7.0.0.10.2.20051027204437.05482e18@mailbag.com> Message-ID: <20051028041136.91520.qmail@web32612.mail.mud.yahoo.com> For awakening I find hot tea indispensable. Seems to work like like an oil heater for cold auto engines in Alaska. But a large cup of orange juice on ice sometimes is sufficient. The chaser is, of course, the local classical music station along with the English language newscast on TV Japan. Nothing like starting the day seeing Koizumi visit Yasukini Shrine again. Michael --- Bruce Burrill wrote: > At 05:16 PM 10/27/2005, you wrote: > > >The Buddha-Hell list has been remarkably quiet. Is everyone > >but me enlightened now? > > I am, but I have to attain awakening. __________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page! http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From parisjm2004 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 27 22:04:31 2005 From: parisjm2004 at yahoo.com (Michael Paris) Date: Thu Oct 27 22:12:44 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Have all blind passions been extinguished? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051028040431.72506.qmail@web32611.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Everyone I know and like - and that likes me - is probably bound for Hell. At least I'll not lack for company. And the weather couldn't be worse than Texas. I rather like Shinran and Jodo Shinshu. Pure Land is quite a change from Zen and Vipassana. In fact, for my college speech course, I'm giving an informative speech this Saturday morning: Jodo Shinshu in Five Minutes or Less. Namu amida butsu. Enlightenment... I'm certain my cats are enlightened, and they seem equally certain I'm totally deluded. Michael --- Franz Metcalf wrote: > Peter, > > You asked, > > > The Buddha-Hell list has been remarkably quiet. Is everyone but me > > enlightened now? > > Ah, you see, that's what you get for following Shinran: hell is the > only place for you. But it seems this eclectic icchantika is still > here with you, and if Shinran is with us we're in some pretty good > company. > > Cheers, > > Franz __________________________________ Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click. http://farechase.yahoo.com From ellwbj at nus.edu.sg Fri Oct 28 03:45:12 2005 From: ellwbj at nus.edu.sg (John Whalen-Bridge) Date: Fri Oct 28 03:52:36 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: "Nature" and eating meat Message-ID: Much thanks to Peter Junger for his response. I should say that the protagonist David Lurie is a person who, one would argue, moves from disgrace to non-disgrace, and his compassionate action (the euthanasia of animals) is a paradoxical expression of how far he comes. Some readers might disagree with that interpretation, but the line of thought, nonetheless, is that the character's redemption is that he is, in some ways, able to become more like your friend Tim McCarthy. I highly recommend the book. Vegetarians on the list should also read THE LIVES OF ANIMALS, which includes a response to Coetzee's animal rights heroine by Peter Singer. All best wishes, John Whalen-Bridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 11:05:03 -0400 From: "Peter D. Junger" Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] To: Buddhist discussion forum Message-ID: <200510261505.j9QF540b020179@samsara.law.cwru.edu> "John Whalen-Bridge" writes: : The situation Peter Junger describes parallels the ending of Coetzee's DISGRA : CE very closely. Could I know, on-list or off, the name of the Soto Zen teac : her, and how widely known is his/her activity? Am wondering if it is coincind : ence or influence/analogue. Thanks--John Whalen-Bridge His name is Tim McCarthy and his transmission is from Kobun Chino Roshi. He is the founder and head of the Kent Zendo in Kent, Ohio, and keeps a very low profile. (He won't even let me call his "Sensei.") He is also a collector of master degrees and teaches or has taught at many universities and colleges in the Northeast Ohio region---and he regularly conducts introduction to Buddhism classes at the Cleveland Buddhist Temple (which is a Shin Temple) and also conducts biannual memorial services for animals there. I gather that far more cats than people are resident at the Kent Zendo and that most of the people who are resident there are in especial need of loving kindness. I am not familiar with Coetzee's DISGRACE, but after a quick check of reviews on Amazon, I can assure you that Tim in no way resembles the protagonist of that work. Tim's compassion and loving kindness for animals is something that, from what he has told me, he has always had. -- Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH EMAIL: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu URL: http://samsara.law.cwru.edu ------------------------------ From stephen.hopkins at ukonline.co.uk Mon Oct 31 05:59:26 2005 From: stephen.hopkins at ukonline.co.uk (Stephen Hopkins) Date: Mon Oct 31 06:03:34 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Silence of the List Message-ID: Buddha-l'ers - No mail for several days now, so an enquiry to ask if all is well. Regards, Steve Hopkins From rhayes at unm.edu Mon Oct 31 07:08:48 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Mon Oct 31 07:13:35 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Silence of the List In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1130767728.4576.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Mon, 2005-10-31 at 12:59 +0000, Stephen Hopkins wrote: > No mail for several days now, so an enquiry to ask if all is well. Probably everyone is out shopping for vegetarian cookbooks. They'll be back. -- Richard From jpeavler at mindspring.com Mon Oct 31 07:14:12 2005 From: jpeavler at mindspring.com (Jim Peavler) Date: Mon Oct 31 07:23:37 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Silence of the List In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3152318920fd3ca906314665358b32c5@mindspring.com> Well, I've been laying low myself. I think Richard is involved in some kind of sneak attack on the the Unitarians or something, so there is no one around stirring the pot. On Oct 31, 2005, at 5:59 AM, Stephen Hopkins wrote: > Buddha-l'ers - > > No mail for several days now, so an enquiry to ask if all is well. > > Regards, > > Steve Hopkins > > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l > From curt at cola.iges.org Mon Oct 31 07:21:07 2005 From: curt at cola.iges.org (curt) Date: Mon Oct 31 08:20:11 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Silence of the List In-Reply-To: <1130767728.4576.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1130767728.4576.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <43662853.7040409@cola.iges.org> I thought we were all busy writing thank you notes to Patrick Fitzgerald and Joseph Wilson. - Curt Richard P. Hayes wrote: >On Mon, 2005-10-31 at 12:59 +0000, Stephen Hopkins wrote: > > > >>No mail for several days now, so an enquiry to ask if all is well. >> >> > >Probably everyone is out shopping for vegetarian cookbooks. They'll be >back. > > > From s.hodge at padmacholing.freeserve.co.uk Mon Oct 31 08:11:21 2005 From: s.hodge at padmacholing.freeserve.co.uk (Stephen Hodge) Date: Mon Oct 31 08:43:36 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: +AFs-Buddha-l+AF0- Silence of the List References: +ADw-BF8BC5AD.11C7+ACU-stephen.hopkins+AEA-ukonline.co.uk+AD4- +ADw-1130767728.4576.4.camel+AEA-localhost.localdomain+AD4- Message-ID: <000201c5de31$a6df6830$56654e51@zen> Dear Richard, >> No mail for several days now, so an enquiry to ask if all is well. > > Probably everyone is out shopping for vegetarian cookbooks. They'll be > back. Or perhaps just ruminating. Best wishes, Stephen Hodge From rhayes at unm.edu Mon Oct 31 08:47:17 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Mon Oct 31 08:53:38 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Silence of the List In-Reply-To: <43662853.7040409@cola.iges.org> References: <1130767728.4576.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> <43662853.7040409@cola.iges.org> Message-ID: <1130773637.5342.5.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Mon, 2005-10-31 at 09:21 -0500, curt wrote: > I thought we were all busy writing thank you notes to Patrick Fitzgerald > and Joseph Wilson. No thank you notes are in order until Karl Rove is behind bars at Guant?namo and Don Rumsfeld is locked up with a room full of dogs in Abu Ghraib. As Robert Dylan almost said "It's karma-vipaaka that we need to get back to work again." From parisjm2004 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 31 09:53:08 2005 From: parisjm2004 at yahoo.com (Michael Paris) Date: Mon Oct 31 09:53:38 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Silence of the List In-Reply-To: <1130767728.4576.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20051031165308.21833.qmail@web32608.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Cookbooks for vegetarians? That implies they require different preparation from carnivores. OK, some smart-aleck had to say it. At least I beat Richard to the punch. Still, To Serve Man was one of my favorite Twilight Zones. Michael --- "Richard P. Hayes" wrote: > On Mon, 2005-10-31 at 12:59 +0000, Stephen Hopkins wrote: > > > No mail for several days now, so an enquiry to ask if all is well. > > Probably everyone is out shopping for vegetarian cookbooks. They'll > be back. > > -- > Richard __________________________________ Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click. http://farechase.yahoo.com From srhodes at boulder.net Mon Oct 31 10:01:57 2005 From: srhodes at boulder.net (Steven Rhodes) Date: Mon Oct 31 10:03:41 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Silence of the List In-Reply-To: <20051031165308.21833.qmail@web32608.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20051031165308.21833.qmail@web32608.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <43664E05.4020108@boulder.net> A bumper sticker seen around town: Vegetarians Taste Better Steven Rhodes Michael Paris wrote: >Cookbooks for vegetarians? That implies they require different >preparation from carnivores. > > >OK, some smart-aleck had to say it. At least I beat Richard to the >punch. Still, To Serve Man was one of my favorite Twilight Zones. > > >Michael > > >--- "Richard P. Hayes" wrote: > > > >>On Mon, 2005-10-31 at 12:59 +0000, Stephen Hopkins wrote: >> >> >> >>>No mail for several days now, so an enquiry to ask if all is well. >>> >>> >>Probably everyone is out shopping for vegetarian cookbooks. They'll >>be back. >> >>-- >>Richard >> >> > > > > >__________________________________ >Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click. >http://farechase.yahoo.com >_______________________________________________ >buddha-l mailing list >buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com >http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20051031/eadaec8f/attachment.htm From YeshiUK at aol.com Mon Oct 31 09:11:21 2005 From: YeshiUK at aol.com (YeshiUK@aol.com) Date: Mon Oct 31 10:13:41 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Silence of the List Message-ID: <24C13228.03702829.001B60CA@aol.com> It's Hallowe'en. Charles From curt at cola.iges.org Mon Oct 31 14:09:13 2005 From: curt at cola.iges.org (curt) Date: Mon Oct 31 15:37:48 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Silence of the List In-Reply-To: <1130773637.5342.5.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1130767728.4576.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> <43662853.7040409@cola.iges.org> <1130773637.5342.5.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <436687F9.60207@cola.iges.org> I can understand that. I used to be a subitist, too - but it was taking too long, so I decided that the gradual route was quicker. - Curt Richard P. Hayes wrote: > >No thank you notes are in order until Karl Rove is behind bars at >Guant?namo and Don Rumsfeld is locked up with a room full of dogs in Abu >Ghraib. > > From parisjm2004 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 31 16:13:31 2005 From: parisjm2004 at yahoo.com (Michael Paris) Date: Mon Oct 31 16:13:41 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Silence of the List In-Reply-To: <436687F9.60207@cola.iges.org> Message-ID: <20051031231331.97362.qmail@web32612.mail.mud.yahoo.com> A "subitist?" Michael --- curt wrote: > I can understand that. I used to be a subitist, too - but it was > taking too long, so I decided that the gradual route was quicker. > - Curt > > Richard P. Hayes wrote: > > > > No thank you notes are in order until Karl Rove is behind bars at Guant?namo and Don Rumsfeld is locked up with a room full of dogs in Abu Ghraib. > > __________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page! http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From s.mcara at auckland.ac.nz Mon Oct 31 16:12:26 2005 From: s.mcara at auckland.ac.nz (Sally McAra) Date: Mon Oct 31 16:16:03 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] seeking the Pali and Sanskrit term for "holy/ religious/ sacred objects" Message-ID: <4366A4DA.1020504@auckland.ac.nz> Hi folks Seeing as the list is quiet lately, perhaps this would be the time to make an inquiry of those with a background in Sanskrit and /or Pali.... I'm seeking the terms for "holy/ religious/ sacred objects"... Some context might help: A while ago I set out to do what was meant to be a quick investigation into Sanskrit, Pali and Tibetan terminology for classifying "sacred objects", but have found this quite difficult. I don't have a background in any of these languages apart from a few terms I've picked up over the years. The dictionaries I've checked out have been no use, perhaps in part because we don't have a single word in English for such things (the word "sacra" is used in anthropology, but I haven't found it used in this way in the English dictionaries I checked, or when I searched the online Sanskrit dictionary). After a few inquiries and reading a few articles (including some articles by Yael Bentor, and the Trainor and Germano edited volume on Buddhist relics) I have a range of terms for specific items such as various kinds of relics, as well as stupa/chorten, etc. But what I am looking for is a term that could encompass all of the objects that certain forms of Buddhism deem to have purifying spiritual powers. In FPMT Buddhism (my area of anthropological research relates to the Great Stupa they want to build in Australia, and more generally the role of Buddhist sacra in the spread of Buddhism in the contemporary world using this particular case study), Lama Zopa urges his followers to sponsor, construct etc "Holy Objects" (including stupas, prayer wheels, statues etc). (For a bit of background, Zopa is often quoted as saying things like, "the world needs more holy objects" and "The continued existence and flourishing of the teachings of the Buddha depend upon the continued existence of the holy objects of Buddha"; "Construction of the [Maitreya] statue is not the goal - it is the method for achieving the goal. The goal is to benefit as many people as possible for as long as possible.") I have also heard FPMT teachers talk about "the power of the basis" / "power of the object", meaning that such objects are deemed to help one to purify obscurations that hinder our spiritual realizations and make imprints on the mental continuum, regardless of faith. (One FPMT geshe said that "chorten" can be translated as "the basis for accomplishing dharma" - cf the use of the word as stupa/repository for relics). I made enquiries on H-Buddhism and two people suggested the term in Tibetan is "rten" (support), or "rten gsum" often translated as the "three supports" - sku rten, gsung rten and thugs rten. On the online forum E-Sangha, someone suggested the Pali term might be "dhamma-dhaja" - a "mark, symbol, or sign of the Dhamma" and it can be a "cause to uphold or support or remember" the Dhamma. In an online Pali dictionary "Dhaja" seems to mean "mark, emblem, sign, symbol" so it could still be too broad. Would it actually be used to classify all material objects that are deemed to have spiritually-purifying powers, as opposed to say the symbol for any old thing? Someone also suggested "sharira" (sorry for the lack of diacritical marks) plus "dhatu" might be the right word in Sanskrit, but this seems to be specifically related to bodily relics?.? I'd really appreciate the suggestions of anyone with a good grounding in Sanskrit or Pali, and/or further comments on the Tibetan term. By the way, if anyone can suggest any works that discuss the idea of the "power of the object" and place it in context of Buddhist schools of thought etc, I 'd be grateful; apart from the articles by Yael Bentor and others writing on relics, I have not followed that line of thought far either. Cheers Sally -- Sally McAra PhD candidate Department of Anthropology Faculty of Arts The University of Auckland Private Bag 92019 Auckland 1001 New Zealand Tel: 64-9 373 7599 Ext 88531 www.arts.auckland.ac.nz/anthro/Student%20Details/StudentPages/SallyMcara.htm From bclough at aucegypt.edu Mon Oct 31 16:17:22 2005 From: bclough at aucegypt.edu (bclough) Date: Mon Oct 31 16:23:41 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Of Buddha, Miracles, and Ferry Rides Message-ID: Searching for the source: Somewhere (Conze's *Buddhist Scriptures* perhaps) I read of an episode, presumably from a Pali source, of an episode where the Buddha encounters a tapasvin on a river bank. The tapasvin boasts that he can cross to the other side by walking on water (or flying over, I can't recall which). The Buddha replies that that's wonderful, but for a few rupees (or some such denomination), I can pay the ferry-man and also get across easily. (I'm paraphrasing). Does anyone recognize this story, and know where it appears? Many Thanks, Brad bclough@aucegypt.edu From bclough at aucegypt.edu Mon Oct 31 17:13:43 2005 From: bclough at aucegypt.edu (bclough) Date: Mon Oct 31 17:23:43 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Silence of the List Message-ID: Michael Paris: > A "subitist?" A "sudden-ist," if you will, someone who follows "sudden enlightenment/awakening" teachings. Brad From rhayes at unm.edu Mon Oct 31 16:44:30 2005 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Mon Oct 31 18:43:43 2005 Subject: [Buddha-l] Silence of the List In-Reply-To: <20051031231331.97362.qmail@web32612.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20051031231331.97362.qmail@web32612.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1130802270.5446.0.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Mon, 2005-10-31 at 15:13 -0800, Michael Paris wrote: > A "subitist?" That's one step below an itist. -- Richard