From david.r.webster at blueyonder.co.uk Fri Nov 2 10:50:08 2007 From: david.r.webster at blueyonder.co.uk (David Webster) Date: Fri Nov 2 11:14:10 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] wiki wiki Message-ID: <895E498B67B34BFC98B6FF3E59DBFA8D@youra97ec67e86> Hi, Buddha-L members may be interested in a teaching thing I am trying here. Over the years students have struggled, in the study of Indian Religions, with the introduction of many terms new to them during the course - from familiar ones like karma to very long and hard-to-recall terms. I used to give them a glossary - or photocopy one from a book. Then I decided not to do their work for them - and gave them a blank glossary: with key terms and blank sections for their definitions. Following positive student responses to a blog for our overall course (http://r-p-e.blogspot.com ) I have decided to try a wiki to see is students can work together to make a glossary for our Indian Religions course. It is at http://rpe208.wikispaces.com/ and I thought it might interest Buddha-L readers. We are mainly doing Hinduism at present, moving to Buddhism after the Christmas break - but comments on the idea are welcome: have others tried a similar approach. If you can't help yourself- feel free to register, and join in the discussions / editing on the wiki itself: I imagine they would appreciate some guidance. Cheers, Dave Ps - I also thought that if they saw how a wiki worked, they might be less likely to treat wikipedia as the basis of all their essays.. Well, I can dream. ---------------------------------------- Dr David Webster Course Leader: Religion, Philosophy & Ethics University of Gloucestershire 01242 71 4778 e-mail: dwebster@glos.ac.uk University Site: http://www.glos.ac.uk Course blog: http://www.r-p-e.blogspot.com ---------------------------------------- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.18/1104 - Release Date: 01/11/2007 18:47 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.18/1104 - Release Date: 01/11/2007 18:47 From curt at cola.iges.org Fri Nov 2 12:47:27 2007 From: curt at cola.iges.org (curt) Date: Fri Nov 2 12:47:36 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] wiki wiki In-Reply-To: <895E498B67B34BFC98B6FF3E59DBFA8D@youra97ec67e86> References: <895E498B67B34BFC98B6FF3E59DBFA8D@youra97ec67e86> Message-ID: <472B70BF.9000507@cola.iges.org> David Webster wrote: > Ps - I also thought that if they saw how a wiki worked, they might be less > likely to treat wikipedia as the basis of all their essays.. Well, I can > dream. > > If your gonna dream - dream big! What is it about wikipedia and Buddhism? A lot of the stuff on wikipedia about Hinduism is actually pretty good - but just about every single word about Buddhism on wikipedia is completely worthless. I think this says a lot about "buddhism" in the west. Curt Steinmetz From rhayes at unm.edu Fri Nov 2 15:21:19 2007 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Fri Nov 2 15:21:25 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Physicalism (was Re: Emptiness) In-Reply-To: 200710291604.l9TG40jp027818@ns1.swcp.com Message-ID: <1194038479.31735.3.camel@localhost> > > What do you get when a Buddhist waxes mindless? > > I don't know ... dayamati.blogspot.com ?? It was inspired by the American president's program of "education." I was thinking of calling the blog "No American left unoffended," but then I figured what's the point of restricting offensive comments to Americans, when so many others are equally deserving. -- Richard Hayes Department of Philosophy University of New Mexico From rhayes at unm.edu Fri Nov 2 15:44:16 2007 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Fri Nov 2 15:44:24 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] wiki wiki In-Reply-To: 895E498B67B34BFC98B6FF3E59DBFA8D@youra97ec67e86 Message-ID: <1194039857.31735.26.camel@localhost> Curt opined: > A lot of the stuff on wikipedia about Hinduism is actually > pretty good A few weeks ago when we were discussing books on Buddhism allowed in American prisons, someone kindly sent me the list. There was also a list of books on Hinduism. That list was almost unbelievably one-sided. There was hardly anything on it except for works about Swami Muktananda and Gurumayi Chidvilasananda. > - but just about every single word about Buddhism on > wikipedia is completely worthless. I think this says a lot about > "buddhism" in the west. The books on Buddhism allowed to American prisoners were not bad (including the works on such Buddhist classics as the Bhagavad-gita--oh dear). I guess it goes to show that if you want a good education in Buddhism, you're a lot better off in prison than on the Internet. I'm not sure I would take Wikipedia as a reliable measure of the quality of much of anything; I have hunch there may be a bit more to Western Buddhism than what one finds on Wikipedia. Not that I'm planning to find out. My curiosity about anything in Buddhism anywhere in the world after about the second century is pretty feeble. Pretty much all of Buddhism has been moving pretty precipitously downhill since Nagarjuna. (What does Wikipedia say about THAT?) -- Richard From curt at cola.iges.org Fri Nov 2 16:11:20 2007 From: curt at cola.iges.org (curt) Date: Fri Nov 2 16:11:28 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] wiki wiki In-Reply-To: <1194039857.31735.26.camel@localhost> References: <1194039857.31735.26.camel@localhost> Message-ID: <472BA088.5040105@cola.iges.org> Richard Hayes wrote: > > I guess it goes to show that if you want a good education in > Buddhism, you're a lot better off in prison than on the Internet. > that works on so many levels..... > I'm not sure I would take Wikipedia as a reliable measure of the quality > of much of anything; of course you are right about that. it was a cheap shot. that's the kind of guy i am. > I have hunch there may be a bit more to Western > Buddhism than what one finds on Wikipedia. Not that I'm planning to find > out. My curiosity about anything in Buddhism anywhere in the world after > about the second century is pretty feeble. I can appreciate that - although for some reason I apply that logic to western philosophy (I lose almost all interest after Proclus) while being much more tolerant of more recent trends in India and China. > Pretty much all of Buddhism > has been moving pretty precipitously downhill since Nagarjuna. (What > does Wikipedia say about THAT?) > > Actually - I'm pretty sure I read those exact words on Nagarjuna's wikipedia entry! Curt From dharmafarer at gmail.com Fri Nov 2 17:25:31 2007 From: dharmafarer at gmail.com (Piya Tan) Date: Fri Nov 2 17:25:38 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] wiki wiki In-Reply-To: <472BA088.5040105@cola.iges.org> References: <1194039857.31735.26.camel@localhost> <472BA088.5040105@cola.iges.org> Message-ID: For those who need a list of readings on topics off his/her main staple, Wikipedia provides (sometimes) good reading lists and links. If you move on from there, and follow the links, helpful surprises are often found. I have found many interesting journal papers in particular fields that way. Of course, I am speaking from this neck of the cyber woods where the public libraries have more interesting Buddhist books than the universities The internet connectivity is really nourishing from here (Singapore), especially when I cannot find a journal article quoted in my readings. More often than not the kind professor or lecturer I email would oblige me with an electronic copy of his/her paper. Rupert Gethin once sent me more than what I asked for. And recently Brian Black obliged me with his interesting study of the Ambattha Sutta (to be out soon in a festshrift for Patrick Olivelle). Such works only confirms how an understanding of the other non-buddhist Indian traditions, such as the Upanisads helps us understand the early texts better. Okay, so I have said things many of you have taken for granted. It's great to read clarity and depth esp where we are inundated by vague Buddhism and relic worship, and where the monks tell the laity not ever to touch or discuss the Vinaya. The Buddhist sun is now rising in the west, so bask in it. The twilight glow here is not too bad either. Piya Tan On Nov 3, 2007 6:11 AM, curt wrote: > Richard Hayes wrote: > > > > I guess it goes to show that if you want a good education in > > Buddhism, you're a lot better off in prison than on the Internet. > > > > that works on so many levels..... > > > I'm not sure I would take Wikipedia as a reliable measure of the quality > > of much of anything; > > of course you are right about that. it was a cheap shot. that's the kind > of guy i am. > > > I have hunch there may be a bit more to Western > > Buddhism than what one finds on Wikipedia. Not that I'm planning to find > > out. My curiosity about anything in Buddhism anywhere in the world after > > > about the second century is pretty feeble. > > I can appreciate that - although for some reason I apply that logic to > western philosophy (I lose almost all interest after Proclus) while > being much more tolerant of more recent trends in India and China. > > > Pretty much all of Buddhism > > has been moving pretty precipitously downhill since Nagarjuna. (What > > does Wikipedia say about THAT?) > > > > > > Actually - I'm pretty sure I read those exact words on Nagarjuna's > wikipedia entry! > > Curt > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l > -- The Minding Centre Blk 644 Bukit Batok Central #01-68 (2nd flr) Singapore 650644 Website: dharmafarer.googlepages.com From wongwf at comp.nus.edu.sg Fri Nov 2 19:19:27 2007 From: wongwf at comp.nus.edu.sg (Wong Weng Fai) Date: Fri Nov 2 19:19:38 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] wiki wiki In-Reply-To: References: <1194039857.31735.26.camel@localhost> <472BA088.5040105@cola.iges.org> Message-ID: On a related note... http://edition.cnn.com/2007/LIVING/wayoflife/11/02/g-d.tube.ap/index.html GodTube competes with YouTube. Why stop at a wiki? Why not go for BuddhaTube? W.F. Wong From wongwf at comp.nus.edu.sg Fri Nov 2 19:22:26 2007 From: wongwf at comp.nus.edu.sg (Wong Weng Fai) Date: Fri Nov 2 19:22:34 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] wiki wiki In-Reply-To: References: <1194039857.31735.26.camel@localhost> <472BA088.5040105@cola.iges.org> Message-ID: On Sat, 3 Nov 2007, Piya Tan wrote: > The Buddhist sun is now rising in the west, so bask in it. The twilight glow > here > is not too bad either. I am not so sure about it. In America, at least on the ground, my feeling is that there is a strong rise in Christian fundamentalism. But Islam is gaining good traction too. Buddhism is still more of a curiosity item - furnishings in the house, BuddhaBars and pop art. W.F. Wong From jvriens at free.fr Sat Nov 3 01:15:36 2007 From: jvriens at free.fr (Joy Vriens) Date: Sat Nov 3 01:15:46 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] wiki wiki References: <1194039857.31735.26.camel@localhost> Message-ID: Richard, >A few weeks ago when we were discussing books on Buddhism allowed in >American prisons, someone kindly sent me the list. There was also a list >of books on Hinduism. That list was almost unbelievably one-sided. There >was hardly anything on it except for works about Swami Muktananda and >Gurumayi Chidvilasananda. >My curiosity about anything in Buddhism anywhere in the world after >about the second century is pretty feeble. Pretty much all of Buddhism >has been moving pretty precipitously downhill since Nagarjuna. (What >does Wikipedia say about THAT?) It is my opinion that Buddhism has been moving downhill since Brahma Sahampati convinced the Buddha to teach, but then I have enough sand in my eyes for a small kindergarten to play in. BTW could you give us the official list of books on Buddhism written before the 2nd century? Joy From jehms at xs4all.nl Sat Nov 3 03:11:50 2007 From: jehms at xs4all.nl (jehms@xs4all.nl) Date: Sat Nov 3 03:12:00 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] NYTimes.com: Let Us Pray for Wealth Message-ID: <200711030911.lA39BorD006849@ame3.swcp.com> This page was sent to you by: jehms@xs4all.nl. More money means less religion. Could it be that more money means more education as well? Erik TECHNOLOGY | November 3, 2007 What’s Online: Let Us Pray for Wealth By DAN MITCHELL Globally, the wealthier you are, the less likely you are to be religious; It's a Small World, a Disneyland water ride, will be refurbished next year and more. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/03/technology/03online.html?ex=1194753600&en=c6bcfbc6b82ff715&ei=5070&emc=eta1 ---------------------------------------------------------- ABOUT THIS E-MAIL This e-mail was sent to you by a friend through NYTimes.com's E-mail This Article service. For general information about NYTimes.com, write to help@nytimes.com. NYTimes.com 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018 Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company From jvriens at free.fr Sat Nov 3 03:52:49 2007 From: jvriens at free.fr (Joy Vriens) Date: Sat Nov 3 03:53:05 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] NYTimes.com: Let Us Pray for Wealth References: <200711030911.lA39BorD006849@ame3.swcp.com> Message-ID: >More money means less religion. Could it be that more money means more education as well? Erik On an indivudal level I am convinced that more money means less religion. If one has money and doesn't use it to help others, one isn't taking religion seriously. I know the tendency for wealthy people is to want to have the best of both worlds through conscience stilling charity, but that's not an option. Paying loads of anonymous taxes is a much more religious thing to do than "do charities". It's a combination of real generosity and humility, so more impact. I don't agree with Pew who found that "there is ?a strong relationship between a country?s religiosity and its economic status.? He forgets that we are living in a world where the split between the haves and havenots, including in the same country, is growing very fast. So we can end up with countries filled with poor people and every here and there forteresses with all comodities (schools, golf courses etc.) for the wealthy ones. The funny thing is that both the poor and the rich in such countries will need religion, but for different reasons. The poor need it for comfort and hope and the rich to still their pangs of conscience and guilt and fear of the future. As for more education, I don't think so. At the rate the public services including schools are sacrified to lower taxes, the only education will be the one that people can pay for. And with the increasing split, that will be less and less the case. Rich *nations* have never existed and will never exist as long as Mammon rules the world. Joy >TECHNOLOGY | November 3, 2007 >What?s Online: Let Us Pray for Wealth >By DAN MITCHELL >Globally, the wealthier you are, the less likely you are to be religious; It's a Small World, a Disneyland water ride, will be refurbished next year and more. > >http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/03/technology/03online.html?ex=1194753600&en=c6bcfbc6b82ff715&ei=5070&emc=eta1 Pew found that there is ?a strong relationship between a country?s religiosity and its economic status.? The poorer a country, the more ?religion remains central to the lives of individuals, while secular perspectives are more common in richer nations.? From SJZiobro at cs.com Sat Nov 3 12:11:49 2007 From: SJZiobro at cs.com (SJZiobro@cs.com) Date: Sat Nov 3 12:11:57 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] NYTimes.com: Let Us Pray for Wealth Message-ID: <4EF323AE.353A6237.007A239A@cs.com> "Joy Vriens" wrote: >>More money means less religion. Could it be that more money means more education as well? Erik > >On an indivudal level I am convinced that more money means less religion. If one has money and doesn't use it to help others, one isn't taking religion seriously. I know the tendency for wealthy people is to want to have the best of both worlds through conscience stilling charity, but that's not an option. Paying loads of anonymous taxes is a much more religious thing to do than "do charities". It's a combination of real generosity and humility, so more impact. > How is paying exhorbitant amounts of taxes to the government a more religious act than paying to charities of one's choice? Govenrment funds all sorts of things that are antithetical to religion, for instance, abortion and the resulting harm done to the woman on all levels (not to mention the killing of an innocent human being). Also, your tax dollars help fund the current wars on terrorism. I happen to support these wars, but if you consider war antithetical to religion, then my question still holds. Regards, Stan Ziobro From jehms at xs4all.nl Sat Nov 3 14:05:24 2007 From: jehms at xs4all.nl (Erik Hoogcarspel) Date: Sat Nov 3 14:05:28 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] NYTimes.com: Let Us Pray for Wealth In-Reply-To: <4EF323AE.353A6237.007A239A@cs.com> References: <4EF323AE.353A6237.007A239A@cs.com> Message-ID: <472CD484.8090103@xs4all.nl> SJZiobro@cs.com schreef: > "Joy Vriens" wrote: > > >>> More money means less religion. Could it be that more money means more education as well? Erik >>> >> On an indivudal level I am convinced that more money means less religion. If one has money and doesn't use it to help others, one isn't taking religion seriously. I know the tendency for wealthy people is to want to have the best of both worlds through conscience stilling charity, but that's not an option. Paying loads of anonymous taxes is a much more religious thing to do than "do charities". It's a combination of real generosity and humility, so more impact. >> >> > > How is paying exhorbitant amounts of taxes to the government a more religious act than paying to charities of one's choice? Govenrment funds all sorts of things that are antithetical to religion, for instance, abortion and the resulting harm done to the woman on all levels (not to mention the killing of an innocent human being). Also, your tax dollars help fund the current wars on terrorism. I happen to support these wars, but if you consider war antithetical to religion, then my question still holds. > > It's remarkable that religion is so easily associated with what Nietzsche called the 'slavemorality'. Religion means charity, submissiveness, humility, etc. Why not think of the religion of the brahmin (ritual engineer), vraatya (religious bodybuilder), or yogi (mastering his own body and mind)? I don't think that the question whether a war is just or not, or how to spend tax revenue has any bearing on individual religious feelings. Christians impose their view on religion on others, saing they are the champions of charity and therefore better then others. Many people buy that, and they forget 90% of christian powerhunting history and the fact that most third world countries have been destroyed by foreign charity. -- Erik Info: www.xs4all.nl/~jehms Weblog: http://www.volkskrantblog.nl/pub/blogs/blog.php?uid=2950 Productie: http://stores.lulu.com/jehmsstudio From SJZiobro at cs.com Sat Nov 3 16:20:28 2007 From: SJZiobro at cs.com (SJZiobro@cs.com) Date: Sat Nov 3 16:20:40 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] NYTimes.com: Let Us Pray for Wealth Message-ID: <0EE770CC.19B9B8C6.007A239A@cs.com> Erik Hoogcarspel wrote: >SJZiobro@cs.com schreef: >> "Joy Vriens" wrote: >> >> ? >>>> More money means less religion. Could it be that more money means more education as well? Erik >>>> ? ? ? >>> On an indivudal level I am convinced that more money means less religion. If one has money and doesn't use it to help others, one isn't taking religion seriously. I know the tendency for wealthy people is to want to have the best of both worlds through conscience stilling charity, but that's not an option. Paying loads of anonymous taxes is a much more religious thing to do than "do charities". It's a combination of real generosity and humility, so more impact. >>> >>> ? ? >> >> How is paying exhorbitant amounts of taxes to the government a more religious act than paying to charities of one's choice? ?Govenrment funds all sorts of things that are antithetical to religion, for instance, abortion and the resulting harm done to the woman on all levels (not to mention the killing of an innocent human being). ?Also, your tax dollars help fund the current wars on terrorism. ?I happen to support these wars, but if you consider war antithetical to religion, then my question still holds. >> >> ? >It's remarkable that religion is so easily associated with what >Nietzsche called the 'slavemorality'. Religion means charity, >submissiveness, humility, etc. Why not think of the religion of the >brahmin (ritual engineer), vraatya (religious bodybuilder), or yogi >(mastering his own body and mind)? I don't think that the question >whether a war is just or not, or how to spend tax revenue has any >bearing on individual religious feelings. Christians impose their view >on religion on others, saing they are the champions of charity and >therefore better then others. Many people buy that, and they forget 90% >of christian powerhunting history and the fact that most third world >countries have been destroyed by foreign charity. Erik, I find it remarkable as well that so many academics in lemming-like manner make the association of which you speak. Your points are well taken, but they are beside the point vis-a-vis the strawman portrayal of 1) Christianity and Christians, 2) the question of religious feelings (which is actually a red herring in this thread), and 3) the typical, banal, and mendacious claim that only Christians impose their values upon others, implying that non-Christians do not, and this regardless of the evidence in the realm of legislation, law, politics, education, etc. The only issue is whether one can make a necessary and substantive corrolation of paying large amounts of taxes with religious acts (especially in a culture where there is such a bruhaw over certain theories of the separation of Chuch and State that in fact excise religion from the public and civil realms) and, if one can, whether paying these taxes in all instances escapes paying into funds and activities that are antithetical to religion. By the way, I understand that there is a prohibition against killing in Buddhist schools of thought. Is this true? If so, why would one not associate paying taxes to a government that is engaged in war with paying to fund an activity that is antithetical to this religious notion? Regards, Stan From curt at cola.iges.org Sat Nov 3 16:49:05 2007 From: curt at cola.iges.org (curt) Date: Sat Nov 3 16:49:13 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] NYTimes.com: Let Us Pray for Wealth In-Reply-To: <0EE770CC.19B9B8C6.007A239A@cs.com> References: <0EE770CC.19B9B8C6.007A239A@cs.com> Message-ID: <472CFAE1.8010509@cola.iges.org> SJZiobro@cs.com wrote: > the typical, banal, and mendacious claim that only Christians impose > their values upon others, implying that non-Christians do not, and > this regardless of the evidence in the realm of legislation, law, > politics, education, etc. I am unaware of any religions other than Christianity and Islam that are responsible for the deliberate, systematic extirpation of other religions. If you or anyone could provide any examples of even *one* religion that has been wiped off the face of the planet by Buddhists, or Hindus, or Taoists, or Shintos, etc - it would be a significant contribution to our knowledge of comparative religion. On the other hand - if there are no such examples - then that cannot be glossed over. In fact it leads inexorably to the conclusion that there are two kinds of religion: (1) religions that systematically extirpate other religions (2) religions that do not Maybe I'm missing something - but this appears to be a significant distinction. Curt Steinmetz From SJZiobro at cs.com Sat Nov 3 17:27:02 2007 From: SJZiobro at cs.com (SJZiobro@cs.com) Date: Sat Nov 3 17:27:11 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] NYTimes.com: Let Us Pray for Wealth Message-ID: <0CE8F115.2AEAEDDB.007A239A@cs.com> Curt, Yes, you are missing something, namely, openess to the historical record. For example, what are the Hindus and the Buddhists fighting over in Sri Lanka? What are the Communists fighting over in Tibet? Do you need more hints? Stan curt wrote: >SJZiobro@cs.com wrote: >> the typical, banal, and mendacious claim that only Christians impose >> their values upon others, implying that non-Christians do not, and >> this regardless of the evidence in the realm of legislation, law, >> politics, education, etc. > >I am unaware of any religions other than Christianity and Islam that are >responsible for the deliberate, systematic extirpation of other >religions. If you or anyone could provide any examples of even *one* >religion that has been wiped off the face of the planet by Buddhists, or >Hindus, or Taoists, or Shintos, etc - it would be a significant >contribution to our knowledge of comparative religion. > >On the other hand - if there are no such examples - then that cannot be >glossed over. In fact it leads inexorably to the conclusion that there >are two kinds of religion: > >(1) religions that systematically extirpate other religions >(2) religions that do not > >Maybe I'm missing something - but this appears to be a significant >distinction. > >Curt Steinmetz >_______________________________________________ >buddha-l mailing list >buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com >http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l > From rhayes at unm.edu Sat Nov 3 17:30:40 2007 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Sat Nov 3 17:30:49 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] The Churching of America Message-ID: <200711031730.40945.rhayes@unm.edu> Dear denizens (be ye churched, churchless, church-mice or churls), When I was in the library a while back, an interesting tome fell off the shelf into my hands, a sure sign that God wanted me to read it and report on it for the benefit of all sentient beings in the trichiliocosm (except for Stan Ziobro). The work in question was written by a team of sociologists. As a logician, epistemologist and incorrigible addict of scientism, I am required to regard all social scientists as unfortunate souls who have gone over to the Dark Side. Be that as it may, I have \begin(whispering) actually enjoyed this book.\end{whispering} It has turned at least some of my thinking upside down and made me abandon (only for a short time, of course) a few of my deepest prejudices. The book, written by Roger Finke and Rodney Stark (a team named Finke and Stark HAD to go into either sociology or Vaudeville), is entitled "The Churching of America 1776-2005: Winners and Losers in Our Religious Economy." Its main argument (bolstered, of course, with heaps of statistical analysis, bar graphs, pie graphs and other pseudo-scientific legerdemain) is that the religious institutions that have survived and thrived in America have been those that make the most demands on their members. Churches that require members to sign creeds, make substantial pledges of financial support, and hew to behavioral codes both gain and keep members. Exclusivism, they argue, has always been a crowd-pleaser. The churches that have steadily lost membership down through the centuries have been the ones that welcome everyone and allow people to believe and act as they see fit. Congegationalism, Unitarianism, Universalism, and the liberal wings of Protestant denominations have steadily declined in overall membership and in the number of churches. Unprogrammed Quaker meetings have dwindled, while the more evangelical and fundamentalist programmed Quakers have thrived. So say these fellows (who can barely conceal their astonishment, since their findings fly in the face of most sociological and historiological dogma from the time of Weber and James onward). If their findings are valid, what are the implications for the survival of Buddhist institutions in the West? Will only those that require new members to pay substantial membership fees and do thousands of prostrations and go on intensive retreats and neglect their spouses (or is it spice) and children live to see the next century? Will only those who routinely ridicule Christians, Muslims, Hindus and Jews live to write the history of Western Buddhism, while all the ecumenists amongst us abandon the three jewels and drift off to join AA, the YMCA and the local Jungian Society? Cripes. I'm glad I'm getting old. With any luck, I'll die before all that happens. -- Richard Hayes Department of Philosophy University of New Mexico From tbovee at gmail.com Sat Nov 3 17:33:44 2007 From: tbovee at gmail.com (Tim Bovee/Datni LLC) Date: Sat Nov 3 17:33:52 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] NYTimes.com: Let Us Pray for Wealth In-Reply-To: <472CFAE1.8010509@cola.iges.org> References: <0EE770CC.19B9B8C6.007A239A@cs.com> <472CFAE1.8010509@cola.iges.org> Message-ID: On 11/3/07, curt wrote: > I am unaware of any religions other than Christianity and Islam that are responsible for the deliberate, systematic extirpation of other religions. If you or anyone could provide any examples of even *one* religion that has been wiped off the face of the planet by Buddhists, or Hindus, or Taoists, or Shintos, etc - it would be a significant contribution to our knowledge of comparative religion. Requiring "face the planet" as the field of action pretty much limits things to Western Christianity sometime after 1600, no? Only the Europeans developed global reach. If you'll accept a smaller field of action, then we could talk by about the Buddhist-Shintoist Tokugawa regime's systematic pogrom again Christianity in Japan, for starters. Given that religion and state power often hook up, making adherence to the regime's favorite religion a token of loyalty, I doubt if any religon's hands are entirely clean. -- Tim Bovee, Portland, Oregon tbovee@gmail.com From wdkish81 at yahoo.com Sat Nov 3 19:13:23 2007 From: wdkish81 at yahoo.com (Bill Kish) Date: Sat Nov 3 19:13:27 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Practicing ahimsa In-Reply-To: <200711032334.lA3NXwvw019711@ns1.swcp.com> Message-ID: <675732.19077.qm@web30505.mail.mud.yahoo.com> There is a bill in the US Senate that is still "in committee", but that might make it out onto the Senate floor with enough support, viz. the Cluster Munitions Civilian Protection Act (S. 594) sponsored by Feinstein and Leahy. Despite my best efforts to play devil's advocate, I can't see how supporting this bill in its present form in any way violates the principle of ahimsa. If anyone can see a downside, please send a reply (on or off list is fine). --------- Bill Kish __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From rhayes at unm.edu Sat Nov 3 19:55:24 2007 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Sat Nov 3 19:55:32 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Practicing ahimsa In-Reply-To: <675732.19077.qm@web30505.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <675732.19077.qm@web30505.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200711031955.24577.rhayes@unm.edu> On Saturday 03 November 2007 19:13, Bill Kish wrote: > There is a bill in the US Senate that is still "in committee", > but that might make it out onto the Senate floor with enough > support, viz. the Cluster Munitions Civilian Protection Act > (S. 594) sponsored by Feinstein and Leahy. Despite my best > efforts to play devil's advocate, I can't see how supporting > this bill in its present form in any way violates the principle > of ahimsa. If anyone wishes to sign a petition, one is available at http://www.stopclustermunitions.org . There is also good information on the bill on this type of munitions at the website of the Friends Committee for National Legislation (http://www.fcnl.org/index.htm ). Given than some of our friends here are in favour of fighting against terrorism, I am confident that they will wish to ban the terrorism embodied by making, selling and using cluster munitions. Thanks, Bill. This may be the first time in the past 16 years anyone has brought an issue to buddha-l on which we can all agree. -- Richard Hayes From jvriens at free.fr Sun Nov 4 02:58:31 2007 From: jvriens at free.fr (Joy Vriens) Date: Sun Nov 4 02:58:45 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] NYTimes.com: Let Us Pray for Wealth References: <4EF323AE.353A6237.007A239A@cs.com> Message-ID: Stan wrote, >How is paying exhorbitant amounts of taxes to the government a more religious act than paying to charities of one's choice? "Two people went up to the temple area to pray; one was a Pharisee and the other was a tax collector. The Pharisee took up his position and spoke this prayer to himself, 'O God, I thank you that I am not like the rest of humanity--greedy, dishonest, adulterous--or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week, and I pay tithes on my whole income.' But the tax collector stood off at a distance and would not even raise his eyes to heaven but beat his breast and prayed, 'O God, be merciful to me a sinner.' I tell you, the latter went home justified, not the former; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and the one who humbles himself will be exalted." Luke Chapter 18 The beauty of taxes in a good functioning society would be that the money goes to those who in need of it. Food, lodging, studies, health care etc etc All those things that e.g. the gospels recommend. And it is also a more humbling and therefore justifying experience then to give it to handpicked causes chosen on the basis of arguments and motivations that are not always very humbling. For a Buddhist it comes as near to the absence of the three circles as one can get as a member of society: the subject, the object of the giving and the act itself are so diluted that it almost looks like the simple act of survival of society itself, almost devoid of the notion of individual selves. >Govenrment funds all sorts of things that are antithetical to religion, for instance, abortion and the resulting harm done to the woman on all levels (not to mention the killing of an innocent human being). I am equally concerned about the harm being done to women and think it's good the government uses my tax money to improve the situation. I read that every day one woman is killed by her husband or boyfriend in the States. And that is only the top of the iceberg. I expect the situation to be similar in other countries. Since I am not a woman, I think it's fair that women decide themselves what exactly harms them and I am glad to contribute removing the harm and causes of harm. It is better to prevent dramatic outcomes by improving the situations leading up to them. But that costs money, which I am happy to give. We all share the same world and can improve it if we work together and contribute to this according to our means. >Also, your tax dollars help fund the current wars on terrorism. I happen to support these wars, but if you consider war antithetical to religion, then my question still holds. This a sore spot indeed. I don't like my tax money being used for wars that create more weapons, more wars and more killing of innocent human beings and I would certainly let my government know how I felt about that. Joy From jvriens at free.fr Sun Nov 4 03:20:09 2007 From: jvriens at free.fr (Joy Vriens) Date: Sun Nov 4 03:20:21 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] The Churching of America References: <200711031730.40945.rhayes@unm.edu> Message-ID: Richard, >The book, written by Roger Finke and Rodney Stark (a team named Finke and >Stark HAD to go into either sociology or Vaudeville), is entitled "The >Churching of America 1776-2005: Winners and Losers in Our Religious Economy." >Its main argument (bolstered, of course, with heaps of statistical analysis, >bar graphs, pie graphs and other pseudo-scientific legerdemain) is that the >religious institutions that have survived and thrived in America have been >those that make the most demands on their members. This is also exactly the point of R?gis Debray's essay Le Feu sacr? - Fonctions du religieus, Gallimard 2003. Except that you won't find any bar graphs and pie graphs and only very light statistical material. French intellectuals like to opine opiniately, like I do myself (although unlike them preferrably in aphorisms). Because after all, isn't that what it all boils down to, regardless of bar graphs and pie graphs? >If their findings are valid, what are the implications for the survival of >Buddhist institutions in the West? Will only those that require new members >to pay substantial membership fees and do thousands of prostrations and go on >intensive retreats and neglect their spouses (or is it spice) and children >live to see the next century? Will only those who routinely ridicule >Christians, Muslims, Hindus and Jews live to write the history of Western >Buddhism, while all the ecumenists amongst us abandon the three jewels and >drift off to join AA, the YMCA and the local Jungian Society? Cripes. I'm >glad I'm getting old. With any luck, I'll die before all that happens. A successful religion is like a sort of virus created to survive. If it has a "religious" message at all it is tiny and vehicled with lots of packaging and a very heavy DNA structure. I found this theory pretty disturbing too, yet at the same time I intuited it because after my adventure in Tibetan Buddhism, I find it impossible to get involved in any religion for those very reasons and continue my desperate quest for a religious essence in everyday life. Joy From jvriens at free.fr Sun Nov 4 03:27:50 2007 From: jvriens at free.fr (Joy Vriens) Date: Sun Nov 4 03:28:00 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Practicing ahimsa References: <675732.19077.qm@web30505.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Bill, >There is a bill in the US Senate that is still "in committee", >but that might make it out onto the Senate floor with enough >support, viz. the Cluster Munitions Civilian Protection Act >(S. 594) sponsored by Feinstein and Leahy. Despite my best >efforts to play devil's advocate, I can't see how supporting >this bill in its present form in any way violates the principle >of ahimsa. If anyone can see a downside, please send a >reply (on or off list is fine). One can only agree with this. A possible downside in my view would be that to forbid specific means of warfare could be considered as an endorsement for the other means. In France DNA tests for immigrants have entered legislation. They were presented as something positive. It would allow immigrants from countries with a deficient administration to prove their descendendacy not through papers but through a simple DNA test. There are lots of problems and possible problems involved in this that got debated, but the fact is that DNA tets have been acknowledged and that we now have an antecedent for other laws using DNA tests. The biggest problem is that in this law the definition of what constitutes a family is based on DNA, which excludes adoption, "illigetimate" children and other non-DNA based creative ways for humans to constitute families. Joy From jehms at xs4all.nl Sun Nov 4 03:29:57 2007 From: jehms at xs4all.nl (Erik Hoogcarspel) Date: Sun Nov 4 03:29:59 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] The Churching of America In-Reply-To: <200711031730.40945.rhayes@unm.edu> References: <200711031730.40945.rhayes@unm.edu> Message-ID: <472D9F25.3040306@xs4all.nl> Richard Hayes schreef: > Dear denizens (be ye churched, churchless, church-mice or churls), > > When I was in the library a while back, an interesting tome fell off the shelf > into my hands, a sure sign that God wanted me to read it and report on it for > the benefit of all sentient beings in the trichiliocosm (except for Stan > Ziobro). The work in question was written by a team of sociologists. As a > logician, epistemologist and incorrigible addict of scientism, I am required > to regard all social scientists as unfortunate souls who have gone over to > the Dark Side. Be that as it may, I have \begin(whispering) actually enjoyed > this book.\end{whispering} It has turned at least some of my thinking upside > down and made me abandon (only for a short time, of course) a few of my > deepest prejudices. > > The book, written by Roger Finke and Rodney Stark (a team named Finke and > Stark HAD to go into either sociology or Vaudeville), is entitled "The > Churching of America 1776-2005: Winners and Losers in Our Religious Economy." > Its main argument (bolstered, of course, with heaps of statistical analysis, > bar graphs, pie graphs and other pseudo-scientific legerdemain) is that the > religious institutions that have survived and thrived in America have been > those that make the most demands on their members. Churches that require > members to sign creeds, make substantial pledges of financial support, and > hew to behavioral codes both gain and keep members. Exclusivism, they argue, > has always been a crowd-pleaser. The churches that have steadily lost > membership down through the centuries have been the ones that welcome > everyone and allow people to believe and act as they see fit. > Congegationalism, Unitarianism, Universalism, and the liberal wings of > Protestant denominations have steadily declined in overall membership and in > the number of churches. Unprogrammed Quaker meetings have dwindled, while the > more evangelical and fundamentalist programmed Quakers have thrived. So say > these fellows (who can barely conceal their astonishment, since their > findings fly in the face of most sociological and historiological dogma from > the time of Weber and James onward). > > If their findings are valid, what are the implications for the survival of > Buddhist institutions in the West? Will only those that require new members > to pay substantial membership fees and do thousands of prostrations and go on > intensive retreats and neglect their spouses (or is it spice) and children > live to see the next century? Will only those who routinely ridicule > Christians, Muslims, Hindus and Jews live to write the history of Western > Buddhism, while all the ecumenists amongst us abandon the three jewels and > drift off to join AA, the YMCA and the local Jungian Society? Cripes. I'm > glad I'm getting old. With any luck, I'll die before all that happens. > > This phenomenon is not just limited to the U.S. of A. In Holland the liberal ('vrijzinnige') denominations have been reduced to restgroups to. I guess there are not more then a few hundred members left of organisations like the I.A.R.F. and W.C.R.P. I used to be a chairperson of an interreligious organisation which took its support from these circles. Liberal protestantism used to be influential here in the first half of the 20th century, even the former queen used to go to such a church. Nowadays the only growing church is the pentecostal movement. I believe that the heavy demands also make islam attracktive for some westerners. Erik Info: www.xs4all.nl/~jehms Weblog: http://www.volkskrantblog.nl/pub/blogs/blog.php?uid=2950 Productie: http://stores.lulu.com/jehmsstudio From bluelotus3 at gmail.com Sun Nov 4 06:49:31 2007 From: bluelotus3 at gmail.com (P Amin) Date: Sun Nov 4 08:19:54 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] re. Heart of the Matter? Message-ID: <6b27d1af0711040549o795d1396m32c705f12fe7c533@mail.gmail.com> Hi! All, I am no scholar but a mere student of Buddhism and am interested in all other branches of philosophy. I am not even sure if it is my place here to say something? But I couldn't resist the temptation after reading the 'heart of the matter'. I wanted to say something about the Kundalini cakras and the one of them being near to the heart, and having attributes of the heart. While interpreting Abhinava Gupta (an eminent tantric philosopher of 11th century based in Kashmir, India), Laxman Joo (a present day tantric practitioner, also from Kashmir) says that the seat of all cakras are the heart, despite of their physical location being in different part of the body. I thought was an incredible philosophical finding. I have also read that the seat of the soul which is the core of our being is at an equal distance form the heart and the mind (brain) in the middle part of the chest. As Buddha says 'Daya' in my language and compassion in English which I think is the core of Buddhism, and from which the whole Buddhist philosophy emanates, comes from the heart. I would say regarding to my previous argument that I would do away with just the heart rather than mind!!! Parul Amin India From rhayes at unm.edu Sun Nov 4 08:55:27 2007 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Sun Nov 4 08:55:48 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] The Churching of America In-Reply-To: <472D9F25.3040306@xs4all.nl> References: <200711031730.40945.rhayes@unm.edu> <472D9F25.3040306@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <200711040855.27726.rhayes@unm.edu> On Sunday 04 November 2007 03:29, Erik Hoogcarspel schreef: > This phenomenon is not just limited to the U.S. of A. In Holland the > liberal ('vrijzinnige') denominations have been reduced to restgroups > to. People have been arguing for a long time that in countries that have a culture of religious tolerance one would expect a growth of tolerant religions. In the early part of the 20th century sociologists were predicting that secularism would become the societal norm in the USA and that most religions would either become secularized or cease to exist. (When I was growing up in the 1950s, most of the people I knew were pretty confident that religion would soon disappear from the USA, thereby answering their prayers.) Those predictions have not turned out to be accurate. It is estimated that at the time of the American revolution, about 17% of the population belonged to a church or attended church services regularly. By the time of the civil war (1860s), about 40% of the American population belonged to a church. The brutality civil war apparently made a lot of people cynical about religion---even old Mark Twain got a bit cynical---and church attendance fell after that war. It then picked up again in the 1880s and has risen steadily ever since. At present about 65% of Americans belong to a church and attend regularly. That amazes me. And the churches that most people attend are not at all secular, and many are not especially tolerant. So what religious freedom has evolved into (or perhaps was ordained by God to become) is that everyone is free to choose his or her own brand of religious intolerance. People who want to be secular and liberal tend to stay away from churches. They become academics instead. I'm sorry to hear about the Netherlands following a similar pattern (although I'd guess that the numbers of people attending church regularly is lower there than in the land from which I write, which is paradoxically both God-saturated and God-forsaken). > Nowadays the only growing church is the pentecostal movement. I > believe that the heavy demands also make islam attracktive for some > westerners. A book that quite a few people have been reading recently is Bruce Brawer's "While Europe Slept." Do you know it? It's a hysterical diatribe written by an American who moved to the Netherlands to escape the religious fanaticism of America, only to find himself surrounded by fanatical Muslims in Amsterdam. Brawer is homosexual and claims he feels more persecuted by Dutch Muslims than he ever felt by American evangelical Christians. Needless to say, the book feeds the feverish sentiments of the American Crusaders, who feel there will never be a moment's peace until Islam has been eradicated from the face of the earth. I still wonder what all these trends mean for the future of Buddhism in North America (and the Netherlands and elsewhere in Europa). I'd say more, but I have to run along to church now. It's Sunday, you know. -- Richard P. Hayes Department of Philosophy University of New Mexico http://www.unm.edu/~rhayes From jehms at xs4all.nl Sun Nov 4 09:00:27 2007 From: jehms at xs4all.nl (Erik Hoogcarspel) Date: Sun Nov 4 09:00:29 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] re. Heart of the Matter? In-Reply-To: <6b27d1af0711040549o795d1396m32c705f12fe7c533@mail.gmail.com> References: <6b27d1af0711040549o795d1396m32c705f12fe7c533@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <472DEC9B.4090503@xs4all.nl> P Amin schreef: > Hi! All, > > I am no scholar but a mere student of Buddhism and am interested in > all other branches of philosophy. I am not even sure if it is my place > here to say something? But I couldn't resist the temptation after > reading the 'heart of the matter'. > > I wanted to say something about the Kundalini cakras and the one of > them being near to the heart, and having attributes of the heart. > While interpreting Abhinava Gupta (an eminent tantric philosopher of > 11th century based in Kashmir, India), Laxman Joo (a present day > tantric practitioner, also from Kashmir) says that the seat of all > cakras are the heart, despite of their physical location being in > different part of the body. I thought was an incredible > philosophical finding. I have also read that the seat of the soul > which is the core of our being is at an equal distance form the heart > and the mind (brain) in the middle part of the chest. > > As Buddha says 'Daya' in my language and compassion in English which I > think is the core of Buddhism, and from which the whole Buddhist > philosophy emanates, comes from the heart. I would say regarding to my > previous argument that I would do away with just the heart rather than > mind!!! > > Parul Amin > India > Hi Parul, the underlying assumption of this kind of discussion is that the mind has to be located somewhere. This means that the mind or consciousness is a physical object, because only matter takes up space. It makes no sense to say that friendship or hatred or the number Pi or the square root of two are located somewhere. When we write down the Greek character Pi, we write down the signifier which means for us 'pi'. It seems to me that the discussion you're referring to is merely about what a suitable signifier would be for mind or consciousness and that is a conventional matter. Another but related question is how body and mind influence each other, and that is a complicated biological puzzle, which is not addressed in the discussion. Erik Info: www.xs4all.nl/~jehms Weblog: http://www.volkskrantblog.nl/pub/blogs/blog.php?uid=2950 Productie: http://stores.lulu.com/jehmsstudio From franzmetcalf at earthlink.net Sun Nov 4 10:22:47 2007 From: franzmetcalf at earthlink.net (Franz Metcalf) Date: Sun Nov 4 10:22:53 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] NYTimes.com: Let Us Pray for Wealth In-Reply-To: References: <4EF323AE.353A6237.007A239A@cs.com> Message-ID: Joy et al., Joy answered Stan Ziobro's question on why paying taxes might be considered a more religious (or moral, or spiritual, or Buddhist) act than giving to a charity. In fact, he answered it so well I think it bears repeating: > For a Buddhist [paying taxes] comes as near to the absence of the > three circles as one can get as a member of society: the subject, the > object of the giving and the act itself are so diluted that it almost > looks like the simple act of survival of society itself, almost devoid > of the notion of individual selves. I just want to say thank you for this. It gave me one of those rare "aha!" moments when my eyes are opened to a truth so clear it was hiding in plain sight. Paying my taxes is indeed a beautiful, and highly Buddhist, act. Or it would be if I were living in the Vajji confederacy. But the mere presence of this new understanding in my head somehow changes me and my relationship to my government. Bowing, Franz (who's about to send off a check for $1800 in property taxes to the County of Los Angeles) From jvriens at free.fr Sun Nov 4 11:38:10 2007 From: jvriens at free.fr (Joy Vriens) Date: Sun Nov 4 11:38:21 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] NYTimes.com: Let Us Pray for Wealth References: Message-ID: Franz, >I just want to say thank you for this. It gave me one of those rare >"aha!" moments when my eyes are opened to a truth so clear it was >hiding in plain sight. Paying my taxes is indeed a beautiful, and >highly Buddhist, act. Or it would be if I were living in the Vajji >confederacy. But the mere presence of this new understanding in my head >somehow changes me and my relationship to my government. >Bowing, >Franz >(who's about to send off a check for $1800 in property taxes to the >County of Los Angeles) Thank you for thanking me and the only answer to your bow is a bow to you. Another advantage is that by stoically welcoming and even desiring the taxes, we can elect our politicians for more authentic reasons than economic self interest. I don't know whether that possibility exists, but as good Buddhist citizens we could make donations to our national and local governements by paying more taxes than we owe them. I would love to see them react to that spontaneous act of generosity. Instead of civil disobedience, civil overobedience :-) Joy From jehms at xs4all.nl Sun Nov 4 12:27:57 2007 From: jehms at xs4all.nl (Erik Hoogcarspel) Date: Sun Nov 4 12:28:03 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] The Churching of America In-Reply-To: <200711040855.27726.rhayes@unm.edu> References: <200711031730.40945.rhayes@unm.edu> <472D9F25.3040306@xs4all.nl> <200711040855.27726.rhayes@unm.edu> Message-ID: <472E1D3D.7070706@xs4all.nl> Richard Hayes schreef: >> Nowadays the only growing church is the pentecostal movement. I >> believe that the heavy demands also make islam attracktive for some >> westerners. >> > > A book that quite a few people have been reading recently is Bruce > Brawer's "While Europe Slept." Do you know it? It's a hysterical diatribe > written by an American who moved to the Netherlands to escape the religious > fanaticism of America, only to find himself surrounded by fanatical Muslims > in Amsterdam. Brawer is homosexual and claims he feels more persecuted by > Dutch Muslims than he ever felt by American evangelical Christians. Needless > to say, the book feeds the feverish sentiments of the American Crusaders, who > feel there will never be a moment's peace until Islam has been eradicated > from the face of the earth. > I'm not sure, I remember having read a short overview of a book just like that one. The problem is hot and it's not caused by the Islam per se. The young Turks usually behave, because their upbringing is rather strict, but the young Maroccans are often neglected. I think the idea is in Marocco that the other members of the village are coresponsable for guiding the youth. In a big city outside Marocco this social control is absent. In Amsterdam they just hang out in the streets and being neglected, the take on a fresh feeling of identity by being different. So they feel more Muslim then their parents and listen to radical imams. One of them advocated once throwing homosexuals from a high building. He was send back to Egypt where he came from. Muslims also reported that very few take what is said in the mosque literally, because an imam is not very different from an American TV-reverent: the experience matters most. You'll find this problem of neglected alienated youth everywhere in Europe. Because these youngsters often pass over to petty crime and worse the mayor of Amsterdam tries all he can to get them into socialisation programs. > I still wonder what all these trends mean for the future of Buddhism in North > America (and the Netherlands and elsewhere in Europa). > > I'd say more, but I have to run along to church now. It's Sunday, you know. > > Since Tibetan Buddhism is to complicated and Zen to time consuming, it may be a chance for strict Theravada. What is the furniture in your church? In Holland the more succesful churches have their version of a malcomfort. No cushions, but hard wooden seats and an edge just halfway your spine so that you have to sit straight all the time. And of course no heating. I think it's to assure that believers get to heaven as soon as possible. ;-) -- Erik Info: www.xs4all.nl/~jehms Weblog: http://www.volkskrantblog.nl/pub/blogs/blog.php?uid=2950 Productie: http://stores.lulu.com/jehmsstudio From Margaret.Gouin at bristol.ac.uk Mon Nov 5 00:35:13 2007 From: Margaret.Gouin at bristol.ac.uk (Margaret Gouin) Date: Mon Nov 5 00:35:21 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Liberal versus Strict? In-Reply-To: <472D9F25.3040306@xs4all.nl> References: <200711031730.40945.rhayes@unm.edu> <472D9F25.3040306@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <60741.88.203.58.171.1194248113.squirrel@webmail.bris.ac.uk> On Sun, November 4, 2007 10:29 am, Erik Hoogcarspel wrote: > Nowadays the only growing church is the pentecostal movement. I > believe that the heavy demands also make islam attracktive for some > westerners. > I have wondered too about the attraction of 'strict' religion. I have been speculating on whether this is because you always know where you are with a strict religion. There's a book of rules. You obey them, you get rewarded. You disobey them, you get punished. There are a set of people--rabbis, imams, pastors, whatever--who tell you exactly what is what. And so you are relieved from the dreadful uncertainty of day-to-day life. You don't have to think about what is the ethical thing to do in any given situation, because your book and your leader tell you exactly what to do in all situations like that. You don't have to think about your responsibility because you don't have any responsibility except to obey the rules and the diktats of your spiritual leader. And so on. In a liberal religion, you have to make your own decisions and choices, and in the course of doing so you take on the responsibility for your own 'religious' (spiritual) destiny. That is scary. This doesn't just apply to the Semitic religions. I know more than a few Westerners who practice Buddhism who think similarly (i.e. they turn everything into strict rules that 'have' to be followed); but then more than a few who don't. It doesn't depend on the religion, it depends on the person. For some people, the presence of uncertainty in Buddhism--that you are expected to be making your own choices according to each situation--is precisely what they can't handle. For me it's one of the things that I value most. Additional note: A year or so ago I saw where a Shaivite guru living in Hawai'i had written a 'creed' for followers of Shiva, rather along the lines of the ten commandments. It struck me as unusual--I've not heard of any other Hindu 'creeds' but I'm not very familiar with Hinduism. Perhaps the fact that he was American-born influenced his need to establish a creed--or perhaps his (largely Western convert) followers needed a creed to follow so they knew they were 'doing it right'? Margaret -- Margaret Gouin PhD Candidate Centre for Buddhist Studies Department of Theology and Religious Studies University of Bristol (UK) From rhayes at unm.edu Mon Nov 5 10:21:35 2007 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Mon Nov 5 10:22:01 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] NYTimes.com: Let Us Pray for Wealth In-Reply-To: References: <4EF323AE.353A6237.007A239A@cs.com> Message-ID: <200711051021.35389.rhayes@unm.edu> On Sunday 04 November 2007 10:22, Franz Metcalf wrote: > Paying my taxes is indeed a beautiful, and > highly Buddhist, act. This was how I felt about paying taxes when I lived in Canada. I actually loved paying taxes, knowing that the money went to fund an excellent health-care program in which every resident was fully covered, a system of higher education in which tuitions were affordable to almost everyone, and a military most of the members of which wear blue UN helmets and the rest of whom help people recover from floods, ice storms and other difficulties that nature throws at denizens of the planet earth. Since coming to the United States, I have come to regard paying taxes as an act of treason, not to mention a violation of every Buddhist principle of which I am aware. Most of the money raised by taxes from everyone but the wealthy is used to help destroy not only this country but several others. Stan Ziobro bristles at the tiny amount of tax money that goes to paying for abortions, a procedure of which he disapproves. I bristle at the huge percentage of everyone's tax money that goes to pay for the storage of completely unnecessary nuclear warheads, the gratuitous and illegal invasions of other countries, the illegal detention without formal charges or the right to trials and often the torture of people suspected by one man to be potential terrorists, and the systematic shredding of the country's constitution. In this country, if one is not in prison for tax evasion, one should hang one's head in shame. Hanging my head in shame, Richard -- Richard P. Hayes Department of Philosophy University of New Mexico http://www.unm.edu/~rhayes From cfynn at gmx.net Mon Nov 5 10:40:01 2007 From: cfynn at gmx.net (Christopher Fynn) Date: Mon Nov 5 10:40:46 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] NYTimes.com: Let Us Pray for Wealth In-Reply-To: <4EF323AE.353A6237.007A239A@cs.com> References: <4EF323AE.353A6237.007A239A@cs.com> Message-ID: <472F5571.8040204@gmx.net> SJZiobro@cs.com wrote: > Also, your tax dollars help fund the current wars on terrorism. I happen to > support these wars, but if you consider war antithetical to religion, then my > question still holds. I too am against terrorism - but aren't some of the tactics used in the current 'wars on terrorism' (e.g. "shock and awe") designed to create terror? - Chris From curt at cola.iges.org Mon Nov 5 12:05:20 2007 From: curt at cola.iges.org (curt) Date: Mon Nov 5 12:05:44 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] NYTimes.com: Let Us Pray for Wealth In-Reply-To: References: <0EE770CC.19B9B8C6.007A239A@cs.com> <472CFAE1.8010509@cola.iges.org> Message-ID: <472F6970.1060205@cola.iges.org> Tim Bovee/Datni LLC wrote: > > Requiring "face the planet" as the field of action pretty much limits things > to Western Christianity sometime after 1600, no? Only the Europeans > developed global reach. > > > The Christians and Muslims both managed to wipe religions off the face of the planet well before 1600. In particular they wiped out *all* other religions besides their own and Judaism from Europe, North Africa and the Middle East. I think that both Christianity and Islam follow the motto: "Think globally, extirpate locally." If anyone knows of any evidence for any survival of any religions from Europe, North Africa or the Middle East - other than Christianity, Islam and Judaism - that would be another significant contribution to human knowledge. There are hints and indications here and there - but nothing that is definitive. Curt Steinmetz From curt at cola.iges.org Mon Nov 5 12:22:16 2007 From: curt at cola.iges.org (curt) Date: Mon Nov 5 12:22:31 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] NYTimes.com: Let Us Pray for Wealth In-Reply-To: <0CE8F115.2AEAEDDB.007A239A@cs.com> References: <0CE8F115.2AEAEDDB.007A239A@cs.com> Message-ID: <472F6D68.10008@cola.iges.org> SJZiobro@cs.com wrote: > Curt, > > Yes, you are missing something, namely, openess to the historical record. For example, what are the Hindus and the Buddhists fighting over in Sri Lanka? What are the Communists fighting over in Tibet? Do you need more hints? > > > If you contend that there are, somewhere hidden from our view because of deficiencies in the historical record, cases in which Hindus, Buddhists, etc, have extirpated other religions then there needs to be some evidence or at least reasoning to support that claim. In the cases of Christianity and Islam there is no doubt. We not only have smoking guns galore - but self-glorifying confessions from the perpetrators (and these confessions closely match up with the physical evidence). At the very least there should some kind of clear evidence for the existence of a religion at point A in history - and then later on, at point B (and everything subsequent to it), no more evidence for it. It would be helpful if Buddhists, or Hindus, etc, could be shown to have been somewhere in the general vicinity during the interval from A to B. India and China are not without historical records - and there is always archeology. Before other religions can be "assumed guilty" some case must be presented. Even circumstantial evidence (as outlined in the previous paragraph) would be a good starting point. Curt Steinmetz From rhayes at unm.edu Mon Nov 5 12:32:46 2007 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Mon Nov 5 12:32:51 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] NYTimes.com: Let Us Pray for Wealth In-Reply-To: <472F6970.1060205@cola.iges.org> References: <0EE770CC.19B9B8C6.007A239A@cs.com> <472F6970.1060205@cola.iges.org> Message-ID: <200711051232.46740.rhayes@unm.edu> On Monday 05 November 2007 12:05, curt wrote: > If anyone knows of any evidence for any survival of any religions from > Europe, North Africa or the Middle East - other than Christianity, Islam > and Judaism - that would be another significant contribution to human > knowledge. I guess we would have to know your criteria for survival. In Europe and North American Christianity there are plenty of elements of indigenous European and native American religions that have become incorporated into what is nominally called Christianity. One might even argue that far more of European and American indigenous religion than middle-eastern Christianity has survived in European and American Christianity. Similar observations could probably be made of Judaism. So we might say the forms of non-Abrahamic religions have survived, but not the names. If I understand you rightly, you would say precisely the same is true of Western Buddhism, namely, that it is more Western than Buddhist. If I do understand you rightly, I think you are right about this. Where we might disagree slightly is how much we approve of the bastard children than have been born of the mingling of European paganism with Buddhism, Christianity, Islam and Judaism. -- Richard P. Hayes Department of Philosophy University of New Mexico http://www.unm.edu/~rhayes From franzmetcalf at earthlink.net Mon Nov 5 13:49:54 2007 From: franzmetcalf at earthlink.net (Franz Metcalf) Date: Mon Nov 5 13:50:03 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] NYTimes.com: Let Us Pray for Wealth In-Reply-To: <200711051021.35389.rhayes@unm.edu> References: <4EF323AE.353A6237.007A239A@cs.com> <200711051021.35389.rhayes@unm.edu> Message-ID: Richard et al., You reminisced, >> Paying my taxes is indeed a beautiful, and >> highly Buddhist, act. > > This was how I felt about paying taxes when I lived in Canada. I > actually > loved paying taxes.... Yes, I felt this way too, at least about local and provincial taxes in British Columbia. Playing every day in Vancouver's lovely parks, taking my two year old to the "West Side Family Centre" which was essentially a preschool subsidized by the province, and biking through the parks and the university's endowment lands brought home to me in the most physical way the vital role of government in providing things individuals simply cannot. Sadly, my time in Canada coincided with the rise of its conservative government and its increasing rhetoric and practice of international aggression, so I would not have been so sanguine about paying federal taxes. In fact, there were articles in the alternative press about how British Columbians could avoid paying those taxes. I believe a similar situation exists in the United States. Stan, is this so? Have you looked into it? Perhaps we should treat governments as we treat family members. Each one will do things we can't stand, but our job is not to reject them for that, but rather to treat them with wisdom and compassion. If the gigantic US federal government spends one billionth of its resources on something we abhor (as Stan does abortions), then we should chastise it and redirect it along other paths. Perhaps we can even withhold that portion of our tax. But we cannot simply condemn the creature and walk away. Meanwhile, how should governments treat *us*? What is the responsibility of leaders (and thus governments)? Here's one answer from the--mandatory Buddhist content--Pali Canon: leaders need to uphold frequent meetings, harmony in interaction of leaders, respect for traditions and precedents, respect and active support for elders, protection of the physical rights of women, respect and active support for religious sites and practices, and respect and active support for awakened ones. For these leaders and their countries," the furtherance of their welfare and prosperity is to be expected, not their decline" (from the Mahaparinibanna Sutta, Digha Nikaya 16). I won't hold my breath, Franz From gbungo at earthlink.net Mon Nov 5 14:18:39 2007 From: gbungo at earthlink.net (Gregory Bungo) Date: Mon Nov 5 14:18:44 2007 Subject: Non-Abe Religions, was Re: [Buddha-l] NYTimes.com: Let Us Pray for Wealth Message-ID: <25024603.1194297520276.JavaMail.root@elwamui-polski.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Hi, On Monday 05 November 2007 12:05, curt wrote: > If anyone knows of any evidence for any survival of any religions from > Europe, North Africa or the Middle East - other than Christianity, Islam > and Judaism - that would be another significant contribution to human > knowledge. There are still some Zoroastrians in Iran: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrian#In_Greater_Iran Not many though. Wikipedia estimates there are about 22,000: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrians_in_Iran#Revolution Sincerely, Greg Bungo From david.r.webster at blueyonder.co.uk Mon Nov 5 14:03:27 2007 From: david.r.webster at blueyonder.co.uk (David Webster) Date: Mon Nov 5 14:23:35 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] NYTimes.com: Let Us Pray for Wealth In-Reply-To: <200711051232.46740.rhayes@unm.edu> References: <0EE770CC.19B9B8C6.007A239A@cs.com><472F6970.1060205@cola.iges.org> <200711051232.46740.rhayes@unm.edu> Message-ID: I have students every year who claim to be pagans and witches. No druids yet - but I imagine it to only be a matter of time. Also - Has Judaism 'survived' - it has in terms of a sense of historical continuity - but only at the expense of radical change compared to its early expression - - is it the same religion at all? We could say the same of Hinduism I guess. ---------------------------------------- Dr David Webster Course Leader: Religion, Philosophy & Ethics University of Gloucestershire 01242 71 4778 e-mail: dwebster@glos.ac.uk Course blog: blogspot.com" http://www.r-p-e.blogspot.com ---------------------------------------- -----Original Message----- From: buddha-l-bounces@mailman.swcp.com [mailto:buddha-l-bounces@mailman.swcp.com] On Behalf Of Richard Hayes Sent: 05 November 2007 19:33 To: Buddhist discussion forum Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] NYTimes.com: Let Us Pray for Wealth On Monday 05 November 2007 12:05, curt wrote: > If anyone knows of any evidence for any survival of any religions from > Europe, North Africa or the Middle East - other than Christianity, Islam > and Judaism - that would be another significant contribution to human > knowledge. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.22/1111 - Release Date: 05/11/2007 04:36 From SJZiobro at cs.com Mon Nov 5 16:12:16 2007 From: SJZiobro at cs.com (SJZiobro@cs.com) Date: Mon Nov 5 16:12:29 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] NYTimes.com: Let Us Pray for Wealth Message-ID: <1ABEE5F6.267257A8.007A239A@cs.com> curt wrote: >SJZiobro@cs.com wrote: >> Curt, >> >> Yes, you are missing something, namely, openess to the historical record. ?For example, what are the Hindus and the Buddhists fighting over in Sri Lanka? ?What are the Communists fighting over in Tibet? ?Do you need more hints? >> >> >> ? >If you contend that there are, somewhere hidden from our view because of >deficiencies in the historical record, cases in which Hindus, Buddhists, >etc, have extirpated other religions then there needs to be some >evidence or at least reasoning to support that claim. In the cases of >Christianity and Islam there is no doubt. Curt, There is also no doubt relative to what I mentioned earlier, plus the anti-Christian extinction efforts of the Tokugawa shogunate in Japan, of the persecutions in Korea, of the continuing efforts in Communist China. I know this doesn't fit into your worldview, but neither can it be denied by any rational observer. Regards, Stan From SJZiobro at cs.com Mon Nov 5 18:46:49 2007 From: SJZiobro at cs.com (SJZiobro@cs.com) Date: Mon Nov 5 18:47:01 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Liberal versus Strict? Message-ID: <14523718.7BDEE259.007A239A@cs.com> "Margaret Gouin" wrote: >On Sun, November 4, 2007 10:29 am, Erik Hoogcarspel wrote: >> Nowadays the only growing church is the pentecostal movement. I >> believe that the heavy demands also make islam attracktive for some >> westerners. >> >I have wondered too about the attraction of 'strict' religion. I have been >speculating on whether this is because you always know where you are with >a strict religion. There's a book of rules. You obey them, you get >rewarded. You disobey them, you get punished. There are a set of >people--rabbis, imams, pastors, whatever--who tell you exactly what is >what. And so you are relieved from the dreadful uncertainty of day-to-day >life. You don't have to think about what is the ethical thing to do in any >given situation, because your book and your leader tell you exactly what >to do in all situations like that. You don't have to think about your >responsibility because you don't have any responsibility except to obey >the rules and the diktats of your spiritual leader. And so on. > >In a liberal religion, you have to make your own decisions and choices, >and in the course of doing so you take on the responsibility for your own >'religious' (spiritual) destiny. That is scary. Margaret, I don't know if you've heard of moral theology, but for any who have studied it notions of just following the rules for a sense of security seem rather distant. Also, when reading and studying the writings of the mystics there are next to none I know of who fail to write of a point beyond which the rules are transcended. Your thoughts here have more merit when speaking about certain personality types. Here is an anecdote I heard from a Fr. Ladislas Orsey, a moral theologian who was at Vatican II. Soon after the Council Paul VI relaxed the fasting rules for the reception of Communion. Orsey was riding in a taxi with a few American theologians and they were discussing this development. The gist of the conversation was that the Americans were very concerned to follow the rules exactly. Orsey told them that was one way of approaching the matter, but that the average Italian had a different view. To illustrate his point he asked the driver if he had heard of the new rules for fasting. The driver said yes, he had. According to these rules one could take no sustanence or drink other than water one hour before receiving Communion. So, Orsey asked, "If you were to have a little wine less than one hour before Communion, would that be permissible?" The driver looked at him and the others incredulously and remarked that one might waste a perfectly good opportunity to enjoy fine wine with friends. Orsey's point was made. This isn't uncommon, and it seems to me to provide examples contrary to your claims. Regards, Stan Ziobro From SJZiobro at cs.com Mon Nov 5 18:55:18 2007 From: SJZiobro at cs.com (SJZiobro@cs.com) Date: Mon Nov 5 18:55:38 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] NYTimes.com: Let Us Pray for Wealth Message-ID: <32D54A75.4D593BBB.007A239A@cs.com> Joy, Thank you for clarifying your position. It's not what I would advocate, but the point I'm interested in is clarity, not necessarily agreement. Stan "Joy Vriens" wrote: >Stan wrote, > >>How is paying exhorbitant amounts of taxes to the government a more religious act than paying to charities of one's choice? > >"Two people went up to the temple area to pray; one was a Pharisee and the other was a tax collector. >The Pharisee took up his position and spoke this prayer to himself, 'O God, I thank you that I am not like the rest of humanity--greedy, dishonest, adulterous--or even like this tax collector. >I fast twice a week, and I pay tithes on my whole income.' >But the tax collector stood off at a distance and would not even raise his eyes to heaven but beat his breast and prayed, 'O God, be merciful to me a sinner.' >I tell you, the latter went home justified, not the former; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and the one who humbles himself will be exalted." >Luke Chapter 18 > >The beauty of taxes in a good functioning society would be that the money goes to those who in need of it. Food, lodging, studies, health care etc etc All those things that e.g. the gospels recommend. And ?it is also a more humbling and therefore justifying experience then to give it to handpicked causes chosen on the basis of arguments and motivations that are not always very humbling. For a Buddhist it comes as near to the absence of the three circles as one can get as a member of society: the subject, the object of the giving and the act itself are so diluted that it almost looks like the simple act of survival of society itself, almost devoid of the notion of individual selves. ? > >>Govenrment funds all sorts of things that are antithetical to religion, for instance, abortion and the resulting harm done to the woman on all levels (not to mention the killing of an innocent human being). > >I am equally concerned about the harm being done to women and think it's good the government uses my tax money to improve the situation. I read that every day one woman is killed by her husband or boyfriend in the States. And that is only the top of the iceberg. I expect the situation to be similar in other countries. Since I am not a woman, I think it's fair that women decide themselves what exactly harms them and I am glad to contribute removing the harm and causes of harm. It is better to prevent dramatic outcomes by improving the situations leading up to them. But that costs money, which I am happy to give. We all share the same world and can improve it if we work together and contribute to this according to our means. > >>Also, your tax dollars help fund the current wars on terrorism. ?I happen to support these wars, but if you consider war antithetical to religion, then my question still holds. > >This a sore spot indeed. I don't like my tax money being used for wars that create more weapons, more wars and more killing of innocent human beings and I would certainly let my government know how I felt about that. > >Joy > >_______________________________________________ >buddha-l mailing list >buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com >http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l > From Margaret.Gouin at bristol.ac.uk Mon Nov 5 23:49:12 2007 From: Margaret.Gouin at bristol.ac.uk (Margaret Gouin) Date: Mon Nov 5 23:49:23 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Liberal versus Strict? In-Reply-To: <14523718.7BDEE259.007A239A@cs.com> References: <14523718.7BDEE259.007A239A@cs.com> Message-ID: <60575.88.203.58.171.1194331752.squirrel@webmail.bris.ac.uk> On Tue, November 6, 2007 1:46 am, SJZiobro@cs.com wrote: > This isn't uncommon, and it seems to > me to provide examples contrary to your claims. > Not claims, Stan, merely speculation (as stated at the beginning of my post). And I should have made clearer that I meant the attraction of 'strict' as opposed to 'liberal' religion to certain personality types. I think your example more supports my speculation than otherwise... the taxidriver practised a 'liberal' approach to his religion, while the Americans in the taxi practised a 'strict' approach. It was the same religion, I believe--Roman Catholicism--but like every other religion, it can be approached in different ways. I know a convert to Roman Catholicism who is extremely strict in his observance; I know a convert to Tibetan Buddhism who focuses intently on having everything 'authentically Tibetan'. Then I know liberal Roman Catholic converts, and Western converts to Tibetan Buddhism who are really pretty relaxed about it all. In the original post, as I recall, what triggered my speculation was a reference to the rising interest in stricter forms of Islam. My point remains that an increasing sense of insecurity in this wonderful modern world of ours will lead some people to seek greater certainty (and perhaps a sense of personal security) through a more formalised and structured religious practice. Other people, of course, can live without it. Thank you for your story! -- Margaret Gouin PhD Candidate Centre for Buddhist Studies Department of Theology and Religious Studies University of Bristol (UK) From selwyn at ntlworld.com Tue Nov 6 00:01:07 2007 From: selwyn at ntlworld.com (L.S. Cousins) Date: Tue Nov 6 00:17:23 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] NYTimes.com: Let Us Pray for Wealth In-Reply-To: <1ABEE5F6.267257A8.007A239A@cs.com> References: <1ABEE5F6.267257A8.007A239A@cs.com> Message-ID: I can't understand some of this. 1. Hindus and Buddhist are not fighting in Sri Lanka. The Tamil Tigers - a Marxist organization founded and led by members of the Christian community - are fighting to establish a separate linguistically-based Tamil state. I do not believe that most Buddhists or Hindus have any interest at all in extirpating each others' religion. Some Marxist members of the Tigers might be an exception, but if so, they would probably want to extirpate all religions (except Marxism). 2. I fail to understand how Communists fighting to control their colony in Tibet has anything to do with whether Buddhists historically try to extirpate other religions. 3. Again it is difficult to see how persecutions by the Communist government in China have anything to do with the point. 4. I don't understand the reference to Korea. 5. The only valid point here is the reference to the Tokugawa shogunate, assuming one accepts that the Shogunate was Buddhist. But we should note that this was a response to a rather vicious campaign of murder and destruction carried out by 'Christian' military forces across Asia. Unfortunately, we have to acknowledge that violence is infectious and Christian/Muslim violence has sometimes infected other religions on their frontier. It is regrettable that many generally well-meaning Christians and Muslims are unwilling to acknowledge the degree of violence in their history. Lance Cousins >curt wrote: >>SJZiobro@cs.com wrote: >>> Curt, >>> >>> Yes, you are missing something, namely, openess to the historical >>>record. For example, what are the Hindus and the Buddhists >>>fighting over in Sri Lanka? What are the Communists fighting over >>>in Tibet? Do you need more hints? >>> >>> >>> >>If you contend that there are, somewhere hidden from our view because of >>deficiencies in the historical record, cases in which Hindus, Buddhists, >>etc, have extirpated other religions then there needs to be some >>evidence or at least reasoning to support that claim. In the cases of >>Christianity and Islam there is no doubt. > >Curt, > >There is also no doubt relative to what I mentioned earlier, plus >the anti-Christian extinction efforts of the Tokugawa shogunate in >Japan, of the persecutions in Korea, of the continuing efforts in >Communist China. I know this doesn't fit into your worldview, but >neither can it be denied by any rational observer. > >Regards, > >Stan From wdkish81 at yahoo.com Tue Nov 6 06:22:01 2007 From: wdkish81 at yahoo.com (Bill Kish) Date: Tue Nov 6 06:22:06 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] NYTimes.com: Let Us Pray for Wealth In-Reply-To: <200711051906.lA5J6EAM011262@ns1.swcp.com> Message-ID: <839444.96960.qm@web30502.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Curt: > If anyone knows of any evidence for any survival of any > religions from Europe, North Africa or the Middle East > - other than Christianity, Islam and Judaism - that would > be another significant contribution to human knowledge. > There are hints and indications here and there - but > nothing that is definitive. What about the Yezidi religion ? I believe it still exists amongst the Kurds. See http://www.yezidi.org for more information (they used to have a site in English, but it doesn't seem to be available now). --------- Bill Kish __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From SJZiobro at cs.com Tue Nov 6 06:24:36 2007 From: SJZiobro at cs.com (SJZiobro@cs.com) Date: Tue Nov 6 06:24:51 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] NYTimes.com: Let Us Pray for Wealth Message-ID: <04FE7930.0742235A.007A239A@cs.com> Joy, Now that I have a few minutes more I thought to add the following. First, one can use religious principles along with a political ideology, for instance, theories of dana in conjunction with the implicit socialism of those who consider it wonderful to pay large amounts of taxes to the government so that government can make of one's society a workers paradise. Whether or not paying taxes is an act of religion is, however, more that open to question. At best, in my understanding, it would be an act of the virtue of justice in giving whomever their due, and this accords with all the relevant Gospel and other New Testament writings. Second, I think your use of Luke here misses the point of Christ's parable against religious pride, arrogance, and a lack of mercy. The real issue here is self-knowledge and knowledge of the Other. Third, is it the case that the Buddhist sutras and shastras supports and favors big government and the paying of taxes? Regards, Stan "Joy Vriens" wrote: >Stan wrote, > >>How is paying exhorbitant amounts of taxes to the government a more religious act than paying to charities of one's choice? > >"Two people went up to the temple area to pray; one was a Pharisee and the other was a tax collector. >The Pharisee took up his position and spoke this prayer to himself, 'O God, I thank you that I am not like the rest of humanity--greedy, dishonest, adulterous--or even like this tax collector. >I fast twice a week, and I pay tithes on my whole income.' >But the tax collector stood off at a distance and would not even raise his eyes to heaven but beat his breast and prayed, 'O God, be merciful to me a sinner.' >I tell you, the latter went home justified, not the former; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and the one who humbles himself will be exalted." >Luke Chapter 18 > >The beauty of taxes in a good functioning society would be that the money goes to those who in need of it. Food, lodging, studies, health care etc etc All those things that e.g. the gospels recommend. And it is also a more humbling and therefore justifying experience then to give it to handpicked causes chosen on the basis of arguments and motivations that are not always very humbling. For a Buddhist it comes as near to the absence of the three circles as one can get as a member of society: the subject, the object of the giving and the act itself are so diluted that it almost looks like the simple act of survival of society itself, almost devoid of the notion of individual selves. > >>Govenrment funds all sorts of things that are antithetical to religion, for instance, abortion and the resulting harm done to the woman on all levels (not to mention the killing of an innocent human being). > >I am equally concerned about the harm being done to women and think it's good the government uses my tax money to improve the situation. I read that every day one woman is killed by her husband or boyfriend in the States. And that is only the top of the iceberg. I expect the situation to be similar in other countries. Since I am not a woman, I think it's fair that women decide themselves what exactly harms them and I am glad to contribute removing the harm and causes of harm. It is better to prevent dramatic outcomes by improving the situations leading up to them. But that costs money, which I am happy to give. We all share the same world and can improve it if we work together and contribute to this according to our means. > >>Also, your tax dollars help fund the current wars on terrorism. I happen to support these wars, but if you consider war antithetical to religion, then my question still holds. > >This a sore spot indeed. I don't like my tax money being used for wars that create more weapons, more wars and more killing of innocent human beings and I would certainly let my government know how I felt about that. > >Joy From SJZiobro at cs.com Tue Nov 6 06:37:21 2007 From: SJZiobro at cs.com (SJZiobro@cs.com) Date: Tue Nov 6 06:37:34 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] NYTimes.com: Let Us Pray for Wealth Message-ID: <19F4C30C.08C1B13D.007A239A@cs.com> "L.S. Cousins" wrote: >I can't understand some of this. > >1. Hindus and Buddhist are not fighting in Sri Lanka. The Tamil >Tigers - a Marxist organization founded and led by members of the >Christian community - are fighting to establish a separate >linguistically-based Tamil state. I do not believe that most >Buddhists or Hindus have any interest at all in extirpating each >others' religion. Some Marxist members of the Tigers might be an >exception, but if so, they would probably want to extirpate all >religions (except Marxism). As stated, Lance, I agree. Nonetheless, in India there are areas where either Muslims or Hindus persecute Christians. >2. I fail to understand how Communists fighting to control their >colony in Tibet has anything to do with whether Buddhists >historically try to extirpate other religions. The Communist Chinese invaded Tibet, as you know, and have expended much labor in destroying the Tibetan culture, which includes its religion. >3. Again it is difficult to see how persecutions by the Communist >government in China have anything to do with the point. Communism, besides being a political ideology, is also a religion inasmuch as it has its doctrines, symbols, hierarchy, rituals, etc. They have tried to extinguish Christianity, Buddhism, and other religious communities wherever they are in power. Where they fail to extinghish a religion they heavily control it. >4. I don't understand the reference to Korea. There were Christian persecutions in Korea at one time. I believe it was around the 17th century or the 18th century. There one had non-Christians striving to extinguish Christians and Christianity from the Hermit Kingdom. >5. The only valid point here is the reference to the Tokugawa >shogunate, assuming one accepts that the Shogunate was Buddhist. But >we should note that this was a response to a rather vicious campaign >of murder and destruction carried out by 'Christian' military forces >across Asia. Unfortunately, we have to acknowledge that violence is >infectious and Christian/Muslim violence has sometimes infected other >religions on their frontier. I think your reading of the situation differs from mine. At least in Japan the Christian armies were defending themselves. I know of no vicious Christian military campaigns in China or Korea. >It is regrettable that many generally well-meaning Christians and >Muslims are unwilling to acknowledge the degree of violence in their >history. It is regrettable, as well, that many generally well-meaning Buddhists, Socialists, and Communists fail in the same manner. Regards, Stan >Lance Cousins > >>curt wrote: >>>SJZiobro@cs.com wrote: >>>> ?Curt, >>>> >>>> ?Yes, you are missing something, namely, openess to the historical >>>>record. ?For example, what are the Hindus and the Buddhists >>>>fighting over in Sri Lanka? ?What are the Communists fighting over >>>>in Tibet? ?Do you need more hints? >>>> >>>> >>>> ? >>>If you contend that there are, somewhere hidden from our view because of >>>deficiencies in the historical record, cases in which Hindus, Buddhists, >>>etc, have extirpated other religions then there needs to be some >>>evidence or at least reasoning to support that claim. In the cases of >>>Christianity and Islam there is no doubt. >> >>Curt, >> >>There is also no doubt relative to what I mentioned earlier, plus >>the anti-Christian extinction efforts of the Tokugawa shogunate in >>Japan, of the persecutions in Korea, of the continuing efforts in >>Communist China. ?I know this doesn't fit into your worldview, but >>neither can it be denied by any rational observer. >> >>Regards, >> >>Stan > >_______________________________________________ >buddha-l mailing list >buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com >http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l > From cfynn at gmx.net Tue Nov 6 07:34:13 2007 From: cfynn at gmx.net (Christopher Fynn) Date: Tue Nov 6 07:34:30 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] NYTimes.com: Let Us Pray for Wealth In-Reply-To: <19F4C30C.08C1B13D.007A239A@cs.com> References: <19F4C30C.08C1B13D.007A239A@cs.com> Message-ID: <47307B65.6000300@gmx.net> SJZiobro@cs.com wrote: ... > in India there are areas where either Muslims or Hindus persecute Christians. This may be the case today but there has been a Christian community - particularly in South India since the earliest days of Christianity see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Malabar_Nasrani If this information is accurate apparently they were persecuted by the Portugese rather than the Hindus: ... > The Communist Chinese invaded Tibet, as you know, and have expended much labor in > destroying the Tibetan culture, which includes its religion. Interestingly Tibetan Muslims seem to remain as loyal to the Dalai Lama as their Buddhist brethren. see: see: > Communism, besides being a political ideology, is also a religion inasmuch > as it has its doctrines, symbols, hierarchy, rituals, etc. They have tried to > extinguish Christianity, Buddhism, and other religious communities wherever > they are in power. Where they fail to extinghish a religion they heavily control it. But isn't Communism a western ideology which first arose in Judeo-Christian culture? IMO this kind of proves the point about the frequently intolerant attitude of western religions. - Chris From cfynn at gmx.net Tue Nov 6 08:29:24 2007 From: cfynn at gmx.net (Christopher Fynn) Date: Tue Nov 6 08:29:43 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] NYTimes.com: Let Us Pray for Wealth In-Reply-To: <839444.96960.qm@web30502.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <839444.96960.qm@web30502.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <47308854.1070308@gmx.net> Bill Kish wrote: > Curt: > >> If anyone knows of any evidence for any survival of any >> religions from Europe, North Africa or the Middle East >> - other than Christianity, Islam and Judaism - that would >> be another significant contribution to human knowledge. >> There are hints and indications here and there - but >> nothing that is definitive. > > What about the Yezidi religion ? I believe it still exists > amongst the Kurds. See http://www.yezidi.org for more > information (they used to have a site in English, but it > doesn't seem to be available now). In Iraq there are also Yarsan, Mandaeans and several Assyrian Christian minorities and some Bahais According to Sixty years ago, Iraq also had a "flourishing Jewish population, a third of Bagdhad" : "Jews formerly constituted a small but significant minority and were largely concentrated in or around Baghdad, but, with the rise of Zionism, anti-Jewish feelings became widespread. This tension eventually led to the massive Farhud pogrom of June 1941. With the establishment of Israel in 1948, most Jews emigrated there or elsewhere." Seems like the situation for all these religious groups in Iraq has only got even worse since the beginning of the Iraq war and the fall of Saddam. Buddhist Content: - Here is something on Buddhism & Babylon... - Chris From SJZiobro at cs.com Tue Nov 6 08:41:30 2007 From: SJZiobro at cs.com (SJZiobro@cs.com) Date: Tue Nov 6 08:41:46 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] NYTimes.com: Let Us Pray for Wealth Message-ID: <67932FDF.480925DD.007A239A@cs.com> Chris, All very interesting and informative. Relative to Communism, yes, it has it's origins in the West, and certainly it is an ideology that does not tolerate other points of view. Intolerence, however, is obviously not unique to the West. Islam, to my understanding, is not a Western religion. Also, the fact that Buddhists in Japan and Korea did approve of Christian persecutions in the past does raise the question as to whether intolerence is a specifically Western phenomenon. Regards, Stan Ziobro Christopher Fynn wrote: >SJZiobro@cs.com wrote: > >... >> ?in India there are areas where either Muslims or Hindus persecute Christians. > >This may be the case today but there has been a Christian community - >particularly in South India since the earliest days of Christianity >see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Malabar_Nasrani >If this information is accurate apparently they were persecuted by the Portugese >rather than the Hindus: > > >... > >> The Communist Chinese invaded Tibet, as you know, and have expended much labor in >> destroying the Tibetan culture, which includes its religion. > >Interestingly Tibetan Muslims seem to remain as loyal to the Dalai Lama as their >Buddhist brethren. see: >see: > > > > ?> Communism, besides being a political ideology, is also a religion inasmuch > > as it has its doctrines, symbols, hierarchy, rituals, etc. ?They have tried to >> extinguish Christianity, Buddhism, and other religious communities wherever >> they are in power. Where they fail to extinghish a religion they heavily control it. > >But isn't Communism a western ideology which first arose in Judeo-Christian >culture? IMO this kind of proves the point about the frequently intolerant >attitude of western religions. > >- Chris >_______________________________________________ >buddha-l mailing list >buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com >http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l > From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Tue Nov 6 09:07:50 2007 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Tue Nov 6 09:08:10 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] NYTimes.com: Let Us Pray for Wealth References: <19F4C30C.08C1B13D.007A239A@cs.com> Message-ID: <003401c8208f$2f7889a0$95339c04@Dan> Stan, I have to agree 1000% with Lance's observations. As for > > I think your reading of the situation differs from mine. At least in Japan the Christian armies were defending themselves. I know of no vicious Christian military campaigns in China or Korea. > This sounds like you are getting your information from missionary propoganda pamphlets rather than legitimate history sources. This was a time of competing Shoguns in Japan, and the Christians (or, more accutately, the Catholics) backed one side, supplying them with firearms, etc., which had not existed in Japan up to that time. They were hoping -- as their own writings of the time explain -- to have an "in" with the winning side, and once that side gained control, to impose Christianity on Japan. Unfortunately for them, their side lost. The victors were not amused by role and arms the Catholics had introduced into what should have been an internal struggle, not with their motives for doing so. So Catholics (NOT Christians per se) were banned henceforth -- for strictly politico-military reasons, not religious. This was sound policy, not persecution. So, while the Portugese, etc. were forbidden to land or trade in Japan, the Dutch, who had their own problems with the Catholics (Richard will soon be in Leiden, the place were the Spanish were routed and turned back, saving Holland from Catholic rule), were permitted to continue trading with Japan, and were welcomed on many fronts (e.g., as conduits for science, such as Western medical knowledge). The Japanese devised a simple litmus test for whether one was Catholic or Protestant. One had to stomp on a picture of the Virgin Mary. Catholics wouldn't do it -- the Dutch did it with relish. Let's be clear -- wherever Christian missionaries arrived, the army was never far behind. Late 19th century is also illustrative. The Western powers (and Japan) had divided China amongst themselves after the defeat of the Chinese during the Opium wars. The settled status quo included clear demarcations of where missionaries would be allow to go and missionize, and where would be offlimits. The missionaries continually ignored those restrictions, arrogantly and forcefully imposing themselves on local populations who had no recourse to have the missionaries and their interferences (abolishing "idols" and "idolatry", interfering with all sorts of local customs and daily activities). Since the Chinese govt., hands tied by the foreigners running the place, was powerless to do anything except express words of disapproval, wherever these missionaries went, riots eventually resulted, which ended with the Western militaries coming in and putting down the riots -- which led to the Boxer Rebellion, etc. Or research what the missionaries did to Tasmania, or Hawaii, etc etc etc Let's make this simple -- not simplistic. A religion that believes there is only ONE god, one truth, one way of looking at things, one way to behave -- and that way is OUR way which is the Cosmic Divine way, does not want to be reminded that any alternatives whatsoever might be possible -- much less that such alternatives could be legitimate. Any semblance of an alternate way must be from the devil -- since it violates the one and only true way -- and ergo must be stamped out. It is one's sacred duty and mission to do so. No reminders or remainders of such an Other (where "other" = evil, temptation, etc.) must be allowed to remain, since they violate and offend the cosmic order and the will of the one god -- as well as remind everyone that the one is not hegemonous and hence, maybe, not as "one" as everyone needs to assume and accept and believe. What this means is that Christianity and Islam not only extirpate (to use the word that seems to have prevailed in this list's discussion -- much cleaner than "massacre" or "violently suppress and kill off") other religions (idolators and infidels); they also have put tremendous attention and energy into killing off all within their own ranks who hold a different view (heretics) [that is the story in present day Iraq, for instance, where attempts to "extirpate" the remaining Yazdis are also underway] . Hence the explosion of a profusion of different Christianities as a consequence of the Reformation. Celebrating the ability to be different, think differently and act differently. As we know, however, it was never that clean, and each group persecuted the others (an inherited trait), so that all the European groups who came to the New World to escape religious persecution, immediately turned around to persecute the other sects that came over for the same reason -- each settling in a different part of the colonies to stay away from the persecutions of the others (Pilgrims wouldn't even let members of some sects land in New England). Ergo working the separation of Church and State into the First Amendment to the US Constitution forbidding the establishment of a State religion and forbidding the State from restricting the practice of any religion, no matter how odious it might appear to rivals. Dan Lusthaus From selwyn at ntlworld.com Tue Nov 6 08:55:20 2007 From: selwyn at ntlworld.com (L.S. Cousins) Date: Tue Nov 6 09:08:11 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] NYTimes.com: Let Us Pray for Wealth In-Reply-To: <19F4C30C.08C1B13D.007A239A@cs.com> References: <19F4C30C.08C1B13D.007A239A@cs.com> Message-ID: Stan, >As stated, Lance, I agree. Nonetheless, in India there are areas >where either Muslims or Hindus persecute Christians. Well, that's a whole other issue. One hears a very different story from Hindu sources. But in any case persecution is not what we are discussing. > >2. I fail to understand how Communists fighting to control their >>colony in Tibet has anything to do with whether Buddhists >>historically try to extirpate other religions. > >The Communist Chinese invaded Tibet, as you know, and have expended >much labor in destroying the Tibetan culture, which includes its >religion. If your point is that the Marxist religion has a very bad record too, then I agree with you. Indeed, I would also agree that the Christian religion as a whole has much improved in this respect over the past century. > >3. Again it is difficult to see how persecutions by the Communist >>government in China have anything to do with the point. > >Communism, besides being a political ideology, is also a religion >inasmuch as it has its doctrines, symbols, hierarchy, rituals, etc. >They have tried to extinguish Christianity, Buddhism, and other >religious communities wherever they are in power. Where they fail to >extinghish a religion they heavily control it. Agreed. But that is not evidence that Buddhists do anything of the sort. > >4. I don't understand the reference to Korea. > >There were Christian persecutions in Korea at one time. I believe >it was around the 17th century or the 18th century. There one had >non-Christians striving to extinguish Christians and Christianity >from the Hermit Kingdom. I think this is the same issue as with the Tokugawa. > >5. The only valid point here is the reference to the Tokugawa >>shogunate, assuming one accepts that the Shogunate was Buddhist. But >>we should note that this was a response to a rather vicious campaign >>of murder and destruction carried out by 'Christian' military forces >>across Asia. Unfortunately, we have to acknowledge that violence is >>infectious and Christian/Muslim violence has sometimes infected other >>religions on their frontier. > >I think your reading of the situation differs from mine. At least >in Japan the Christian armies were defending themselves. I know of >no vicious Christian military campaigns in China or Korea. I don't know of vicious Christian campaigns in Korea or in China (unless one counts the 19th century General Gordon and his opponents). But one has only to look at the map of Asia in 1600 and compare it with that in, say, 1750 to realize that Christian economic and military power had advanced widely across the islands of southern Asia. Given the way in which conversion to Christianity could be used as an excuse to establish economic and political control, it is hardly surprising that the more ruthless Asian rulers took preemptive action. One has only to read such works as de Queyroz's _The Temporal and Spiritual Conquest of Ceylon_ (English trsl by S.G.Perera). The way in which he praises the systematic destruction of Hindu and Buddhist religious sites makes it all too clear. > >It is regrettable that many generally well-meaning Christians and >>Muslims are unwilling to acknowledge the degree of violence in their >>history. > >It is regrettable, as well, that many generally well-meaning >Buddhists, Socialists, and Communists fail in the same manner. It may be true that some Buddhists fail to acknowledge the violence that has occurred at various points in Buddhist history. But that doesn't mean that all is equal. There is nothing in the history of Buddhism to compare with e.g. the 300+ year military campaign of the Crusades against the Muslims. Lance From franzmetcalf at earthlink.net Tue Nov 6 09:51:28 2007 From: franzmetcalf at earthlink.net (Franz Metcalf) Date: Tue Nov 6 09:51:36 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Religious Persecution [was: NYTimes.com: Let Us Pray for Wealth] In-Reply-To: <003401c8208f$2f7889a0$95339c04@Dan> References: <19F4C30C.08C1B13D.007A239A@cs.com> <003401c8208f$2f7889a0$95339c04@Dan> Message-ID: <6a517909fc0bf2f371219b9d978a64c1@earthlink.net> Dan et al., You wrote, > The victors were not amused by role > and arms the Catholics had introduced into what should have been an > internal > struggle, not with their motives for doing so. So Catholics (NOT > Christians > per se) were banned henceforth -- for strictly politico-military > reasons, > not religious. This was sound policy, not persecution. Be careful, Dan, you are on a slippery slope in seemingly advocating "sound policy" of banning religion, even when--perhaps particularly when--there are political reasons for doing so. It seems to me that identifying persons by religion and banning their practices is, by definition, religious persecution. It is, also, I'm pleased to point out, something neither the Americans in Iraq, nor the Israelis in Israel are doing. I know others may disagree with this observation, but I trust that you, at least, will appreciate it. Franz From rhayes at unm.edu Tue Nov 6 10:37:38 2007 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Tue Nov 6 10:37:46 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] NYTimes.com: Let Us Pray for Wealth In-Reply-To: References: <1ABEE5F6.267257A8.007A239A@cs.com> Message-ID: <200711061037.38530.rhayes@unm.edu> On Tuesday 06 November 2007 00:01, L.S. Cousins wrote: > It is regrettable that many generally well-meaning Christians and > Muslims are unwilling to acknowledge the degree of violence in their > history. It is equally regrettable that many generally well-meaning followers of non-Abrahamic religions cannot seem to focus on anything but the violence in the history of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Not a few Buddhists I have known seem to forget all about the Buddhist speech precepts when it comes to talking about Christianity and Islam. -- Richard P. Hayes From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Tue Nov 6 11:33:09 2007 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Tue Nov 6 11:33:41 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Religious Persecution [was: NYTimes.com: Let Us Pray forWealth] References: <19F4C30C.08C1B13D.007A239A@cs.com><003401c8208f$2f7889a0$95339c04@Dan> <6a517909fc0bf2f371219b9d978a64c1@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <00e601c820a3$81f5b220$95339c04@Dan> Franz, Are we living in such a hypersensitive PC world that I need to explain what I wrote? If so, then in capsule form, the issue is this: 1. Missionaries, military and merchants -- especially in the Christian case in places like Japan and China that I was discussion -- are inextricably fused at the hip. When Buddhist missionaries leaked out of NW India to follow the Silk Road to Persia and China the middle term in that triad -- the military -- was an absent ingredient. Hence, we can conclude that while the first and third may be on some level necessary conditions for propogation, the middle term is not. Hence its inclusion is unnecessary and dispensible. Consequence: When it IS included, it needn't have been, and it can provide additional factors to the propogation. 2. While the triad may, at times, act as a unity and other times work at cross-purposes, they symbiotically appear on foreign shores and usually share enough common purpose to work in tandem. 3. In the Japanese case I called "sound policy" the Catholics were active instigators and participants in an insurrection -- their stated purpose to bring light and truth to the heathens. They introduced firearms into the struggle (do I need to rehash the impact that had on "samurai" culture and traditional Japanese ideals of warfare -- perhaps I can send you a copy of that tacky T. Cruise film about the "last" samurai [don't ask, though; I don't own a copy to copy!]) Had they backed the winner the "religious" history of Japan would have been very different. 4. The Catholic theory of authority -- just like the Emperor theory -- goes from the top down, demanding fidelity, loyalty and obedience to the top gun, even if he lives in Rome rather being a local boy. 5. Christian "converts" in Japan, following a foreign authority in insurrection against the national authority, were committing treason, and causing bloodshed. 6. Christianity -- and pardon the indelicate way I am about to put this -- is like a stubborn virus. Once a host is infected, it is almost impossible to extirpate. So even after the defeat of the Christian-backed side, the converts refused to recant, hence posing, in the eyes of the triumphant leadership, an incorrigible fifth column. 7. Therefore, the association christianity [aka Catholicism] = firearms and dangerous new weapons = brainwashing local people to revere and swear obedience to a foreign despot (aka the Pope) = dangerous foreigners = military threat = political threat = destabilizing internal presence was a sound and reasonable conclusion, concordant with the facts and experience (and, as history shows, a long track record, most of which the Japanese didn't know or hadn't even happened yet). 8. The banning of all people from Catholic countries was a political, not a religious decision, and to have done otherwise would have been the type of suicide the aztecs experienced. They brought offerings of tomatoes to the Spanish Conquistadors -- Tomatoes were unknown to Europeans, but the rule of thumb was that anything "red" must be poison, so, deciding that the Aztecs were trying to poison them, they massacred them on the spot. 9. That Japan is what it is today and the Aztecs are only a memory suggests (if you prefer softer language) that Japan's policy toward missionaries was sound. Is that clearer? Aztecs were pushed off a cliff en masse, not gradually edged down a slippery slope... Dan > Be careful, Dan, you are on a slippery slope ... PS Caveat apparently necessary in these sensitive times: I am not an advocate for Aztec culture, daily sacrifices by removing some poor sap's heart on the top of pyramid, etc. I like tomatoes. The Aztec parallel was introduced to emphasize that the dire predictions for an alternate outcome in Japan are not mere hyptotheticals, but exactly what the times were all about. When Columbus first sighted the new World and met the "natives", he thought he was in Japan. Buddhist content: The Japanese purging of dangerous missionaries and their military arms was not a "Buddhist" policy. The Catholic insurrection involvement WAS a Christian strategy. From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Tue Nov 6 11:44:10 2007 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Tue Nov 6 11:44:34 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] NYTimes.com: Let Us Pray for Wealth References: <1ABEE5F6.267257A8.007A239A@cs.com> <200711061037.38530.rhayes@unm.edu> Message-ID: <00ed01c820a5$06381310$95339c04@Dan> Richard, Perhaps we should instead follow your model with how you talk about Bush, Republicans, etc.? Muslims have been extirpating Buddhists almost since their inception -- removing them from Central Asia and India, where Buddhists once roamed free. They are still blowing up the vestiges of Buddhism (e.g. Bamiyan). The flow of missionaries from India to China virtually dried up by land routes once the Muslims gained control of strategic parts of the Silk Road in the 8th c -- a key factor in why Dharmakirti and the pramanavadins that came after him were completely unknown in East Asia until modern times. That Buddhists should accurately reflect on past and current dangers is not a case of bad speech. Dan ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Hayes" To: "Buddhist discussion forum" Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 12:37 PM Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] NYTimes.com: Let Us Pray for Wealth > On Tuesday 06 November 2007 00:01, L.S. Cousins wrote: > > > It is regrettable that many generally well-meaning Christians and > > Muslims are unwilling to acknowledge the degree of violence in their > > history. > > It is equally regrettable that many generally well-meaning followers of > non-Abrahamic religions cannot seem to focus on anything but the violence in > the history of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Not a few Buddhists I have > known seem to forget all about the Buddhist speech precepts when it comes to > talking about Christianity and Islam. > > -- > Richard P. Hayes > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l > From selwyn at ntlworld.com Tue Nov 6 12:25:14 2007 From: selwyn at ntlworld.com (L.S. Cousins) Date: Tue Nov 6 12:26:54 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] NYTimes.com: Let Us Pray for Wealth In-Reply-To: <200711061037.38530.rhayes@unm.edu> References: <1ABEE5F6.267257A8.007A239A@cs.com> <200711061037.38530.rhayes@unm.edu> Message-ID: Richard, >It is equally regrettable that many generally well-meaning followers of >non-Abrahamic religions cannot seem to focus on anything but the violence in >the history of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Not a few Buddhists I have >known seem to forget all about the Buddhist speech precepts when it comes to >talking about Christianity and Islam. There are obviously many good things and many bad things to be said about Christianity. But this is not the place to talk about Christian mysticism or Wilberforce and so on. But there is something good we can say about Buddhism: it has a better track record in this area. Better, not perfect. If this is acknowledged, then I will be happy not to point the finger at the theistic religions. They can clean their own stables. Statement of what is true is not a breach of speech precepts, unless there is intention to hurt or divide. Lance From rhayes at unm.edu Tue Nov 6 12:53:21 2007 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Tue Nov 6 12:53:27 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] NYTimes.com: Let Us Pray for Wealth In-Reply-To: <00ed01c820a5$06381310$95339c04@Dan> References: <1ABEE5F6.267257A8.007A239A@cs.com> <200711061037.38530.rhayes@unm.edu> <00ed01c820a5$06381310$95339c04@Dan> Message-ID: <200711061253.21507.rhayes@unm.edu> On Tuesday 06 November 2007 11:44, Dan Lusthaus wrote: > Perhaps we should instead follow your model with how you talk about Bush, > Republicans, etc.? Yes, that is the model to follow. I praise Bush every time he makes wise and enlightened decisions and manifests compassion. When he falls short, I manifest my compassion for him and those who support him by setting higher standards. > Muslims have been extirpating Buddhists almost since their inception -- > removing them from Central Asia and India, where Buddhists once roamed > free. There have been Muslims who have acted that way. There have also been Muslims who have not acted that way at all. What I deplore is a situation in which the bad behaviour of some people comes to be used to chracterize the entire group. As I recall, the word for that is prejudice. > They are still blowing up the vestiges of Buddhism (e.g. Bamiyan). This is a good example of the kind of statement I find absolutely deplorable. The only plausible antecedent is "Muslims." To say that Muslims blew up Buddhist statues in Bamiyan is at the very best a partial truth. More accurate would be to say that a particular group of Muslims, known for their fanaticism and ignorance, carried out this act AND that more tolerant, eductaed and urbane Muslims around the world deplored the act as much as everyone else did. > That Buddhists should accurately reflect on past and current dangers is not > a case of bad speech. If the form of your claim is that Buddhists are endangered by Muslims, then so saying is the very worst possible kind of speech. There is nothing in it that even approximates right speech. Right speech would be to say that wisdom and compassion are undermined by greed, cruelty, narrow-mindedness, delusion, self-interest and prejudice. The wisdom and compassion in Muslims is every bit as endangered by the cruelty and stupidity in Buddhists as the wisdom and compassion in Buddhists is endangered by the cruelty and stupidity in Muslims and every bit as much as the wisdom and compassion in Christians is endangered by the cruelty and stupidity in Hindus and Jews. More to the point, from a Buddhist point of view, is that the wisdom and compassion in a single consciousness continuum is endangered by the partiality and greed in that same continuum. My ad hominem advice to you, Dan, is to be afraid, be very afraid....of your own mind. For the mind is cannibalistic and eats away its own nobility to feed its own pettiness. -- Richard P. Hayes Department of Philosophy University of New Mexico http://www.unm.edu/~rhayes From rhayes at unm.edu Tue Nov 6 13:04:23 2007 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Tue Nov 6 13:04:28 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] NYTimes.com: Let Us Pray for Wealth In-Reply-To: References: <1ABEE5F6.267257A8.007A239A@cs.com> <200711061037.38530.rhayes@unm.edu> Message-ID: <200711061304.23811.rhayes@unm.edu> On Tuesday 06 November 2007 12:25, L.S. Cousins wrote: > But there is something good we > can say about Buddhism: it has a better track record in this area. > Better, not perfect. Over the years, I have come to admire you for your carefulness and clarity of mind. The claim you make here, however, is an exception. It is, I am pleased to say, a very rare exception. But it is an exception. > If this is acknowledged, then I will be happy > not to point the finger at the theistic religions. Human beings are human beings. No group of people has a monopoly on unwholesomeness, and no group of people has done, on a whole, much better than anyone else. I'm sorry, but I simply do not acknowledge the validity of your claim, so I find your finger-pointing a distressing deviation from clarity in your thinking that I have come to admire. > Statement of what is true is not a breach of > speech precepts, unless there is intention to hurt or divide. I could not agree more. I would therefore invite you to speak of these issues by making statements of what is true. It is impossible for me to believe that there is anything in saying "Buddhists have a better track record than followers of theistic religions" that is intended to sew harmony. -- Richard P. Hayes Department of Philosophy University of New Mexico http://www.unm.edu/~rhayes From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Tue Nov 6 13:09:29 2007 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Tue Nov 6 13:09:49 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] NYTimes.com: Let Us Pray for Wealth References: <839444.96960.qm@web30502.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <47308854.1070308@gmx.net> Message-ID: <011701c820b0$f1ca5080$95339c04@Dan> Chris, et al. > Sixty years ago, Iraq also had a "flourishing Jewish population, a third of > Bagdhad" > : > "Jews formerly constituted a small but significant minority and were largely > concentrated in or around Baghdad, but, with the rise of Zionism, anti-Jewish > feelings became widespread. This tension eventually led to the massive Farhud > pogrom of June 1941. With the establishment of Israel in 1948, most Jews > emigrated there or elsewhere." As a footnote, this was not just any old flourishing Jewish population in the Muslim world. This community had roots stretching back to the Babylonian Captivity (some stayed behind after the rest were allowed to return to Judea and Galilee). It is also the place where the Babylonian Talmud -- still the authoritative document for Rabbinic Judaism -- was composed and redacted over several centuries (ca. 1st-7th c). The community's fortunes fluctuated over the remaining centuries after the advent of Islam, at times flourishing, at other times severely put upon. Baghdadi Jews also played important roles in South and SE Asia in recent centuries. E.g., see the recent _Almost Englishmen: Baghdadi Jews in British Burma_ by Ruth Cernea (Lexington Books, 2007). Amazon.com link for details: http://tinyurl.com/2kmv4a Buddhists from C. Asia were also brought to Baghdad by the Muslims around the 9th-10th c, since their skills as translators were coveted. When, after some years, the political climate changed, they were forced to flee eastward back into the Indian orbit. Dan Lusthaus From jehms at xs4all.nl Tue Nov 6 13:10:27 2007 From: jehms at xs4all.nl (Erik Hoogcarspel) Date: Tue Nov 6 13:10:32 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] NYTimes.com: Let Us Pray for Wealth In-Reply-To: References: <1ABEE5F6.267257A8.007A239A@cs.com> <200711061037.38530.rhayes@unm.edu> Message-ID: <4730CA33.5040907@xs4all.nl> L.S. Cousins schreef: > Richard, > >> It is equally regrettable that many generally well-meaning followers of >> non-Abrahamic religions cannot seem to focus on anything but the >> violence in >> the history of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Not a few Buddhists I >> have >> known seem to forget all about the Buddhist speech precepts when it >> comes to >> talking about Christianity and Islam. > > There are obviously many good things and many bad things to be said > about Christianity. But this is not the place to talk about Christian > mysticism or Wilberforce and so on. But there is something good we can > say about Buddhism: it has a better track record in this area. Better, > not perfect. If this is acknowledged, then I will be happy not to > point the finger at the theistic religions. They can clean their own > stables. Statement of what is true is not a breach of speech precepts, > unless there is intention to hurt or divide. > That may be a matter of taste or bias. The question remains whether the repulsive actions of Christian Catholic missionaires are caused by the teaching, the theology, the organisation or the history. There was f.i. a missionair in India, Roberto de Nobili, who was quite impressed by the Indian culture. This made him not very populair in the Vatican. I get the impression that the arrogance of the Popes, a phenomenon which is still present was an important factor. It may also be an inheritence from the Roman empire. Augustine saw himself as the successor of the Roman emperors and he was the first pope to prosecute the heretics on a large scale. And things got worse after him. The overall policy of the popes was to call philosophy the housemaid of theology and burn their opponents at the stake. I think Ricci and Xavier were pretty arrogant basterds too. Last summer I visited the museum of Pakse in Laos and saw an exhibition about the visit a Dutch merchant made to the king of Laos in the 17th century. Not a harsh word! The merchant gave the king some presents and the king promised to support the trade with the V.O.C. and they parted as good friends. Erik Info: www.xs4all.nl/~jehms Weblog: http://www.volkskrantblog.nl/pub/blogs/blog.php?uid=2950 Productie: http://stores.lulu.com/jehmsstudio From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Tue Nov 6 14:22:54 2007 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Tue Nov 6 14:23:16 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] NYTimes.com: Let Us Pray for Wealth References: <1ABEE5F6.267257A8.007A239A@cs.com><200711061037.38530.rhayes@unm.edu><00ed01c820a5$06381310$95339c04@Dan> <200711061253.21507.rhayes@unm.edu> Message-ID: <1ad601c820bb$34022c70$95339c04@Dan> Richard, > > Perhaps we should instead follow your model with how you talk about Bush, > > Republicans, etc.? > > Yes, that is the model to follow. I praise Bush every time he makes wise and > enlightened decisions and manifests compassion. My email server must have censored those posts. I never received them. > > Muslims have been extirpating Buddhists almost since their inception -- > > removing them from Central Asia and India, where Buddhists once roamed > > free. > > There have been Muslims who have acted that way. There have also been Muslims > who have not acted that way at all. What I deplore is a situation in which > the bad behaviour of some people comes to be used to chracterize the entire > group. As I recall, the word for that is prejudice. No, it's not. As long as we are going to play these word games, let's play. The distinction I drew while discussing the missionaries in Japan is applicable here too. The missionaries arming their allies was a *Christian* act because those doing so engaged in it precisely from their sense of what the strongest and most urgent action to further Christian goals called upon them to do. The response from the Japanese leaders to bar such dangerous insurrectional elements was NOT a Buddhist (or Shingon or religious) act, since the issue was what someone who identifies themselves as a Christian does, not Christianity per se (hence the Dutch were allowed to continue trading, despite themselves being Christian). It is certainly true that the Taliban do not represent all Muslims -- and even that certain Muslim nations, including conservative Saudi Arabia, condemned those actions (whether for international PR reasons or out of a deep sense of disapproval I leave for others to quibble over). Nonetheless the REASON the Taliban devoted considerable time, energy and resources to blowing up Buddhist statues -- remnants of communities that hadn't existed on Afghani soil for a millennium -- is for no other reason than as an expression of religious piety: the offense of infidel images on Muslim soil. Idolatry is the cardinal sin in Islam par excellence. If you've read the accounts of the concerted and lengthy engineering effort that was put into blowing up those statues -- it was not a spur of the moment action -- then its deliberate and premeditated nature is obvious. In acting this way, the Taliban were not expressing some deviant, unusual misunderstanding of Islam, but rather participating in a long history of such actions, albeit it with new "tools." In Iran today the Western art in the Teheran Museum is being preserved from destruction by being stored in the basement, out of sight (hence "nonoffensive"). Journalists, etc., got a recent peek, and some of it was just put on temporary display. http://arts.guardian.co.uk/art/news/story/0,,2201065,00.html http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2005/09/02/1452063.htm http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/31/arts/31arts-IRANHIDESWES_BRF.html Obviously, here as well, there is a tension between more open-minded Muslims and the dominant powers which display various degrees of intolerance. Are all Muslims (or all anything) only and exclusively of one view on anything? Of course not. But there are DOMINANT and TRADITIONAL views, against which those who hold alternate views -- unless they happen to be fortunate and live in the US -- are not free to express themselves with impunity. Most "all" statements (All P are Q) fail in the real world, which is messy. But that doesn't invalidate "Most P are Q" or "The most dominant P are Q" from being true in that same messy world. Those who state "The most dominant P are Q" in accordance with the facts on the ground are not speaking from prejudice, but merely stating facts. > If the form of your claim is that Buddhists are endangered by Muslims, then so > saying is the very worst possible kind of speech. [...] The wisdom and compassion in Muslims is every > bit as endangered by the cruelty and stupidity in Buddhists as the wisdom and > compassion in Buddhists is endangered by the cruelty and stupidity in Muslims And here we see how the messy world has disappeared in lieu of the verbal algebra that satisfies itself with its insular reasoning, while obliterating the real world in the name of saving the real world. The absurdity of the false parity in the light of history and the present is self-evident to anyone not locked within that insularity. > My ad hominem advice to you, Dan, is to be afraid, be very afraid....of your > own mind. For the mind is cannibalistic and eats away its own nobility to > feed its own pettiness. I prefer to read the Sutra on Fearless Nirvana. And not fiddle while Rome burns, in the name of a illusory nobility. Alleviating the suffering of sentient beings begins with recognizing that there are real sentient beings in a messy world where the actions and agendas of groups as well as individuals can have profound and devastating effects rather than reduce everything to depersonlized platitudes. Dan From selwyn at ntlworld.com Tue Nov 6 14:27:39 2007 From: selwyn at ntlworld.com (L.S. Cousins) Date: Tue Nov 6 14:28:42 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] NYTimes.com: Let Us Pray for Wealth In-Reply-To: <200711061304.23811.rhayes@unm.edu> References: <1ABEE5F6.267257A8.007A239A@cs.com> <200711061037.38530.rhayes@unm.edu> <200711061304.23811.rhayes@unm.edu> Message-ID: Richard, >On Tuesday 06 November 2007 12:25, L.S. Cousins wrote: > >> But there is something good we > > can say about Buddhism: it has a better track record in this area. >> Better, not perfect. > >Over the years, I have come to admire you for your carefulness and clarity of >mind. The claim you make here, however, is an exception. It is, I am pleased >to say, a very rare exception. But it is an exception. > >> If this is acknowledged, then I will be happy >> not to point the finger at the theistic religions. > >Human beings are human beings. No group of people has a monopoly on >unwholesomeness, Quite true. >and no group of people has done, on a whole, much better >than anyone else. Since you qualify with 'on a whole', I might agree. But in fact some smaller groups have done better e.g. the Quakers. But I suspect that what you say is possibly true for very large groups. That said, I doubt whether we have the evidence to know. But I was talking about one specific area in which I do think that Buddhism has a better record. >I'm sorry, but I simply do not acknowledge the validity of >your claim, so I find your finger-pointing a distressing deviation from >clarity in your thinking that I have come to admire. So should we not examine the evidence ? > > Statement of what is true is not a breach of >> speech precepts, unless there is intention to hurt or divide. > >I could not agree more. I would therefore invite you to speak of these issues >by making statements of what is true. I think what I said is true, but I am willing to be shown that I am wrong. >It is impossible for me to believe that >there is anything in saying "Buddhists have a better track record than >followers of theistic religions" that is intended to sew harmony. But what I said was that Buddhism 'has a better track record in this area.' I can think of other areas where e.g. Christianity has a better track record. There was and is no intention either to 'sew harmony' or to sew disharmony, only to establish truth. I think I understand where you are coming from. But I simply don't think one should deny facts just because acknowledging them might be misused by some. Lance From curt at cola.iges.org Tue Nov 6 15:50:40 2007 From: curt at cola.iges.org (curt) Date: Tue Nov 6 15:50:47 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] NYTimes.com: Let Us Pray for Wealth In-Reply-To: <200711061304.23811.rhayes@unm.edu> References: <1ABEE5F6.267257A8.007A239A@cs.com> <200711061037.38530.rhayes@unm.edu> <200711061304.23811.rhayes@unm.edu> Message-ID: <4730EFC0.90604@cola.iges.org> Richard Hayes wrote: > > Human beings are human beings. No group of people has a monopoly on > unwholesomeness, and no group of people has done, on a whole, much better > than anyone else. Richard is asserting that there is simply no reliable criterion for distinguishing between religions. But, unfortunately, there is. It is the "extirpation test". All religions other than Christianity and Islam score a big fat "zero" on that test - which is the only passing grade. I feel sorry for people who are unable to see religious persecution as the aberration it truly is - and who blandly insist that it is somehow just an inevitable part of being "human". Curt Steinmetz From curt at cola.iges.org Tue Nov 6 16:04:33 2007 From: curt at cola.iges.org (curt) Date: Tue Nov 6 16:04:41 2007 Subject: Non-Abe Religions, was Re: [Buddha-l] NYTimes.com: Let Us Pray for Wealth In-Reply-To: <25024603.1194297520276.JavaMail.root@elwamui-polski.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <25024603.1194297520276.JavaMail.root@elwamui-polski.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <4730F301.6020705@cola.iges.org> Gregory Bungo wrote: > > There are still some Zoroastrians in Iran: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrian#In_Greater_Iran > > Not many though. Wikipedia estimates there are about 22,000: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrians_in_Iran#Revolution > > The Zoroastrians managed to withstand the first wave of violent monotheism (Christianity) but nearly succumbed to the second wave (Islam) - and only survived because they found refuge among the Hindus. I was recently discussing with some friends who the world's most famous Zoroastrians were. This is what we came up with for the top four, in descending order of fame: Jesus* Freddie Mercury (born Farrokh Bulsara) Zubin Mehta Zoroaster** * Of course not everyone agrees that Jesus was a Zoroastrian - but if he was he is certainly the most famous one. ** Of course not everyone agrees that any such person as Zoroaster ever existed - and even if he did that he was a Zoroastrian. But it seems only fair to include him. Curt Steinmetz From rhayes at unm.edu Tue Nov 6 16:05:57 2007 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Tue Nov 6 16:06:00 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] NYTimes.com: Let Us Pray for Wealth In-Reply-To: References: <1ABEE5F6.267257A8.007A239A@cs.com> <200711061304.23811.rhayes@unm.edu> Message-ID: <200711061605.57714.rhayes@unm.edu> On Tuesday 06 November 2007 14:27, L.S. Cousins wrote: > >I'm sorry, but I simply do not acknowledge the validity of > >your claim, so I find your finger-pointing a distressing deviation from > >clarity in your thinking that I have come to admire. > > So should we not examine the evidence ? That would require first establishing what counts as evidence. I am not sure how one can find evidence in this kind of thing that is not in some way question-begging. > But what I said was that Buddhism 'has a better track record in this > area.' I can think of other areas where e.g. Christianity has a > better track record. I suppose what I find troublesome is the very idea of talking of track records at all when dealing with such ill-defined subjects as Buddhism and Christianity. It is not entirely clear how one could decide who counts as a Buddhist and who counts as a Christian. If one cannot decide that, then one does not even have a subject about which to begin collecting data. > There was and is no intention either to 'sew harmony' or to sew > disharmony, only to establish truth. The question of whether Christians (whoever they may be) or Buddhists (whoever they may be) have a better track record in some area seems to me one of those areas in which there is no truth to the matter. > I think I understand where you are coming from. But I simply don't > think one should deny facts just because acknowledging them might be > misused by some. I think the question has been set up in such a way that there are no facts to be either affirmed or denied. What one is trading in here is mostly prejudice. -- Richard P. Hayes Department of Philosophy University of New Mexico http://www.unm.edu/~rhayes From rhayes at unm.edu Tue Nov 6 16:12:15 2007 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Tue Nov 6 16:12:18 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] NYTimes.com: Let Us Pray for Wealth In-Reply-To: <1ad601c820bb$34022c70$95339c04@Dan> References: <1ABEE5F6.267257A8.007A239A@cs.com> <200711061253.21507.rhayes@unm.edu> <1ad601c820bb$34022c70$95339c04@Dan> Message-ID: <200711061612.15125.rhayes@unm.edu> On Tuesday 06 November 2007 14:22, Dan Lusthaus wrote: > > Yes, that is the model to follow. I praise Bush every time he makes wise > > and > > > enlightened decisions and manifests compassion. > > My email server must have censored those posts. I never received them. You obviously chose to ignore them, because my praise of Bush did not conform to your preconceived notions of how I regard Bush. > I prefer to read the Sutra on Fearless Nirvana. And not fiddle while Rome > burns, in the name of a illusory nobility. To think that Rome is burning is one of the most tragic beliefs of our time. If people persist in believing it, it will eventually come true. Ever heard of self-fulfilling prophecy? I can think of no better example than the feverish panic people have over such fictitious entities as terrorists, jihadis, Islamofacsists and other such spooks and hobgoblins of little minds. -- Richard P. Hayes Department of Philosophy University of New Mexico http://www.unm.edu/~rhayes From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Tue Nov 6 17:53:31 2007 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Tue Nov 6 17:53:49 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] NYTimes.com: Let Us Pray for Wealth References: <1ABEE5F6.267257A8.007A239A@cs.com><200711061253.21507.rhayes@unm.edu><1ad601c820bb$34022c70$95339c04@Dan> <200711061612.15125.rhayes@unm.edu> Message-ID: <1af401c820d8$9f2ab4a0$95339c04@Dan> > To think that Rome is burning is one of the most tragic beliefs of our time. > If people persist in believing it, it will eventually come true. Ever heard > of self-fulfilling prophecy? I can think of no better example than the > feverish panic people have over such fictitious entities as terrorists, > jihadis, Islamofacsists and other such spooks and hobgoblins of little minds. Fortunate for you that you weren't working in the World Trade Center on 9/11 some years ago -- or you would find nothing fictitious in this. Or hanging out in Bali discoteques. Or greeting Mrs. Bhutto on the day she returned to Pakistan. Or send your kids to school on Israeli buses. Or make documentaries in Holland. Interesting that you chose to ignore everything else I wrote. So be it. Here's a simple homework assignment to separate the paranoids from the justifiably cautious. Make a list all the violent hotspots around the world that make headlines these days. If memory is a problem, then consult any reasonable newspaper for a week (any week). Now mark off on a world map where those places are. Then go to the following link(s) and compare maps. http://www.islam101.com/dawah/muslim_world_map.html or http://www.nature.com/news/specials/islamandscience/map/islam-map.html or http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-religion-map.htm If you did the first part of your homework well, you will have traced the outline of the green areas on most of the above maps. Coincidence? Fantasy? Prejudice? You decide. For maps providing historical context, see http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~rs143/map.html Dan "Just the facts, ma'am" Lusthaus From rhayes at unm.edu Tue Nov 6 17:55:51 2007 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Tue Nov 6 17:55:55 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] NYTimes.com: Let Us Pray for Wealth In-Reply-To: <4730EFC0.90604@cola.iges.org> References: <1ABEE5F6.267257A8.007A239A@cs.com> <200711061304.23811.rhayes@unm.edu> <4730EFC0.90604@cola.iges.org> Message-ID: <200711061755.51757.rhayes@unm.edu> On Tuesday 06 November 2007 15:50, curt wrote: > Richard is asserting that there is simply no reliable criterion for > distinguishing between religions. No, that is not at all my claim. > I feel sorry for people who are unable to see religious persecution as > the aberration it truly is - and who blandly insist that it is somehow > just an inevitable part of being "human". Good luck in finding someone to feel sorry for. You'll note that I have never denied that there is such a thing as religious persecution. I have noted that there is narrow-mindedness and cruelty, and I take it that religious persecution is an example of those mental states. I have also claimed that no group has a monopoly on those states, and no group is immune from them. I see nothing to be gained in characterizing Christianity or any of the other Abrahamic traditions as being systematically and generally intolerant or prone to cruelty. It is not an accurate portrayal of the Abrahamic religions as a whole, and if we are talking about isolated episodes, then it is no less true of any other tradition than it is of the Abrahamic religions. It would appear that Sam Harris, for whom you seem to have special contempt, has made quite an impact on your thinking after all. The last time I read such wholesale slandering of theistic religions (some place other than here on buddha-l from time to time) was in his books and on his website. -- Richard P. Hayes From rhayes at unm.edu Tue Nov 6 18:26:43 2007 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Tue Nov 6 18:26:46 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] NYTimes.com: Let Us Pray for Wealth In-Reply-To: <1af401c820d8$9f2ab4a0$95339c04@Dan> References: <1ABEE5F6.267257A8.007A239A@cs.com> <200711061612.15125.rhayes@unm.edu> <1af401c820d8$9f2ab4a0$95339c04@Dan> Message-ID: <200711061826.43273.rhayes@unm.edu> On Tuesday 06 November 2007 17:53, Dan Lusthaus wrote: > Fortunate for you that you weren't working in the World Trade Center on > 9/11 some years ago -- or you would find nothing fictitious in this. Or > hanging out in Bali discoteques. Or greeting Mrs. Bhutto on the day she > returned to Pakistan. Or send your kids to school on Israeli buses. Or make > documentaries in Holland. I count myself equally fortunate that I am not living in areas being bombed by Americans, or under consideration for future bombing (especially since nobody but Kucinich and Richardson seems willing to take nuclear bombs off the table). Luckily, I also managed to avoid being in Vietnam when Americans were dropping napalm and agent orange there. And I was lucky not to be living in Africa when Europeans were buying slaves. And I was lucky not to be a Bon practitioner when Buddhists in Tibet were putting out their eyes for reading mendacious texts. And I was lucky not to be a Cheyenne when Kearney rounded them up on the plains of Colorado and shot every man, woman and child. I was lucky not to be a Crow when the Americans deliberately killed off as many bison as possible to deprive them of food and break their will. I am lucky not to be either an Israeli or a Palestinian. I was lucky not to be imprisoned in Siberia by the Soviet authorities, or rounded up by the Gestapo, or a Protestant or Jew or Muslim in Queen Isabella's Spain, or a Quaker or Unitarian in colonial Boston when members of those religions were whipped to death in the public square. My luck ran out the minute I was born a human being. I must have been a mighty evil butterfly in a previous life to deserve such a fate, eh? No, Dan, I have never denied that human beings are capable or great cruelty and irrationality and hatred and fear. What I deny is that there is any particular religion that promotes those human weaknesses more or less than any other. All religions condemn such behavior. All people find ways of ignoring what religions teach them while pretending to be pious followers of the very religions they betray. > Interesting that you chose to ignore everything else I wrote. There was nothing there requiring comment or answer. I figured you needed a good rant to get all that venom out of your system before it did you some harm. > If you did the first part of your homework well, you will have traced the > outline of the green areas on most of the above maps. Coincidence? Fantasy? > Prejudice? You decide. Coincidence mostly. That you try to make more of it than that? Prejudice, narrow-mindedness, irrationality and hatred, mainly. Interesting that people, given a choice between being part of the solution or part of the problem, almost always opt for the latter. If that weren't true, we wouldn't have needed a Buddha to come along and offer advice that nearly everyone would ignore. -- Richard P. Hayes From SJZiobro at cs.com Tue Nov 6 20:36:50 2007 From: SJZiobro at cs.com (SJZiobro@cs.com) Date: Tue Nov 6 20:37:06 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] NYTimes.com: Let Us Pray for Wealth Message-ID: <52775923.4AF1CFD1.007A239A@cs.com> Erik Hoogcarspel wrote: >That may be a matter of taste or bias. The question remains whether the repulsive actions of Christian Catholic missionaires are caused by the teaching, the theology, the organisation or the history. There was f.i. a missionair in India, Roberto de Nobili, who was quite impressed by the Indian culture. This made him not very populair in the Vatican. I get the impression that the arrogance of the Popes, a phenomenon which is still present was an important factor. It may also be an inheritence from the Roman empire. Augustine saw himself as the successor of the Roman emperors and he was the first pope to prosecute the heretics on a large scale. And things got worse after him. The overall policy of the popes was to call philosophy the housemaid of theology and burn their opponents at the stake. I think Ricci and Xavier were pretty arrogant basterds too. >Last summer I visited the museum of Pakse in Laos and saw an exhibition about the visit a Dutch merchant made to the king of Laos in the 17th century. Not a harsh word! The merchant gave the king some presents and the king promised to support the trade with the V.O.C. and they parted as good friends. > Erik, I'll simply accept the fact that you have little good to say about most things Christian. But please allow me to point out to you, for the sake of clarity, that Augustine was not a Pope. If you are going to criticize, at least know what it is you criticize. Regards, Stan From SJZiobro at cs.com Tue Nov 6 22:10:16 2007 From: SJZiobro at cs.com (SJZiobro@cs.com) Date: Tue Nov 6 22:10:26 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] NYTimes.com: Let Us Pray for Wealth Message-ID: <2E56549A.4283CB7C.007A239A@cs.com> "Dan Lusthaus" wrote: >Stan, > >I have to agree 1000% with Lance's observations. As for > >> >> I think your reading of the situation differs from mine. At least in >Japan the Christian armies were defending themselves. I know of no vicious >Christian military campaigns in China or Korea. >> > >This sounds like you are getting your information from missionary propoganda >pamphlets rather than legitimate history sources. Dan, I don't think much of what I've read has to do with missionary propoganda pamphlets. Francis Xavier landed in Japan in 1549 and, from that time on till the advent of Dominicans and Franciscans in the early 1590s, the only Catholic missionary activity was done by the Jesuits. If what you write below is meant to imply that their real work for 40 years was to supply Japanese converts with guns, you are very much mistaken. Hideyoshi issued the first decree banishing the propagation of the Christian faith in 1587. Even then, for close to ten years, the Christian mission went on cautiously. I believe your initial gun supplying incident was centered around the running aground near Tosa of the Spanish ship "San Filipe." The captain of the ship was the one who, with typical Spanish pride and arrogance, mentioned that the missionaries preceeded the armies of Spain. If you read the Jesuit relations, however, you'll note how they sought to avoid contact with the Patronado Real, and generally succeeded throughout Asia, precisely because they wanted nothing to do with the Spanish (or Portugese) Crown's desire for conquest. Simply put, their alligence was firt to Rome, not Lisbon or Madrid. The damage was done, however, and the Christian mission suffered. Even so, it wasn't until 1614, when Hideyori (?), Hideyoshi's successor, issued his edict, that the mission(s) suffered amore definitive setback. It is noteworthy, I think, that even with this state of affairs there remained many Christians at the Court of Hideyori, and several commanded his troops during the bombardment of Osaka in 1615 or thereabouts. Your contention that Christian missionaries always (implied) preceded the Spanish or Portugese armies is simply not the case. What you'll find is that missionaries (these would be Franciscans or Dominicans) accompanied the agents of the Crown. So the advent of Spanish or Portugese conquest and missionizing activity were normally simultaneous. However, and I've noted this above, this model does not hold for the Jesuit missions in India, China, and Japan; it was the advent of the Franciscans and the Dominicans that heralded the sort of strife and turmoil you in part note. I notice below that you want to corroborate the principle of mission preceding military by citing the situation in China during the 19th century. I think you are right enough with regard to that time, but in the time of which we are treating at the moment, your anachronism does not meet the point. China carefully regulated the visits of Catholic missionaries within her borders. The only ones who truly succeeded in establishing missions within the Middle Kingdom at this time were, again, the Jesuits, and they made relatively few converts. Their presence clearly did not herald the advent of conquoring Spanish or Portugese armies. In fact, give the historical record relative to the activities of the Jesuits throughout Asia in the 16th century, and given the limited success of the Spanish or the Portugese (mainly the Portugese since the Spanish, via the Treaty of Tordesillas, concentrated their efforts in the Americas, much of your thesis fails in light of thereof. It is, however, a good read, as is much of what you write. Stan >This was a time of competing Shoguns in Japan, and the Christians (or, more >accutately, the Catholics) backed one side, supplying them with firearms, >etc., which had not existed in Japan up to that time. They were hoping -- as >their own writings of the time explain -- to have an "in" with the winning >side, and once that side gained control, to impose Christianity on Japan. > >Unfortunately for them, their side lost. The victors were not amused by role >and arms the Catholics had introduced into what should have been an internal >struggle, not with their motives for doing so. So Catholics (NOT Christians >per se) were banned henceforth -- for strictly politico-military reasons, >not religious. This was sound policy, not persecution. So, while the >Portugese, etc. were forbidden to land or trade in Japan, the Dutch, who had >their own problems with the Catholics (Richard will soon be in Leiden, the >place were the Spanish were routed and turned back, saving Holland from >Catholic rule), were permitted to continue trading with Japan, and were >welcomed on many fronts (e.g., as conduits for science, such as Western >medical knowledge). The Japanese devised a simple litmus test for whether >one was Catholic or Protestant. One had to stomp on a picture of the Virgin >Mary. Catholics wouldn't do it -- the Dutch did it with relish. > >Let's be clear -- wherever Christian missionaries arrived, the army was >never far behind. Late 19th century is also illustrative. The Western powers >(and Japan) had divided China amongst themselves after the defeat of the >Chinese during the Opium wars. The settled status quo included clear >demarcations of where missionaries would be allow to go and missionize, and >where would be offlimits. The missionaries continually ignored those >restrictions, arrogantly and forcefully imposing themselves on local >populations who had no recourse to have the missionaries and their >interferences (abolishing "idols" and "idolatry", interfering with all sorts >of local customs and daily activities). Since the Chinese govt., hands tied >by the foreigners running the place, was powerless to do anything except >express words of disapproval, wherever these missionaries went, riots >eventually resulted, which ended with the Western militaries coming in and >putting down the riots -- which led to the Boxer Rebellion, etc. > >Or research what the missionaries did to Tasmania, or Hawaii, etc etc etc > >Let's make this simple -- not simplistic. A religion that believes there is >only ONE god, one truth, one way of looking at things, one way to behave -- >and that way is OUR way which is the Cosmic Divine way, does not want to be >reminded that any alternatives whatsoever might be possible -- much less >that such alternatives could be legitimate. Any semblance of an alternate >way must be from the devil -- since it violates the one and only true way -- >and ergo must be stamped out. It is one's sacred duty and mission to do so. >No reminders or remainders of such an Other (where "other" = evil, >temptation, etc.) must be allowed to remain, since they violate and offend >the cosmic order and the will of the one god -- as well as remind everyone >that the one is not hegemonous and hence, maybe, not as "one" as everyone >needs to assume and accept and believe. > >What this means is that Christianity and Islam not only extirpate (to use >the word that seems to have prevailed in this list's discussion -- much >cleaner than "massacre" or "violently suppress and kill off") other >religions (idolators and infidels); they also have put tremendous attention >and energy into killing off all within their own ranks who hold a different >view (heretics) [that is the story in present day Iraq, for instance, where >attempts to "extirpate" the remaining Yazdis are also underway] . Hence the >explosion of a profusion of different Christianities as a consequence of the >Reformation. Celebrating the ability to be different, think differently and >act differently. As we know, however, it was never that clean, and each >group persecuted the others (an inherited trait), so that all the European >groups who came to the New World to escape religious persecution, >immediately turned around to persecute the other sects that came over for >the same reason -- each settling in a different part of the colonies to stay >away from the persecutions of the others (Pilgrims wouldn't even let members >of some sects land in New England). Ergo working the separation of Church >and State into the First Amendment to the US Constitution forbidding the >establishment of a State religion and forbidding the State from restricting >the practice of any religion, no matter how odious it might appear to >rivals. > >Dan Lusthaus From selwyn at ntlworld.com Tue Nov 6 23:27:40 2007 From: selwyn at ntlworld.com (L.S. Cousins) Date: Tue Nov 6 23:27:52 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] NYTimes.com: Let Us Pray for Wealth In-Reply-To: <200711061605.57714.rhayes@unm.edu> References: <1ABEE5F6.267257A8.007A239A@cs.com> <200711061304.23811.rhayes@unm.edu> <200711061605.57714.rhayes@unm.edu> Message-ID: Richard, >That would require first establishing what counts as evidence. I am not sure >how one can find evidence in this kind of thing that is not in some way >question-begging. At this level all philosophical claims are necessarily incoherent. > > But what I said was that Buddhism 'has a better track record in this >> area.' I can think of other areas where e.g. Christianity has a >> better track record. > >I suppose what I find troublesome is the very idea of talking of track records >at all when dealing with such ill-defined subjects as Buddhism and >Christianity. It is not entirely clear how one could decide who counts as a >Buddhist and who counts as a Christian. If one cannot decide that, then one >does not even have a subject about which to begin collecting data. That would apply to any historical issue and any political issue too. > > There was and is no intention either to 'sew harmony' or to sew >> disharmony, only to establish truth. > >The question of whether Christians (whoever they may be) or Buddhists (whoever >they may be) have a better track record in some area seems to me one of those >areas in which there is no truth to the matter. I find that simply evasive. My experience is that if one carefully examines historical issues one generally finds that they are not as black and white as one initially supposes. That for me makes examining them worthwhile. > > I think I understand where you are coming from. But I simply don't >> think one should deny facts just because acknowledging them might be >> misused by some. > >I think the question has been set up in such a way that there are no facts to >be either affirmed or denied. What one is trading in here is mostly >prejudice. The problem for me here is that the kind of claim you are making seems to fly in the face of commonsense. By trying to deny manifest facts, you strengthen and reinforce prejudice. Lance From jvriens at free.fr Wed Nov 7 01:34:39 2007 From: jvriens at free.fr (Joy Vriens) Date: Wed Nov 7 01:34:50 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] NYTimes.com: Let Us Pray for Wealth References: <04FE7930.0742235A.007A239A@cs.com> Message-ID: Hi Stan, >Now that I have a few minutes more I thought to add the following. First, one can use religious principles along with a political ideology, for instance, theories of dana in conjunction with the implicit socialism of those who consider it wonderful to pay large amounts of taxes to the government so that government can make of one's society a workers paradise. Whether or not paying taxes is an act of religion is, however, more that open to question. Not for me. Religion goes deeper for me than "paying", taxes or donations or otherwise. Religion is directly tied up with the meaning of my life and my motivations and I would like to add to that that the meaning of life is not an absolute for me. I know we used the term charity earlier, but I think more in terms of dana and in my specific (I think) interpretation of that term, which is generosity, openness. Generosity doesn't limit itself to money or gifts, it includes giving of my person, my time etc. Religiously speaking, the act of "giving" is not so much about what I "give" or about my giving, but about my choice to "give" or to refuse to "give". My default religious setting is to "give". So when I pay taxes, it is part of my continuous act of religion, but if I refused to pay taxes it would be a decisive act of non-religion. As a member of society I could never consider my refusal to pay taxes as an act of religion. So for me it is not open to question. I see myself as living in polytheistic world like the ancient Greeks and Romans. I have to make offerings to the various gods of health, justice, wisdom, celebrity, fortune, political power etc etc. Every counselor and service provider I need to make my life work is a god to whom I need to sacrifie. Translated, this means that I am aware that I am not in control of my life, that I am dependent on others and other factors to lead it well and that I acknowledge that. If I neglect this or that "god" (e.g. I tend to neglect the god of sport and fitness, a question of time and choices), one day that god will probably make me par for my negligeance. >At best, in my understanding, it would be an act of the virtue of justice in giving whomever their due, and this accords with all the relevant Gospel and other New Testament writings. Yes, and trying to be a good quietist, I tend to consider that if someone considers something is their due, I won't contest it. Didn't the Buddha say that anyway it isn't mine? >Second, I think your use of Luke here misses the point of Christ's parable against religious pride, arrogance, and a lack of mercy. The real issue here is self-knowledge and knowledge of the Other. I don't know what the real issue is here, or what it is generally believed to be. I see the main issue as humility, one of the main virtues of christianism and one of its most powerful teachings. >Third, is it the case that the Buddhist sutras and shastras supports and favors big government and the paying of taxes? I don't know. I am not good at living by a book anyway. Joy From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Wed Nov 7 01:34:33 2007 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Wed Nov 7 01:34:53 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] NYTimes.com: Let Us Pray for Wealth References: <1ABEE5F6.267257A8.007A239A@cs.com><200711061612.15125.rhayes@unm.edu><1af401c820d8$9f2ab4a0$95339c04@Dan> <200711061826.43273.rhayes@unm.edu> Message-ID: <001501c82119$0700efa0$cb369c04@Dan> Richard, > > If you did the first part of your homework well, you will have traced the > > outline of the green areas on most of the above maps. Coincidence? Fantasy? > > Prejudice? You decide. > > Coincidence mostly. That you try to make more of it than that? Prejudice, > narrow-mindedness, irrationality and hatred, mainly. And this is where we differ. There are too many dots, in too great a density, at the periphery of the green areas -- and within them -- to reasonably attribute this all to "coincidence." Your repeated attempts to find parity where there is none are disheartening. How many 9/11s in the last ten years can you name that were perpetrated by Buddhists? (I'll even grant you the Aum Shin Rikkyo group, though a strong case could be made for excluding them from consideration as "Buddhists" -- but let's throw that in.) Now make a list of all the Islam-related terrorist activities you can think of from the last ten years (there are too many for you to remember them all, but just do the best you can; just try to recall the most spectacular). For extra credit, get out the map again and plot all incidents according to location. Now compare the totals from both lists. Your imaginary parity evaporates with the disparity. But let's put aside the (very real) threat that Islam today poses to the nonMuslim world. An equally deep tragedy is the increasing popularity, achievement of power, and "extipation" of opposing opinions and people by especially virulent strains of Islam. Islam contains much beautiful history and profound thought, art, science, culture... -- though even in the heyday of the Ibn Sinas and Ibn Rushds and al-Hallajs, they were attacked, persecuted and even martyred -- as well as an ugly, violent history, turned on deviant Muslims as well as on infidels. The beautiful Islam is presently disappearing throughout the Muslim world, intimidated into silence or worse. I can't tell you how deeply that saddens me. Let me put this in more concrete -- if personal anecdotal -- form. When I taught a course on Islam (yes! They ASKED me to do it), what we studied so inspired a number of students that half-way through the course they were seriously contemplating converting to Islam. At another school, after I was asked to give a couple of guest lectures to a graduate seminar on Islam (most of the students were Muslims from overseas), despite the fact that the dept. had two scholars of Islam on the faculty, several of the students wanted me to be the advisor for their dissertations, or at least on their committees. So much for my alleged prejudice. On the other hand, at some other schools I have been told that they would be afraid to let me teach a course on Islam -- not because they were afraid I would bad-mouth the tradition, but exactly to the contrary, the local Muslim community -- which would form a substantial portion of the class -- consisted of a type of fundamentalist Muslim for whom the "beautiful" Islam was NOT Islam. Sufism is not Islam. Etc. And those schools had already had violent and intimidating incidents against profs from such students. Only someone who spoke the kind of Islam these students approved of, or who knew how to tiptoe on the right eggshells, would be safe (relatively) to teach such courses. That was a matter of grave concern and consternation to those depts. A frightening number of schools have relayed such stories to me (from various parts of the country -- rural as well as urban). It is one of the unspoken secrets of university teaching in this PC age, when discussing such things out loud gets one accused of prejudice, etc. Maybe that disturbing trend hasn't made it to New Mexico yet. Perhaps you will retire before it gets there. But it is coming. Dan Lusthaus From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Wed Nov 7 01:45:22 2007 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Wed Nov 7 01:45:40 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] NYTimes.com: Let Us Pray for Wealth References: <2E56549A.4283CB7C.007A239A@cs.com> Message-ID: <001b01c8211a$8a27a760$cb369c04@Dan> Stan, The details as to which Catholic orders did what starts to get complicated. For some the Jesuits are angels, for others the demonic within Catholicism. We needn't rehearse all that here. Missionary activity in Japan -- by all orders -- was not as innocent you are attempting to portray. For instance (to be brief), from Wikipedia under Kirishitan (????, ???, ?????, Kirishitan?): Missionaries were not reluctant to take military action if they considered it an effective way to Christianize Japan. They often associated military action against Japan with the conquest of China. They thought that well-trained Japanese soldiers who had experienced long civil wars would help their countries conquer China. For example, Alessandro Valignano said to the Philippine Governor that it was impossible to conquer Japan because the Japanese were very brave and always received military training but that Japan would benefit them when they would conquer China. Francisco Cabral also reported to the King of Spain that priests were able to send to China two or three thousand Japanese Christian soldiers who were brave and were expected to serve the king with little pay. The Jesuits provided various kinds of support including military support to Kirishitan daimyo when they were threatened by non-Kirishitan daimyo. Most notable was their support of Omura Sumitada and Arima Harunobu, who fought against the anti-Catholic Ryuzoji clan. In the 1580s, Valignano believed in the effectiveness of military action and fortified Nagasaki and Mogi. In 1585, Gaspar Coelho asked the Spanish Philippines to send a fleet but the plan was rejected due to the shortness of its military capability. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirishitan Since further details are easily gathered from standard history texts -- or these days apparently online -- we needn't explore this further here on this list, where its relevance to Buddhism per se is marginal. Dan From jvriens at free.fr Wed Nov 7 02:21:35 2007 From: jvriens at free.fr (Joy Vriens) Date: Wed Nov 7 02:21:47 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] NYTimes.com: Let Us Pray for Wealth References: Message-ID: Lance, >Since you qualify with 'on a whole', I might agree. But in fact some >smaller groups have done better e.g. the Quakers. But I suspect that >what you say is possibly true for very large groups. That said, I >doubt whether we have the evidence to know. But I was talking about >one specific area in which I do think that Buddhism has a better >record. I was wondering about the record of Jinism? I am enjoying reading some Jain litterature (KundKund, Yogindu) and find them both archaic and refreshing. Joy From selwyn at ntlworld.com Wed Nov 7 02:39:23 2007 From: selwyn at ntlworld.com (L.S. Cousins) Date: Wed Nov 7 02:40:16 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] NYTimes.com: Let Us Pray for Wealth In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Joy, Probably better than Buddhism, but especially in the ancient period when there were Jain kings and dynasties things may not always have been perfect. And there are literary mentions of persecutions carried out by Jains, although it is hard to know how seriously to take them. On the whole, though, Jains have been more sinned against than sinning. Kundakunda should appeal to anyone who likes Madhyamaka. Lance >Lance, > >>Since you qualify with 'on a whole', I might agree. But in fact some >>smaller groups have done better e.g. the Quakers. But I suspect that >>what you say is possibly true for very large groups. That said, I >>doubt whether we have the evidence to know. But I was talking about >>one specific area in which I do think that Buddhism has a better >>record. > >I was wondering about the record of Jinism? > >I am enjoying reading some Jain litterature (KundKund, Yogindu) and >find them both archaic and refreshing. From jvriens at free.fr Wed Nov 7 03:24:03 2007 From: jvriens at free.fr (Joy Vriens) Date: Wed Nov 7 03:24:45 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] NYTimes.com: Let Us Pray for Wealth References: Message-ID: Lance, >Kundakunda should appeal to anyone who likes Madhyamaka. Yes his double truth struck me and I wondered who influenced who or if it was the Zeitgeist of those days (I see the the idea of double truth as related to that of purusha/prakrit). I have read Kundakunda lived around the 1-2nd century, or later (before the 5th). Joy From selwyn at ntlworld.com Wed Nov 7 03:52:35 2007 From: selwyn at ntlworld.com (L.S. Cousins) Date: Wed Nov 7 03:55:18 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] NYTimes.com: Let Us Pray for Wealth In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Joy, > >Kundakunda should appeal to anyone who likes Madhyamaka. > >Yes his double truth struck me and I wondered who influenced who or >if it was the Zeitgeist of those days The usual assumption is that Kundakunda is influenced by Naagaarjuna, but we don't really know. I would think that the idea of two truths originates from abhidharma of some kind. >(I see the the idea of double truth as related to that of purusha/prakrit). How is that ? >I have read Kundakunda lived around the 1-2nd century, or later >(before the 5th). > >Joy I don't think we really know his exact date either. Lance From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Wed Nov 7 04:25:37 2007 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Wed Nov 7 04:26:00 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] NYTimes.com: Let Us Pray for Wealth References: Message-ID: <004801c82130$ef679930$cb369c04@Dan> Joy and Lance, > >I have read Kundakunda lived around the 1-2nd century, or later > >(before the 5th). > > > >Joy > > I don't think we really know his exact date either. > > Lance Paul Dundas thinks he may have lived in the 8th c, but he's uncertain. Dan From SJZiobro at cs.com Wed Nov 7 05:39:57 2007 From: SJZiobro at cs.com (SJZiobro@cs.com) Date: Wed Nov 7 05:40:09 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] NYTimes.com: Let Us Pray for Wealth Message-ID: <3D53239A.099861B3.007A239A@cs.com> Dan, Your points are well enough taken within their respective context(s). I'm well aware of the real strife between the Catholic Orders and how that strife was also expressed in more properly civil matters. It's fair to say that the situation was neither as sinister as you tend to portray nor as seemingly innocent as I have. It is interesting to note the complicity of Japanese Buddhist officials in the persecution of Christians, particularly the role of the temples as mechanisms to safeguard against Christianity once the persecutions became definitive. At any rate, religions are nothing apart from the people who adhere to them. If one is to speak of religions as somehow things out there, one is projecting. Ultimately, the matter reduces to the people who claim certain beliefs as their own and who use them rightly or wrongly, i.e. act rightly or wrongly. Stan "Dan Lusthaus" wrote: >Stan, > >The details as to which Catholic orders did what starts to get complicated. >For some the Jesuits are angels, for others the demonic within Catholicism. >We needn't rehearse all that here. > >Missionary activity in Japan -- by all orders -- was not as innocent you are >attempting to portray. For instance (to be brief), from Wikipedia under >Kirishitan (????, ???, ?????, Kirishitan?): > >Missionaries were not reluctant to take military action if they considered >it an effective way to Christianize Japan. > >They often associated military action against Japan with the conquest of >China. They thought that well-trained Japanese soldiers who had experienced >long civil wars would help their countries conquer China. For example, >Alessandro Valignano said to the Philippine Governor that it was impossible >to conquer Japan because the Japanese were very brave and always received >military training but that Japan would benefit them when they would conquer >China. Francisco Cabral also reported to the King of Spain that priests were >able to send to China two or three thousand Japanese Christian soldiers who >were brave and were expected to serve the king with little pay. > >The Jesuits provided various kinds of support including military support to >Kirishitan daimyo when they were threatened by non-Kirishitan daimyo. Most >notable was their support of Omura Sumitada and Arima Harunobu, who fought >against the anti-Catholic Ryuzoji clan. In the 1580s, Valignano believed in >the effectiveness of military action and fortified Nagasaki and Mogi. In >1585, Gaspar Coelho asked the Spanish Philippines to send a fleet but the >plan was rejected due to the shortness of its military capability. > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirishitan > >Since further details are easily gathered from standard history texts -- or >these days apparently online -- we needn't explore this further here on this >list, where its relevance to Buddhism per se is marginal. > > > >Dan > >_______________________________________________ >buddha-l mailing list >buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com >http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l > From rhayes at unm.edu Wed Nov 7 09:27:07 2007 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Wed Nov 7 09:27:23 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] NYTimes.com: Let Us Pray for Wealth In-Reply-To: References: <1ABEE5F6.267257A8.007A239A@cs.com> <200711061605.57714.rhayes@unm.edu> Message-ID: <200711070927.10165.rhayes@unm.edu> On Tuesday 06 November 2007 23:27, L.S. Cousins wrote: > The problem for me here is that the kind of claim you are making > seems to fly in the face of commonsense. Yes, I hope so. I have very little confidence in common sense. That's perhaps what attracts me to the teachings of the Buddha. The sense those teachings make is not at all common, and most of them directly oppose common sense. When I apply those teachings to a large number of claims about history that are commonly believed, I notice the claims turn out to be quite shallow, sometimes even vacuous, and not infrequently potentially dangerous. I believe the nearly all the claims recently made about the so-called track records of theistic religions fall into those categories. They are certainly shallow, perhaps meaningless, and probably unnecessarily offensive and biased. The Buddha advised his followers to say not only what is true but also helpful. I do not think there is any truth to these "commonsense" claims about the allegedly poor track record of theistic religions, but even if there were some element of truth to them, how and to whom is it helpful to state those putative truths? > By trying to deny manifest > facts, you strengthen and reinforce prejudice. The very issue in dispute is whether some of the claims being made here ARE manifest facts. I claim they are not and that presenting them as if they were is a manifestation of prejudice. -- Richard Hayes Department of Philosophy University of New Mexico From rhayes at unm.edu Wed Nov 7 12:01:22 2007 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Wed Nov 7 12:01:30 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] NYTimes.com: Let Us Pray for Wealth In-Reply-To: <001501c82119$0700efa0$cb369c04@Dan> References: <1ABEE5F6.267257A8.007A239A@cs.com> <200711061826.43273.rhayes@unm.edu> <001501c82119$0700efa0$cb369c04@Dan> Message-ID: <200711071201.22868.rhayes@unm.edu> On Wednesday 07 November 2007 01:34, Dan Lusthaus wrote: > And this is where we differ. There are too many dots, in too great a > density, at the periphery of the green areas -- and within them -- to > reasonably attribute this all to "coincidence." I'm afraid you're going to have to spell out your conclusion for me. What I see when I look at the two maps is that there tends to be quite a bit of overlap between politically troubled regions of the earth and places that have been designated as areas that should be dominated by the United States on the Project for a New American Century website. So if your conclusion is that it is no coincidence that there is trouble wherever people who describe themselves as American imperialists are trying to increase their influence, then we agree. If you are trying to suggest some other conclusions, then we may not agree. So please let us know how you would describe the patterns as you see them. > How many 9/11s in the last ten years can you name that were > perpetrated by Buddhists? How many 9/11s in the last ten years have there been. One. From a single instance, one cannot draw any general conclusions. There was quite a good program on the CBC radio program Ideas in which a scholar who has spent the past decade or so studying websites promoting violence. He has also studied a large number of other al-Qa'eda literature. The main pattern he has detected is that people drawn to fantasies and plans of violent attacks in Western countries are young adults with professional educations who have very little interest in religious practice and who are second or third generation descendants of immigrants from the Middle East. These people, he reports, tend to be driven not by either religious or political fanaticism but by a perception that they are living in societies in which they are not fully accepted. > But let's put aside the (very real) threat that Islam today poses to the > nonMuslim world. No, let's not put that aside. Your principal delusion is that it is Islam that poses the threat. The biggest threat facing the world today is environmental degradation being caused by human beings consuming far more than the planet can provide. A close second is an apparently unstoppable willingness of countries to use military actions, and threats of military actions, to further their own selfish ends. The biggest single threat to world peace and stability today, and the biggest single contributor to environmental degradation, is the United States of America. That the United States of America has chosen to do most of its unconscionable meddling in areas of the world that happen to be populated by Muslims makes it very easy for American imperialists to blame Islam for being the main problem. To fall into the trap of demonizing Islam as the source of the danger is to manifest one's folly. These days folly does not come cheap. It destroys planets. It will soon be destroying a planet near you. -- Richard Hayes Department of Philosophy University of New Mexico From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Wed Nov 7 12:35:10 2007 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Wed Nov 7 12:35:29 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] NYTimes.com: Let Us Pray for Wealth References: <1ABEE5F6.267257A8.007A239A@cs.com><200711061826.43273.rhayes@unm.edu><001501c82119$0700efa0$cb369c04@Dan> <200711071201.22868.rhayes@unm.edu> Message-ID: <011a01c82175$50865410$cb369c04@Dan> Richard, > What I > see when I look at the two maps is that there tends to be quite a bit of > overlap between politically troubled regions of the earth and places that > have been designated as areas that should be dominated by the United States Of course that's all you can see. We've listened to your samaropa on that pratibimba for years now. Abhuta-parikalpa, my friend. I realize you don't want to be disturbed by the facts, because you find the facts disturbing, but here is a little pratipaksa for your samaropa-moha. Carry these maps back in time -- lo and behold, you will discover these same trouble spots (or near proximity) going back centuries, all the way back before there was a US and a George Bush and all the other demons you torture yourself with. The Western Chinese border has been a hot spot for 500 years, before white people first starved in Jamestown. The Parsees and Bahais etc. didn't flee centuries ago due to Bush. Buddhism didn't disappear from Central Asia and India due to Bush. And no one even knew what petroleum was back then.... > How many 9/11s in the last ten years have there been. One. From a single > instance, one cannot draw any general conclusions. For goodness sake. You can eelwriggle better than that! > There was quite a good program on the CBC radio program Ideas in which a > scholar who has spent the past decade or so studying websites promoting > violence. He has also studied a large number of other al-Qa'eda literature. > The main pattern he has detected is that people drawn to fantasies and plans > of violent attacks in Western countries are young adults with professional > educations who have very little interest in religious practice and who are > second or third generation descendants of immigrants from the Middle East. How convenient! Maybe that explains some of the people who cruise websites, it hardly does justice to the bigger picture. Hamas and Hizbollah are not interested in religion? The Jihadis from Saudi Arabia and elsewhere who've been coming to Iraq to martyr themselves have no interest in religion? I guess you have to be an incompetent or ridiculous to get air time on CBS. > These people, he reports, tend to be driven not by either religious or > political fanaticism but by a perception that they are living in societies in > which they are not fully accepted. Sure, it's Bush's fault. > > But let's put aside the (very real) threat that Islam today poses to the > > nonMuslim world. > > No, let's not put that aside. Your principal delusion is that it is Islam that > poses the threat. The biggest threat facing the world today is environmental > degradation being caused by human beings consuming far more than the planet > can provide. When did we start playing either/or? One shouldn't worry about heart attacks because cancer is more likely (or is that vice versa)? Geeze, Richard, you need to hone up your evasions. >... is the United States of America. That the United States of > America has chosen... Speaking of obsessive rants.... (Incidentally China is rapidly surpassing the US in consumption, pollution, etc. That will maybe be the one thing you and Bush will then have in common -- you'll both despise China. Or is umbrage only reserved for the... what was the name of that evil country again?) Cheer up, you old fart. Dan From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Wed Nov 7 12:38:47 2007 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Wed Nov 7 12:39:12 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] NYTimes.com: Let Us Pray for Wealth References: <1ABEE5F6.267257A8.007A239A@cs.com><200711061826.43273.rhayes@unm.edu><001501c82119$0700efa0$cb369c04@Dan> <200711071201.22868.rhayes@unm.edu> Message-ID: <012c01c82175$d2040c30$cb369c04@Dan> Typo correction: Instead of "... to get air time on CBS" that should have been CBC. Not that it makes much difference. The same rule holds. Dan From rhayes at unm.edu Wed Nov 7 14:52:47 2007 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Wed Nov 7 14:52:55 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] NYTimes.com: Let Us Pray for Wealth In-Reply-To: <011a01c82175$50865410$cb369c04@Dan> References: <1ABEE5F6.267257A8.007A239A@cs.com> <200711071201.22868.rhayes@unm.edu> <011a01c82175$50865410$cb369c04@Dan> Message-ID: <200711071452.47998.rhayes@unm.edu> On Wednesday 07 November 2007 12:35, Dan Lusthaus wrote: > (Incidentally China is rapidly surpassing the US in consumption, pollution, > etc. That will maybe be the one thing you and Bush will then have in > common -- you'll both despise China. I can't speak for Bush, but I can speak for myself. I despise no one. It's a bloody waste of time and would make me unhappy if I indulged in such pointless affects. Like everyone else, I work on the issues that concern me most---environmental issues, nuclear disarmament, finding alternatives to both fossil fuels and nuclear power---and I leave the other issues to people who have a passion for them. A concern with Islamic terrorism is just not one of my projects, just as developing a phobia about international Communism was never one of my projects. Sorry. -- Richard From curt at cola.iges.org Wed Nov 7 16:39:03 2007 From: curt at cola.iges.org (curt) Date: Wed Nov 7 16:39:12 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] NYTimes.com: Let Us Pray for Wealth In-Reply-To: <200711061755.51757.rhayes@unm.edu> References: <1ABEE5F6.267257A8.007A239A@cs.com> <200711061304.23811.rhayes@unm.edu> <4730EFC0.90604@cola.iges.org> <200711061755.51757.rhayes@unm.edu> Message-ID: <47324C97.9090002@cola.iges.org> Richard Hayes wrote: > > You'll note that I have never > denied that there is such a thing as religious persecution. OK - but only if you'll note that I never said you never denied there was such a thing as religious persecution. > I have noted that > there is narrow-mindedness and cruelty, and I take it that religious > persecution is an example of those mental states. I have also claimed that no > group has a monopoly on those states, and no group is immune from them. > In fact, most religions are "immune" from "extirpation". > I see nothing to be gained in characterizing Christianity or any of the other > Abrahamic traditions as being systematically and generally intolerant or > prone to cruelty. What it if it happens to be true? "I see nothing to be gained". Pish posh. You *do* see something to be gained from casting *all religions* as intolerant and cruel - you and Sam Harris and Stephen Batchelor. The problem with that position is that it happens to be false - whereas when the phrase "all religions" is replaced by two religions in particular (and only those two) the statement becomes true. > It is not an accurate portrayal of the Abrahamic religions > as a whole, and if we are talking about isolated episodes, then it is no less > true of any other tradition than it is of the Abrahamic religions. > Abraham, Shmabraham - leave him out of this. I am talking about Christianity and Islam - and I am talking about them in terms of history, not their internal mythology (ie, their claim to be somehow "Abrahamic", that is "descended" from Judaism - a claim that is as self-serving as it is baseless). > It would appear that Sam Harris, for whom you seem to have special contempt, > has made quite an impact on your thinking after all. The last time I read > such wholesale slandering of theistic religions (some place other than here > on buddha-l from time to time) was in his books and on his website. > I have nothing at all against "theistic" religions - my three favorite religions all have scads of Gods - Buddhism, Hinduism and Paganism. Buddhism especially. Why the Buddha couldn't even get himself enlightened without dragging the Earth Goddess into it! What an old Pagan he was. Curt Steinmetz From jvriens at free.fr Wed Nov 7 22:20:01 2007 From: jvriens at free.fr (Joy Vriens) Date: Wed Nov 7 22:20:11 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] NYTimes.com: Let Us Pray for Wealth References: Message-ID: Lance, >I would think that the idea of two truths originates from abhidharma >of some kind. >>(I see the the idea of double truth as related to that of purusha/prakrit). >How is that ? What do you mean how is that, I thought it was obvious. :-) It would be too long or too embarassingly short to give you my theory about life, the universe and everything, so I will try to keep it short. Purusha/prakrit ~ Brahma/maya ~ Siva/sakti ~ Niscaya-naya/vyavahara-naya (real and empirical point of view) ~ paramartha-satya/samvrti-satya are all variations on the same theme: absolute/relative. How is it done? Basically by withdrawal of the five senses and manas (the empirical) through various techniques. We can quibble whether it actually is a withdrawal of the 6 senses, or whether it is experienced or described as such, but that is what it boils down to. When that is done, whatever "is left" is very near to something seen as absolute. One can bring in the ideas of a God, of Herman the Cosmic Hedgehog with or without sakti, of a self or of a not-self, but it won't help. Of course, if one looks at the various theories, descriptions, symbols, and practices of this there will be differences. If you look at two ants through a magnifying glass, they will look different, but from a distance everybody will agree that both are ants. Joy From jvriens at free.fr Wed Nov 7 22:27:32 2007 From: jvriens at free.fr (Joy Vriens) Date: Wed Nov 7 22:27:42 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] NYTimes.com: Let Us Pray for Wealth References: <004801c82130$ef679930$cb369c04@Dan> Message-ID: Dan, >Paul Dundas thinks [Kundakunda ] may have lived in the 8th c, but he's uncertain. I hope he is. What is his main argument? Colette Caillat and Nalini Balbir believed Yogindu (who is influenced by Kundakunda) lived in the 5the century. But it seems obvious to me he lived quite a bit later, due to more or less covered references to hathayogic elements. Joy From jvriens at free.fr Wed Nov 7 22:58:12 2007 From: jvriens at free.fr (Joy Vriens) Date: Wed Nov 7 22:58:24 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Kundakunda References: <004801c82130$ef679930$cb369c04@Dan> Message-ID: Dan, >Paul Dundas thinks he may have lived in the 8th c, but he's uncertain. "The date of Kundakunda has been a baffling problem. Scholars generally advocate that Kundakunda belonged to the first century A.D. It is possible to suggest that he lived in the second century A.D. Kundakunda along with the six teachers in succession is mentioned in the copper plate inscription of 466 A.D.2 If we take 150 years for the six teachers, the time of the first teacher Gunachandra will be about 316 A.D. Gu?achandra was not actually the pupil of Kundakunda but only in his line. Therefore, Kundakunda must have lived in the second century A.D. at least 100 years before Gu?achandra." http://www.jainworld.com/literature/jainhistory/chapter8.asp From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Thu Nov 8 09:03:12 2007 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Thu Nov 8 09:03:33 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] NYTimes.com: Let Us Pray for Wealth References: <004801c82130$ef679930$cb369c04@Dan> Message-ID: <001801c82220$deae1e70$db339c04@Dan> Joy, > >Paul Dundas thinks [Kundakunda ] may have lived in the 8th c, but he's uncertain. > > I hope he is. What is his main argument? Since Kundakunda is considered one of the eary Digambaras, the earlier one can push his dates, the older the Digambaras as a whole can claim to be. If there is an inscription that can clearly be dated and that mentions his name, then (with some adjustments of math) we would be in the ballpark. The traditional dating has been, as you've said, around the second-third cent. or so. Dundas doesn't give any detailed arguments, but defers the argument to a work I don't have. Here is some of what he says: The Jains. London, NY: Routledge, 2nd edition, 2002. "Nothing is known of Kundakunda's life. Although scholarship has conventionally located him in the second or third century CE, hagiographical accounts do not appear until the tenth century, a fact which has prompted a recent radical reassessment of his dating which would locate him after 750 CE. [an endnote reference is here, which I'll get to in a moment] ... Tradition regards Kundakunda as being the founder of the Muula Sa'ngha, the main Digambara ascetic lineage..." (p.107) The endnote reads: "Dhaky (1991). This proposed redating would entail Kundakunda being located close to early Advaita Vedanta which his teachings resemble in certain respects. See below." Dhaky (1991) is: Dhaky, M.A. (1991) "The Date of Kundakundaacaarya." in Dhaky and Jain: 187-206. Dhaky and Jain is: Dhaky, M.A. and Jain, S. (eds.) (1991) _Aspects of Jainology Vol. III. Pt. Dalsukhbhai Malvania Felicitation Volume I_, Varanasi. I don't have that work. And don't know how Dhaky's redating has fared since then, aside from noting that in the Dundas' revised 2nd ed. of _The Jains_ in 2002, he obviously did not revise his estimate of Kundakunda's date. That he himself must have found something persuasive in Dhaky is indicated by his index. For names of figures he includes, in parentheses, dates. For Kundakunda the date is "(8th c.?)". Dan From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Thu Nov 8 09:48:00 2007 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Thu Nov 8 09:48:29 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] NYTimes.com: Let Us Pray for Wealth References: <1ABEE5F6.267257A8.007A239A@cs.com><200711071201.22868.rhayes@unm.edu><011a01c82175$50865410$cb369c04@Dan> <200711071452.47998.rhayes@unm.edu> Message-ID: <003a01c82227$25fbff80$db339c04@Dan> Richard, >A concern with Islamic terrorism is just not one > of my projects, just as developing a phobia about international Communism was > never one of my projects. Sorry. "Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged as those who are." -- Ben Franklin Dan From rhayes at unm.edu Thu Nov 8 10:27:49 2007 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Thu Nov 8 10:27:53 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] NYTimes.com: Let Us Pray for Wealth In-Reply-To: <003a01c82227$25fbff80$db339c04@Dan> References: <1ABEE5F6.267257A8.007A239A@cs.com> <200711071452.47998.rhayes@unm.edu> <003a01c82227$25fbff80$db339c04@Dan> Message-ID: <200711081027.49628.rhayes@unm.edu> On Thursday 08 November 2007 09:48, Dan Lusthaus wrote: > "Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged > as those who are." -- Ben Franklin Precisely my reason for attending to the issues of justice that I see as most urgently in need of attention. Let others deal with those they see as most urgent. -- Richard P. Hayes Department of Philosophy University of New Mexico http://www.unm.edu/~rhayes From jmp at peavler.org Thu Nov 8 13:24:14 2007 From: jmp at peavler.org (Jim Peavler) Date: Thu Nov 8 13:24:44 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Let Us Pay for Wealth In-Reply-To: <011a01c82175$50865410$cb369c04@Dan> References: <1ABEE5F6.267257A8.007A239A@cs.com><200711061826.43273.rhayes@unm.edu><001501c82119$0700efa0$cb369c04@Dan> <200711071201.22868.rhayes@unm.edu> <011a01c82175$50865410$cb369c04@Dan> Message-ID: <5EF57CF3-0498-43C8-B794-C3F79112CD63@peavler.org> On Nov 7, 2007, at 12:35 PM, Dan Lusthaus wrote: > > Speaking of obsessive rants.... > > (Incidentally China is rapidly surpassing the US in consumption, > pollution, > etc. That will maybe be the one thing you and Bush will then have in > common -- you'll both despise China. Or is umbrage only reserved > for the... > what was the name of that evil country again?) Which is why all of us good red-blooded Americans should be investing in China! Seen what has happened to the American market the last couple of days. Makes a fellow wish he had bought some China Petro a couple of months ago! > > Cheer up, you old fart. > Sadly watching his 401Ks perish. Hence goeth the plushy retirement. Good thing I got a part-time job! Jim Peavler jmp@peavler.org From rhayes at unm.edu Thu Nov 8 14:06:51 2007 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Thu Nov 8 14:06:56 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] NYTimes.com: Let Us Pray for Wealth In-Reply-To: <47324C97.9090002@cola.iges.org> References: <1ABEE5F6.267257A8.007A239A@cs.com> <200711061755.51757.rhayes@unm.edu> <47324C97.9090002@cola.iges.org> Message-ID: <200711081406.51301.rhayes@unm.edu> On Wednesday 07 November 2007 16:39, curt wrote: > Richard Hayes wrote: > > I see nothing to be gained in characterizing Christianity or any of the > > other Abrahamic traditions as being systematically and generally > > intolerant or prone to cruelty. > > What it if it happens to be true? As my wise and compassionate wife gently reminds me from time to time, not every truth needs to be spoken." The Buddha made similar observations. Before saying anything at all, it is not a bad idea to reflect on whether anyone will benefit by what one is about to say. It is in that spirit that I ask what might be gained by making broad statements about a large group of people. First of all, such broad statements are usually too gross to be true. But even if there is some sense in which it is true that a particular group is prone to intolerance and cruelty, who benefits from publishing that particular truth? Well, let's ask who might benefit by broadcasting the news that Abrahamic religions are more likely to condone campaigns to eradicate (or extirpate, to use your word) other religions than other religions. Is that going to benefit Jews, Muslims and Christians? How? Are you expecting them to have fits of insight into their inner natures, to see themselves and prone to violence, to become ashamed of that propensity and to abandon either their destructive tendencies or their entire religions? Do you imagine that by saying "Abrahamic religions are prone to intolerance and cruelty," on buddha-l, that a person who was about to go out on a suicide mission will say "Golly, this is an intolerant and cruel action I was about to perform" and will thereby take off his suicide vest and go to a zendo or a Quaker meeting instead? (Oh shit, I forgot fr a moment that Quakers also follow an Abrahamic religion and are therefore prone to intolerance and cruelty, so forget the Quaker meeting.) Perhaps you'll argue that broadcasting the news that Abrahamic religions have a terrible track record will benefit individuals who were considering converting to Judaism, Islam or Christianity. On noting that the conversion is likely to expose them to intolerance and cruel individuals whose mentalities might rub off on them, such people might rethink their plans to convert, thereby saving themselves. Is that what you hope to gain? Perhaps you'll argue that broadcasting the news that Abrahamic religions have a bad track record will benefit societies that heed your observations and pass laws banning those religions and requiring the reeducation of everyone who follows them. (Didn't they try that in Spain in 1492? Did it work?) Perhaps you'll argue that declaring the negative features of Abrahamic religions will benefit Buddhists in some way. Such people will look at themselves, notice that they are not following an Abrahamic religious tradition and feel good about themselves, even perhaps a little smug and self-congratulatory. Is this the good you see coming from broadcasting the truth as you see it? > You *do* see something to be gained from casting *all religions* > as intolerant and cruel Not quite. I see something to be gained by reminding people that adhering to a religion does not have the effect of making them no longer prone to such human frailties as greed, hatred, delusion, spite, envy, jealousy, cruelty and intolerance. I see something to be gained by reminding people that they are human beings and are therefore not immune from unwholesome thoughts and actions. I see something to be gained by reminding people that when they begin to identify themselves as belonging to ANY group at all---whether it be a religion, a social club, a political party or a nation---they are increasing the likelihood of seeing themselves are more worthy of favorable attention and of seeing others as more worthy of being pushed to the margins or even killed. > The > problem with that position is that it happens to be false - whereas when > the phrase "all religions" is replaced by two religions in particular > (and only those two) the statement becomes true. Although I really hate speculation, I'm going to make a really wild guess here. I am going to guess that you see yourself as belonging to one or more religions that are not among the two that are, according to you, uniquely prone to intolerance and cruelty. > Abraham, Shmabraham - leave him out of this. I am talking about > Christianity and Islam Oh, I see. So Judaism is---like Buddhism, Hinduism, Daoism, Shinto, Voodoo, Wicca, Scientology, Marxism and the Native American Church of Peyote---a religion with no history of violence, cruelty, exclusion of others, claims of chosenness and zealous militance against perceived enemies? So broadcasting this truth will benefit whom exactly? Do you suppose that seeing the true gentle and pacific nature of the Jewish faith is going to benefit the Canaanites, the Hittites. and the Philistines, not to mention the Babylonians who are featured in Psalm 137, which ends with the following inspiring words? \begin{inspiring quote} Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction, He will be happy who rewards you, As you have served us. Happy shall he be, Who takes and dashes your little ones against the rock. [Psalm 137.8-9] \end{inspiring quote} > I have nothing at all against "theistic" religions At last we seem to have reached some agreement. I also have nothing against theistic religions, except that they, like most systems invented by human beings, tend to promote delusions and nurture counterproductive modes of thinking. I'm inclined to agree with Xunzi's observations that quite a lot that happens is beyond human control, and quite a lot that happens is within some degree of human control, and where we lapse into potentially dangerous delusion is when we begin to see our own thoughts and actions as the work of Heaven and/or spirits and when we begin to imagine that we can perform prayers or rituals to gain some degree of control over things that are in fact quite beyond our control. But let's get to the point, which is really the whole purpose of buddha-l, namely, to discuss Republicans. What effect do you think Pat Robertson's endorsement of Rudolph W. Giuliani is going to have? -- Richard P. Hayes Department of Philosophy University of New Mexico http://www.unm.edu/~rhayes From rhayes at unm.edu Thu Nov 8 14:27:01 2007 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Thu Nov 8 14:27:06 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Let Us Pay for Health In-Reply-To: <5EF57CF3-0498-43C8-B794-C3F79112CD63@peavler.org> References: <1ABEE5F6.267257A8.007A239A@cs.com> <011a01c82175$50865410$cb369c04@Dan> <5EF57CF3-0498-43C8-B794-C3F79112CD63@peavler.org> Message-ID: <200711081427.02196.rhayes@unm.edu> On Thursday 08 November 2007 13:24, Jim Peavler wrote: > Which is why all of us good red-blooded Americans should be investing > in China! You betcha. I think this would be a good time to invest in a Chinese toy manufacturer or a company that produces lead-based paint. That's the American way. > Sadly watching his 401Ks perish. By some fluke, my pension funds are all in Canadian dollars. When I left Canada, a CAN$ was worth about US$0.65. Now it's worth US$1.07. So just by moving to the USA, the CAN$104.37 I had in my pension fund has dramatically increased in value by about 43 cents. That should be enough to buy some stocks in that Chinese leaded paint company. I am acutely aware that this financial windfall has come about almost exclusively as a result of carefully thought out Republican policies, so Dan can add this item to the list of things I have praised Bush for. -- Richard Pecunious Hayes From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Thu Nov 8 14:54:36 2007 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Thu Nov 8 14:54:56 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Let Us Pay for Wealth References: <1ABEE5F6.267257A8.007A239A@cs.com><200711061826.43273.rhayes@unm.edu><001501c82119$0700efa0$cb369c04@Dan><200711071201.22868.rhayes@unm.edu><011a01c82175$50865410$cb369c04@Dan> <5EF57CF3-0498-43C8-B794-C3F79112CD63@peavler.org> Message-ID: <00be01c82251$f5b93470$db339c04@Dan> > > > Sadly watching his 401Ks perish. Hence goeth the plushy retirement. > Good thing I got a part-time job! Jim, America is rapidly heading for third-world status. Which means we all get poorer, and those who want to wear own-govt-trashing-hair-shirts to publicly display their white-Protestant guilt will have to move to China to continue their practice. We've been on this downward course since Reagan -- who turned us from the world's largest creditor nation to the world's largest debtor nation virtually overnight. The last fumes of the post-WW II Marshall Plan (or was that Martial Plan?) prosperity have finally evaporated. The ride had its moments while it lasted. May soon be time to dust off my panhandling skills. cheers, Dan From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Thu Nov 8 14:58:59 2007 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Thu Nov 8 14:59:19 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] NYTimes.com: Let Us Pray for Wealth References: <1ABEE5F6.267257A8.007A239A@cs.com><200711071452.47998.rhayes@unm.edu><003a01c82227$25fbff80$db339c04@Dan> <200711081027.49628.rhayes@unm.edu> Message-ID: <00cc01c82252$927e1be0$db339c04@Dan> > On Thursday 08 November 2007 09:48, Dan Lusthaus wrote: > > > "Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged > > as those who are." -- Ben Franklin > > Precisely my reason for attending to the issues of justice that I see as most > urgently in need of attention. Let others deal with those they see as most > urgent. > Kind of misses Franklin's point, but fine. At least stop calling those who do take up issues you are too busy or indifferent to engage in yourself "deluded." Dan From rhayes at unm.edu Thu Nov 8 16:16:48 2007 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Thu Nov 8 16:16:55 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Let Us Pee for Health In-Reply-To: <00be01c82251$f5b93470$db339c04@Dan> References: <1ABEE5F6.267257A8.007A239A@cs.com> <5EF57CF3-0498-43C8-B794-C3F79112CD63@peavler.org> <00be01c82251$f5b93470$db339c04@Dan> Message-ID: <200711081616.49251.rhayes@unm.edu> On Thursday 08 November 2007 14:54, Dan Lusthaus wrote: > America is rapidly heading for third-world status. On this we fully agree, which proves that if the dialogue continues long enough, all apparent differences will be resolved. America has become a third-world country, thanks to a hard-working team of Republican bananas. That's why I have been pushing very hard for a Union of American States in which every member nation (that is, every country in the Americas from the Arctic circle to Tierra del Fuego, including all the Caribbean nations, including Cuba) will have a common currency (called the American peso). Every legal resident of every nation in the Union of American States will be allowed to live and travel freely and work, without passports or permits, anywhere in the Americas. I think we third-world nations should stick together. There will be no military allowed anywhere within the Union, since who the hell is going to attack America? Antartica? Not likely. Europe? They've already done it and don't need to repeat the mistake. Australia? Fiji? They don't need the headaches. Asia? They don't need to invade, when all they need to do is call in all the money they have lent us. I reckon we'll all be eligible to serve in Sichuan as corv?e labor during the planting and harvest seasons. I'm actually quite serious about this proposal and vow not vote for any presidential candidate who is not fully behind this plan. It is, I am quite convinced, exactly what the Buddha would have wanted for the Americas (if he had known about the Americas). It may be be difficult to persuade Canadians that it would be to their advantage to join the Union of American States---until winter comes. -- Richard Hayes From rhayes at unm.edu Thu Nov 8 16:19:23 2007 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Thu Nov 8 16:19:26 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] NYTimes.com: Let Us Pray for Wealth In-Reply-To: <00cc01c82252$927e1be0$db339c04@Dan> References: <1ABEE5F6.267257A8.007A239A@cs.com> <200711081027.49628.rhayes@unm.edu> <00cc01c82252$927e1be0$db339c04@Dan> Message-ID: <200711081619.23110.rhayes@unm.edu> On Thursday 08 November 2007 14:58, Dan Lusthaus wrote: > At least stop calling those who > do take up issues you are too busy or indifferent to engage in yourself > "deluded." I have never called anyone who does not have my priorities deluded. I have only called Cassandras who identify Islam as a serious threat deluded. And I have called them that only because they are. -- Richard P. Hayes Department of Philosophy University of New Mexico http://www.unm.edu/~rhayes From franzmetcalf at earthlink.net Thu Nov 8 16:41:28 2007 From: franzmetcalf at earthlink.net (Franz Metcalf) Date: Thu Nov 8 16:41:35 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Religious Persecution [was: NYTimes.com: Let Us Pray forWealth] In-Reply-To: <00e601c820a3$81f5b220$95339c04@Dan> References: <19F4C30C.08C1B13D.007A239A@cs.com><003401c8208f$2f7889a0$95339c04@Dan> <6a517909fc0bf2f371219b9d978a64c1@earthlink.net> <00e601c820a3$81f5b220$95339c04@Dan> Message-ID: <72acf3fafc2cd3155e820d306740babf@earthlink.net> Gang, Dan asked, > Are we living in such a hypersensitive PC world that I need to explain > what > I wrote? Well, I guess. But really I think it might be equally about my denseness as the age's hypersensitivity. I won't comment on your detailed explanation of the political aspects of anti-Christian (=Catholic) persecution/policy in Japan. Well, I'll say I'm confident that on the political level it was a wise policy for the victors to pursue and I'm glad for the end result (despite the Tom Cruise movie) of the preservation of Buddhism as the dominant religion in Japan. That preservation allowed the migration of Japanese Buddhism, Buddhisms really, to the United States, which has in turn immensely enriched our culture and my life. Yours too! And without that preservation we wouldn't have the continuing living presence of Shinto, either. And without that there'd be no "My Neighbor Totoro" and my daughter would be deprived of great joy. Still, I'm must not comfortable with this sort of politics. Call me weak, call me cosseted, call me an only-in-safe-America idiot, but I can't get away from some kind of gut level disgust with anti-religious policies. Don't get me wrong, I *can* get behind anti-violence policies and I can get behind policies focused on depriving violent religious zealots of their power to act. I just can't support preventing them from other forms of their religious practice, which as I understand it, did happen to the Japanese Christians. (Note that I'm *not* speaking of foreign Christians in Japan, just native Japanese who had converted or been born into Christian families. Like the Muranos, I recall they hung around for centuries.) Franz From gbungo at earthlink.net Thu Nov 8 16:57:40 2007 From: gbungo at earthlink.net (Gregory Bungo) Date: Thu Nov 8 16:59:29 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Attack on Stone Buddha in Pakistan Message-ID: Hi all, This has been reported on other lists, but I haven't seen it mentioned here. I apologize for the redundancy if someone else already reported it. Another large stone Buddha has been defaced by fanatics in the same part of the world where the Bamiyan statues were destroyed. http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/10/buddhist-relics.html http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007%5C11%5C05%5Cstory_5-11-20 07_pg3_6 http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,515958,00.html It's disturbing to imagine what such fanatics might like to do to the archaeological relics in Egypt! Sadly, Greg Bungo From SJZiobro at cs.com Thu Nov 8 17:09:18 2007 From: SJZiobro at cs.com (SJZiobro@cs.com) Date: Thu Nov 8 17:09:31 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] NYTimes.com: Let Us Pray for Wealth Message-ID: <06C405B9.20EE0FAF.007A239A@cs.com> Joy, You've been very kind in further clarifying your take on this matter. I would agree with you that one can make any act of virtue an act of religion in the manner of which you speak here. Where I don't agree is that, outside of the practice of the theological virtues, each virtue has its specific object, and that object is not necessarily allied with an exercise of religion. At any rate, your remarks are interesting and a help. Regards, Stan "Joy Vriens" wrote: >Hi Stan, > >>Now that I have a few minutes more I thought to add the following. First, one can use religious principles along with a political ideology, for instance, theories of dana in conjunction with the implicit socialism of those who consider it wonderful to pay large amounts of taxes to the government so that government can make of one's society a workers paradise. Whether or not paying taxes is an act of religion is, however, more that open to question. > >Not for me. Religion goes deeper for me than "paying", taxes or donations or otherwise. Religion is directly tied up with the meaning of my life and my motivations and I would like to add to that that the meaning of life is not an absolute for me. I know we used the term charity earlier, but I think more in terms of dana and in my specific (I think) interpretation of that term, which is generosity, openness. Generosity doesn't limit itself to money or gifts, it includes giving of my person, my time etc. ?Religiously speaking, the act of "giving" is not so much about what I "give" or about my giving, but about my choice to "give" or to refuse to "give". My default religious setting is to "give". So when I pay taxes, it is part of my continuous act of religion, but if I refused to pay taxes it would be a decisive act of non-religion. As a member of society I could never consider my refusal to pay taxes as an act of religion. So for me it is not open to question. > >I see myself as living in polytheistic world like the ancient Greeks and Romans. I have to make offerings to the various gods of health, justice, wisdom, celebrity, fortune, political power etc etc. Every counselor and service provider I need to make my life work is a god to whom I need to sacrifie. Translated, this means that I am aware that I am not in control of my life, that I am dependent on others and other factors to lead it well and that I acknowledge that. If I neglect this or that "god" (e.g. I tend to neglect the god of sport and fitness, a question of time and choices), one day that god will probably make me par for my negligeance. ? ? > >>At best, in my understanding, it would be an act of the virtue of justice in giving whomever their due, and this accords with all the relevant Gospel and other New Testament writings. > >Yes, and trying to be a good quietist, I tend to consider that if someone considers something is their due, I won't contest it. Didn't the Buddha say that anyway it isn't mine? > >>Second, I think your use of Luke here misses the point of Christ's parable against religious pride, arrogance, and a lack of mercy. The real issue here is self-knowledge and knowledge of the Other. > >I don't know what the real issue is here, or what it is generally believed to be. I see the main issue as humility, one of the main virtues of christianism and one of its most powerful teachings. > >>Third, is it the case that the Buddhist sutras and shastras supports and favors big government and the paying of taxes? > >I don't know. I am not good at living by a book anyway. > >Joy >_______________________________________________ >buddha-l mailing list >buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com >http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l > From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Thu Nov 8 17:26:49 2007 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Thu Nov 8 17:27:24 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] NYTimes.com: Let Us Pray for Wealth References: <1ABEE5F6.267257A8.007A239A@cs.com><200711081027.49628.rhayes@unm.edu><00cc01c82252$927e1be0$db339c04@Dan> <200711081619.23110.rhayes@unm.edu> Message-ID: <016501c82267$3fd2bad0$db339c04@Dan> Reverting to name-calling (this, we are to accept, is a "fact," while actually historical facts are not -- in Buddhism we call such misguided reversals viparyaasa), our relentless Richard writes: >That the destruction of the Buddha images at Bamiyan was not an isolated, > I have never called anyone who does not have my priorities deluded. I have > only called Cassandras who identify Islam as a serious threat deluded. And I > have called them that only because they are. As a reminder that the destruction of the Buddhist images at Bamiyan was not an isolated or unique event, and that the same is on-going (we won't mention who is doing it -- but everyone except Richard can guess), the following are copied from another e-list from messages posted in the last day or so. Since this is FYI, without consulting the posters, I will edit out their names. In case anyone is wondering, the list is Indo-Eurasian (a Yahoo group), that consists of many top scholars in and of various regions of Asia, etc., including many dealing with south, central and western Asia from a variety of disciplines (art, linguistics, religion, textual studies, archaeology, etc.), and numerous Muslims. This discussion was initiated when it was noted that recent news accounts of the destruction of Buddhas in Pakistan included the wrong photos -- showing photos of a previously damaged Buddha, and not the newly attacked. The discussion, after some turns, led in this direction: 1) --------- Vishakha Desai's article is linked here: http://tinyurl.com/ys5nkc And here with image: http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php?id=38,5330,0,0,1,0 This is the second time they have tried to destroy it: http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/10/buddhist-relics.html Pakistan, like Afghanistan, is now in no position to protect their ancient "kaffir" ruins. 2) ------------ thanks a lot for the links. Unfortunately, the second article again shows the wrong Buddha image, namely the one between Malakand and Saidu, situated directly to the right of the road: it was damaged exactly that way already in 1980 when I saw it for the first time. But the photographs of the other one are beautiful and most interesting. BTW the german online Magazine SPIEGEL makes that Buddha 40 meters high --- bad recherche as so often regarding art in Pakistan --- : ( http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,515708,00.html ) 3) ------------ Dear colleagues A colleague on another list has provided a good view of the image being destroyed. I have never seen it. Begin forwarded message: > From: > Date: November 8, 2007 1:15:41 AM EST > To: acsaa-l@ccat.sas.upenn.edu > > ACSAA friends, > > This is the actual image in Swat that was blown up last week: > > http://english.sxu.edu/~mrabe/swat/ > > [the one posted by buddhistchannel.tv was like that already in 1990 > when the above photograph was taken.] > > All hail the Absent ones, 4) ------------------ thanks a lot for that wonderful photograph! Unfortunately I also have not seen it during my stays in Swat... A similar big one is only to be found (to my knowledge) on the edge of lake Satpara in Baltistan province (my photos are not really good...). 5) ----------------- Some other views of the beautiful Buddha that both Pakistan and World have lost forever: http://www.chroniclejournal.com/CP_stories.php?id=64056 (I gave this in September) And more photos can be seen (click > key to navigate), http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/popup?id=3731019 The German article that [N] gave tells that Fazlullah heading all these destruction is only 28 years old. Good photographic documentation of ancient art in both Afghanistan and Pakistan is definitely needed. Hope museums in Swat and elesewhere in the region can be saved, and documented by art historians before any raids takingplace. 6) --------------- Dear List, Not sure that these are "raids" as such, quite methodical I think. I was at a talk recently in which some of the attacks on the Buddhist images in Afghanistan were laid along side the Islamic calendar and it seems pretty clear that the desecrations were meant to coincide with particular historical events from Islamic history, which are part of some sequence of religious observance; and which, in these extreme examples, were "expressed" through the destruction of the Buddhist images. Can't quite recall of the details here. Not sure if this kind of "religious observance" is behind these recent attacks, but I imagine they are not mindless and random, or simply part of a general "iconoclast" impulse within Islam, rather they may be something more specific. It is also interesting to note that when the West offered to "buy" the Buddhist images in Afghanistan that that actually promoted them to the status of "idol" and so made it more difficult for moderates within Afghanistan to reason with the extremists. In any case, I am conflating to situations here, but the one might shed light on the other. Does anyone on the list know more details about the timing of these attacks with regard to the Islamic calendar? What are the methods that governments in Pakistan and the West are employing to save the existing images? Money may not be the best recourse. Just curious in any case. 7) --------------------- Steve was so kind to save a scan that I made this afternoon on his server: http://www.safarmer.com/Indo-Eurasian/1980.jpg It's a photograph of the Buddha located on the roadside between Malakand and Saidu. I took the photograph in summer 1980. The heap of loose stones at the bottom of the flat relief clearly shows that it was (is) great fun for the locals to throw stones on the devil (Buddha). This relief is clearly different from the one at Jehanabad (could someone please try to locate Jehanabad in Google Earth?!?? - would be most helpful!) of which we have a good photograph thanks to John. Of course, [R] is right when he states that it is most desirable to have a full documentation of Buddhist Art in Swat on the internet, lest things are lost due to iconoclastic stupidity and negligance by the local authorities (what kind of authority is there nowadays in Swat??). But how to achieve such a goal? Just a proposal: I'm ready to contribute whatever photographs and information I have, and even the Web-Space I could provide. So whoever is interested in collaboration for such a collection is heartily invited... Besides the Buddhas: What about the other Buddhist sites, for example the wonderful excavation of Domenico Faccenna at Butkara I --- I think they are in danger of destruction as well... 8) --------------------- Not that I at all disagree with your concern and desire to preserve these images, but with regard to my earlier question [...] is it helpful to just dismiss these actions as "iconoclast stupidity" -- thinking only dismissively about these actions -- without any thought to what informs them? This approach may not, in the end, actually help solve the problem. I am not saying I know the answer to this, but to simply dismiss the extremists outright as ignorant seems potentially misguided. Not sure actually. I think it worthy at least, of our consideration. Best Wishes, 9) ----------------- The Huntington archive has several hundred such photographs online and several hundred more waiting to be scanned. But nowhere enough. I have been informed of huge local collections in hiding and is quasi government hands by a major Pakistani Official. If the Taliban decide to go after these, it could become a huge disaster for the artistic and academic world. ----- OK, Richard, now you can take out the garbage. Don't forget to separate the trash for recycling (unless your samataa practice concerning religions prohibits that). The above obviously doesn't concern you, only us concerned Cassandras. best, Dan From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Thu Nov 8 17:56:55 2007 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Thu Nov 8 17:57:30 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Religious Persecution [was: NYTimes.com: Let Us PrayforWealth] References: <19F4C30C.08C1B13D.007A239A@cs.com><003401c8208f$2f7889a0$95339c04@Dan><6a517909fc0bf2f371219b9d978a64c1@earthlink.net><00e601c820a3$81f5b220$95339c04@Dan> <72acf3fafc2cd3155e820d306740babf@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <017301c8226b$750bece0$db339c04@Dan> Franz and gang, > Still, I'm must not comfortable with this sort of politics. Is the mangled syntax a sign of your ambivlence? > I > can't get away from some kind of gut level disgust with anti-religious > policies. [...] I just can't support preventing them > from other forms of their religious practice, which as I understand it, > did happen to the Japanese Christians. (Note that I'm *not* speaking of > foreign Christians in Japan, just native Japanese who had converted or > been born into Christian families. Like the Muranos, I recall they hung > around for centuries.) This may get a bit complicated, but your initial sentiment is a good one. The problem is the issue is more complex than that, and email (and other demands on my time) prevent a full airing. The problem for the Japanese of that time (and history should always be viewed in its own historical context as much as possible, at least initially, before me revert to moralistic judgementalism) is the question of loyalties. Catholics, especially at that time (and arguably until the Vatican tried to ban that horrid movie Cleopatra in the early '60s for showing a bit of Liz's flank), paid allegiance to Rome and the Pope. We needn't recite how Christianity spread through Europe -- Charlesmagne, Ferdinand and Isabella, etc. -- or the various religious wars and struggles for *political* autonomy from Rome (Reformation, the Dutch battles mentioned recently, the War of the Roses, Hundred Years War, ad infinitum), to remind ourselves of the nature of the Vatican in those days. What that means is that the neat partitioning of "private" religious practice from public citizenship and loyalty is something Christians of various stripes were fleeing Europe until recent times to establish here in the evil USA. It was not in any way an obvious fact in the old days -- and may not have been a fact at all. Japanese converts had not just converted to a "religion" (the concept itself being a Western construct that, in Japan, the Catholic missionaries of the time were busy trying to invent a word for -- none existed in any East Asian language), they had sworn allegiance to a foreign despot, whose intentions toward Japan had revealed itself in military, seditious expressions. Another dimension (I said this gets complicated), is that the Japanese understood better than we moderns that religion and fidelity to the State were one and the same. Buddhism won over support in China, in part, by proposing that Buddha and Buddhism were protectors of the State; this aspect became more prominent in its acceptance in Korea, and even moreso in Japan. So religion and national integrity are not separable issues -- or at least they weren't until the Founding Fathers drafted the First Amendment to the evil USA's Constitution. It was in this same period in Japan that the Buddhist monastic armies that I mentioned awhile back were also confronted and wiped out -- militarily -- by some of the same cast of characters as purged Christianity from Japan. They didn't expurgate Buddhism per se from Japan, but demilitarized it, and eliminated some of its power centers (monasteries). Today we tend to think of religion as portable and decentered. In those days it was very much place and political-power centered. So the concept of a privately practicing Christian would have been a category error -- very likely for the Christian converts as well. Clearer? Dan From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Thu Nov 8 18:23:26 2007 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Thu Nov 8 18:24:01 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Attack on Stone Buddha in Pakistan References: Message-ID: <019301c8226f$29d26e30$db339c04@Dan> Gregory, Your message went out just as I was getting ready to click the Send button. Thanks for posting that. In the interim another posting appeared on the Indo-Eurasian list, responding to the last post I included in my message. Name again deleted, but this from one of our leading scholars on the history of Chinese and Central Asian history. ----- If they know about them they will definitely go after them -- sooner or later. It is their religious duty to do so. I'm not sure, but several of [N's] latest posts may be hinting at that. ----- Maybe it's time to form a Cassandra NPO. Dan From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Thu Nov 8 22:56:17 2007 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Thu Nov 8 22:56:47 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Religious Persecution [was: NYTimes.com: Let UsPrayforWealth] References: <19F4C30C.08C1B13D.007A239A@cs.com><003401c8208f$2f7889a0$95339c04@Dan><6a517909fc0bf2f371219b9d978a64c1@earthlink.net><00e601c820a3$81f5b220$95339c04@Dan><72acf3fafc2cd3155e820d306740babf@earthlink.net> <017301c8226b$750bece0$db339c04@Dan> Message-ID: <01cf01c82295$45803240$db339c04@Dan> Franz, I also meant to comment on your last sentence. >Like the Muranos, I recall they hung > around for centuries.) I'm guessing you mean the Marranos. Hardly the model one would go to for an argument about letting people privately practice their religion. Marrano is an old Spanish word for "pig" -- it is a derogatory term for forced converts who were suspected of secretly still practicing Judaism behind closed doors while to all outside appearances now being good Iberian Catholics. The less derogatory term is Conversos (Converts). Suspected Conversos could and would be put to death. Conversos continued in hiding in Spain and Portugal for centuries, some making it to Amsterdam (one of the few places in Europe where Jews were allowed to live in the 16th-17th c) and returning to Judaism. After many centuries Converso families would continue to transmit "family" rituals, but later generations had no idea what their significance was, nor that they were originally Jewish. Anthropologists have discovered such "family" rituals in Mexico and other Latin American countries, among people who had no idea why their family ate this dish on that holiday, or did this or that. Rumors held that the late Generalissimo Franco came from a Marrano family. For more on Marranos/Conversos: http://www.haruth.com/JewsMarranos.html http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/Marranos.html http://www.themystica.com/mystica/articles/m/marranos.html http://www.mcs.drexel.edu/~gbrandal/Illum_html/Secret.html http://www.kulanu.org/brazil/returns.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marrano So what Japan did was nothing unusual for the times -- exact mirror image of what the Iberian Catholics did -- except the Spanish and Portugese Catholics DID do this for religious reasons, and continued to persecute the converted, while the Japanese motive was purely political. And, the Jews had been living there -- and flourishing -- for many centuries before the Catholics arrived. Richard hadn't offered them Utah yet. Dan From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Thu Nov 8 23:12:33 2007 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Thu Nov 8 23:13:01 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] NYTimes.com: Let Us Pray for Wealth References: <1ABEE5F6.267257A8.007A239A@cs.com><200711081027.49628.rhayes@unm.edu><00cc01c82252$927e1be0$db339c04@Dan> <200711081619.23110.rhayes@unm.edu> Message-ID: <01d501c82297$89a8b440$db339c04@Dan> Again, Richard's claim: > I have > only called Cassandras who identify Islam as a serious threat deluded. And I > have called them that only because they are. Well, I guess the current head of MI5 in GB is Bush's Cassandra cousin: http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/11/mi5-teen-al-qae.html MI5: Teen Al Qaeda Recruits, Russian Spies Target Britain November 05, 2007 11:40 AM Brian Ross Reports: Teenage al Qaeda recruits and Russian spies are targeting Great Britain in increasing numbers, according to the country's chief spymaster, Jonathan Evans, the head of MI5. In a speech today, Evans said MI5 had identified 2,000 al Qaeda-connected individuals "who we believe pose a direct threat to national security and public safety." Individuals as young as 15 and 16 have been implicated in terrorist-related activity, according to Evans, who said the extremists are "methodically and intentionally targeting young people and children in the U.K." As for the Russians, Evans said "there has been no decrease" in Russian intelligence officers carrying out covert activities in Britain. MI5 is devoting significant resources, Evans said, to countering "unreconstructed attempts by Russian, and others, to spy on the U.K." His comments are considered an important reflection of the current threat as seen by British officials. Evans speaks only with "the concurrence" of the home secretary, according to officials. His speech was delivered Monday to the Society of Editors Annual Conference in Manchester. And from the London Times: London Times: Saudi Arabia 'Hub of World Terror' November 05, 2007 8:34 AM Brian Ross Reports: Following up on our Sept. 11 report on the role of wealthy Saudis continuing to finance al Qaeda, the Sunday Times of London labels Saudi Arabia the "hub of world terror." Its correspondents report the kingdom's "schoolbooks continue to include the anti-Semitic forgery Protocols of the Elders of Zion" and a promised commission to regulate charities suspected of giving money to terrorists has yet to be established. The British report comes in the days following a trip by the Saudi king to London in which he criticized Great Britain for ignoring warnings that could have prevented at least one terror attack. Stunned British officials denied there were ever any such warnings, and the Sunday Times of London story seems a bit of return fire. http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/11/london-times-sa.html Now what has me curious is the last sentence. Here's one for you textualists. What is its rhetorical purpose there? To suggest that maybe the claim that Saudi Arabia is spending a fortune funding terrorists and indoctrinating the Muslim world (who use their textbooks, free of charge) with the vilest form of antisemitism is untrue? Or the British govt. is usually too polite to mention such things? Or mentioning such things is only a form of name-calling? Or that it's just politics as usual, you needn't be concerned, go back to separating your trash for recycling? All of those options are odious. I would say that the last sentence violates the Buddhist code of Right Speech, especially if one uses Richard's standard, which is to be aware of the consequences of what one says. Dan From franzmetcalf at earthlink.net Fri Nov 9 00:03:30 2007 From: franzmetcalf at earthlink.net (Franz Metcalf) Date: Fri Nov 9 00:03:37 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Religious Persecution [was: NYTimes.com: Let UsPrayforWealth] In-Reply-To: <01cf01c82295$45803240$db339c04@Dan> References: <19F4C30C.08C1B13D.007A239A@cs.com><003401c8208f$2f7889a0$95339c04@Dan><6a517909fc0bf2f371219b9d978a64c1@earthlink.net><00e601c820a3$81f5b220$95339c04@Dan><72acf3fafc2cd3155e820d306740babf@earthlink.net> <017301c8226b$750bece0$db339c04@Dan> <01cf01c82295$45803240$db339c04@Dan> Message-ID: <7c22a9223feff357dc84e154da21fdda@earthlink.net> Dan et al., Thank you for the correction on the Marranos/Conversos. I spelled the name wrong, but the other error seems to be that I thought of the Marranos as those who held true to their Jewish heritage, while the Conversos I thought of as open converts. In any case--as with the Japanese--things are never so simple as that. Still, I have such respect for those who can hold so strongly to a tradition as to keep it alive despite centuries of persecution. Seems to me that Christians ought to maintain such respect, as well, but we all forget. Franz From franzmetcalf at earthlink.net Fri Nov 9 00:13:20 2007 From: franzmetcalf at earthlink.net (Franz Metcalf) Date: Fri Nov 9 00:13:26 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Religious Persecution [was: NYTimes.com: Let Us PrayforWealth] In-Reply-To: <017301c8226b$750bece0$db339c04@Dan> References: <19F4C30C.08C1B13D.007A239A@cs.com><003401c8208f$2f7889a0$95339c04@Dan><6a517909fc0bf2f371219b9d978a64c1@earthlink.net><00e601c820a3$81f5b220$95339c04@Dan> <72acf3fafc2cd3155e820d306740babf@earthlink.net> <017301c8226b$750bece0$db339c04@Dan> Message-ID: <9d361357f60de07be76826cbabe81fc3@earthlink.net> Dan et al., I'm afraid my mangled syntax is more a sign of my fatigue and age than my ambivalence. Still, ambivalence I do have, and in abundance. I appreciate your continued efforts at pointing up the complexity of the politico-religious situation in Japan in the 16th and 17th centuries. It also strikes me that your underlying point is worth continually coming back to, as it is in such contrast to anachronistic projections we make on past eras: Japanese Christianity at the eve of the Tokugawa shogunate was not a matter of some kind of Jamesian relationship of a lone person to their god, but a matter of public policy and public allegiance, and such was most religiosity in all times but our own. So my concern with the free practice of individual spirituality may (or may not be) paramount now, but it may also be an inappropriate projection onto prior times and religions. I am lucky, indeed, to be living in the 21st century in a country that may now condone, indeed embrace, torture but still more or less upholds its First Amendment (providing a separation of church and state). Franz On Nov 8, 2007, at 4:56 PM, Dan Lusthaus wrote: > Franz and gang, > >> Still, I'm must not comfortable with this sort of politics. > > Is the mangled syntax a sign of your ambivlence? > >> I >> can't get away from some kind of gut level disgust with anti-religious >> policies. [...] I just can't support preventing them >> from other forms of their religious practice, which as I understand >> it, >> did happen to the Japanese Christians. (Note that I'm *not* speaking >> of >> foreign Christians in Japan, just native Japanese who had converted or >> been born into Christian families. Like the Muranos, I recall they >> hung >> around for centuries.) > > This may get a bit complicated, but your initial sentiment is a good > one. > The problem is the issue is more complex than that, and email (and > other > demands on my time) prevent a full airing. The problem for the > Japanese of > that time (and history should always be viewed in its own historical > context > as much as possible, at least initially, before me revert to moralistic > judgementalism) is the question of loyalties. Catholics, especially at > that > time (and arguably until the Vatican tried to ban that horrid movie > Cleopatra in the early '60s for showing a bit of Liz's flank), paid > allegiance to Rome and the Pope. We needn't recite how Christianity > spread > through Europe -- Charlesmagne, Ferdinand and Isabella, etc. -- or the > various religious wars and struggles for *political* autonomy from Rome > (Reformation, the Dutch battles mentioned recently, the War of the > Roses, > Hundred Years War, ad infinitum), to remind ourselves of the nature of > the > Vatican in those days. > > What that means is that the neat partitioning of "private" religious > practice from public citizenship and loyalty is something Christians of > various stripes were fleeing Europe until recent times to establish > here in > the evil USA. It was not in any way an obvious fact in the old days -- > and > may not have been a fact at all. > > Japanese converts had not just converted to a "religion" (the concept > itself > being a Western construct that, in Japan, the Catholic missionaries of > the > time were busy trying to invent a word for -- none existed in any East > Asian > language), they had sworn allegiance to a foreign despot, whose > intentions > toward Japan had revealed itself in military, seditious expressions. > > Another dimension (I said this gets complicated), is that the Japanese > understood better than we moderns that religion and fidelity to the > State > were one and the same. Buddhism won over support in China, in part, by > proposing that Buddha and Buddhism were protectors of the State; this > aspect > became more prominent in its acceptance in Korea, and even moreso in > Japan. > So religion and national integrity are not separable issues -- or at > least > they weren't until the Founding Fathers drafted the First Amendment to > the > evil USA's Constitution. > > It was in this same period in Japan that the Buddhist monastic armies > that I > mentioned awhile back were also confronted and wiped out -- militarily > -- by > some of the same cast of characters as purged Christianity from Japan. > They > didn't expurgate Buddhism per se from Japan, but demilitarized it, and > eliminated some of its power centers (monasteries). > > Today we tend to think of religion as portable and decentered. In > those days > it was very much place and political-power centered. So the concept of > a > privately practicing Christian would have been a category error -- very > likely for the Christian converts as well. > > Clearer? > > Dan > > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l > From jvriens at free.fr Fri Nov 9 01:11:59 2007 From: jvriens at free.fr (Joy Vriens) Date: Fri Nov 9 01:12:10 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] NYTimes.com: Let Us Pray for Wealth References: <001801c82220$deae1e70$db339c04@Dan> Message-ID: Thank you for the information Dan. >Since Kundakunda is considered one of the eary Digambaras, the earlier one >can push his dates, the older the Digambaras as a whole can claim to be. If >there is an inscription that can clearly be dated and that mentions his >name, then (with some adjustments of math) we would be in the ballpark. Sometimes I dream of a non partisan treatment of the data of all religious movements in India, focussing on the ideas and how they spread. >The traditional dating has been, as you've said, around the second-third >cent. or so. Dundas doesn't give any detailed arguments, but defers the >argument to a work I don't have. Here is some of what he says: > >The Jains. London, NY: Routledge, 2nd edition, 2002. > >"Nothing is known of Kundakunda's life. Although scholarship has >conventionally located him in the second or third century CE, hagiographical >accounts do not appear until the tenth century, a fact which has prompted a >recent radical reassessment of his dating which would locate him after 750 >CE. [an endnote reference is here, which I'll get to in a moment] ... >Tradition regards Kundakunda as being the founder of the Muula Sa'ngha, the >main Digambara ascetic lineage..." >(p.107) That hagiographical "accounts" appear later can be for various reasons. Hagiography is propaganda. E.g. most hagiographical accounts about Joan of Arc were written in the 19th century (Michelet) for the sake of forging national unity etc. Advayavajra rediscovered and revived (or so the hagiography goes) the Ratnagotra-vibhaga in the 10-11th century, translated into Chinese centuries before. People and works can be resuscitated years later when it is convenient, thought necessary etc. Think of the Renaissance. And moreover it is from the 10th century onwards (?) that the fashion of tracing back lineages (parampa) came in vogue. Joy From jvriens at free.fr Fri Nov 9 01:12:19 2007 From: jvriens at free.fr (Joy Vriens) Date: Fri Nov 9 01:12:29 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] NYTimes.com: Let Us Pray for Wealth References: <1ad601c820bb$34022c70$95339c04@Dan> Message-ID: Dan, >The response from the Japanese leaders to bar such dangerous >insurrectional elements was NOT a Buddhist (or Shingon or religious) act, >since the issue was what someone who identifies themselves as a Christian >does, not Christianity per se (hence the Dutch were allowed to continue >trading, despite themselves being Christian). Elsewhere: "The Japanese devised a simple litmus test for whether one was Catholic or Protestant. One had to stomp on a picture of the Virgin Mary. Catholics wouldn't do it -- the Dutch did it with relish" In his booklet Candide, Voltaire alludes to this anecdote, but has a Dutch sailor walk over a crucifix. "Pangloss le tirait cependant par la manche : ? Mon ami, lui disait-il, cela n'est pas bien, vous manquez ? la raison universelle, vous prenez mal votre temps. - T?te et sang, r?pondit l'autre, je suis matelot et n? ? Batavia ; j'ai march? quatre fois sur le crucifix dans quatre voyages au Japon ; tu as bien trouv? ton homme avec ta raison universelle ! ? If that is the case, then this "rule" seems to want to filter out all Christians, Catholics and Protestants undistinguishedly. Joy From jvriens at free.fr Fri Nov 9 01:12:40 2007 From: jvriens at free.fr (Joy Vriens) Date: Fri Nov 9 01:12:50 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] NYTimes.com: Let Us Pray for Wealth References: <06C405B9.20EE0FAF.007A239A@cs.com> Message-ID: Stan, >You've been very kind in further clarifying your take on this matter. I would agree with you that one can make any act of virtue an act of religion in the manner of which you speak here. Where I don't agree is that, outside of the practice of the theological virtues, each virtue has its specific object, and that object is not necessarily allied with an exercise of religion. At any rate, your remarks are interesting and a help. I don't disagree with that. But without the meaning that I can give to "virtues outside of the practice of the theological virtues", those virtues have litlle interest for me. They are not tasty enough, they lack salt as our good friend Jesus would put it. Virtues locked up in themselves, a world locked up in itself, a life locked up in itself, limited by themselves simply lack perspective. Something "other" needs to be added to it. Not to make it complete, but to somehow make it more visible, alive, to bewitch (ensorceler) it. This something isn't necessarily something ontological, although one may believe it is to give it more strength. It is a perspective, it creates a space of otherness, a perhaps imaginery exit. And imagining an exit, open doors and windows is enough to give ones mind more space, to create perspective because the (imaginary) lines continue behind the horizon. And this changes the nature of the horizon, which changes our experience of it. We feel no long! er imprisoned and can experience more openness. That in my opinion is the main objective of a religion. Joy From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Fri Nov 9 01:51:40 2007 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Fri Nov 9 01:52:09 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] NYTimes.com: Let Us Pray for Wealth References: <1ad601c820bb$34022c70$95339c04@Dan> Message-ID: <025e01c822ad$c59ac400$db339c04@Dan> Joy, > In his booklet Candide, Voltaire alludes to this anecdote, but has a Dutch sailor walk over a crucifix. [...] > If that is the case, then this "rule" seems to want to filter out all Christians, Catholics and Protestants undistinguishedly. Voltaire has it right. As I mentioned, this "test" separated the Protestant Dutch from the Catholics. Catholics refused to do it, the Dutch were interested in commerce, not religious propogation, so they would gladly step on a portrait of Mary or a crucifix in order to do business. They were "secular" when it came to trade. They were also forbidden to proselytize -- which is still the case in most of the Islamic world, these days in India (in some contorted forms), and elsewhere. Christians generally extol the right to proselytize, but as anyone familiar with the American Biblebelt can tell you, not only would someone going door-to-door trying to get converts to Shiism be greeted with tremendous hostility, in many places even trying to set up a Taijiquan school can run afoul of neighborhoods who will employ zoning laws, etc., to drive them out (I was involved in a court case in Florida along these lines). In Tennessee a few years ago there was a big legal fight over whether a gift from Japan, a big temple bell, should be prevented from being on display in a public park, as a violation of the separation of Church and State -- Tennessee being a state that would embrace school prayer, Ten Commandment displays in the courthouse, and the site of the famous Scopes Monkey Trial where a school teacher was convicted for teaching evolution back in 1925. Dan Lusthaus From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Fri Nov 9 01:55:00 2007 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Fri Nov 9 01:55:31 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] NYTimes.com: Let Us Pray for Wealth References: <001801c82220$deae1e70$db339c04@Dan> Message-ID: <026201c822ae$3d4c3ec0$db339c04@Dan> Joy, > That hagiographical "accounts" appear later can be for various reasons. Agreed. If that is the sole basis for the argument, then it is shallow indeed. However, as I said, I don't have the book referred to, so I don't know what other evidence it offers for that conclusion. Dundas is a careful scholar who usually exercises good judgement, so that he found it at least somewhat convincing -- at least to not dismiss it out of hand, and adjust his own dating to accord with it -- suggests there may be more there. Don't know.... Dan From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Fri Nov 9 02:19:24 2007 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Fri Nov 9 02:22:47 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Voltaire References: <001801c82220$deae1e70$db339c04@Dan> <026201c822ae$3d4c3ec0$db339c04@Dan> Message-ID: <027c01c822b2$0ccaf5d0$db339c04@Dan> Joy, I should add that Candide used to be one of my favorite books when I was a teenager -- one of the first great satires I ever read. Competing popes in Africa and various places, with their own progeny fighting for hegemony, etc. The sort of "speech" Richard wouldn't approve of, but a very true and funny expos? of the religious hypocrisies of the time. Like others of that time (Hobbes, Spinoza, Leibniz, etc.), he favored a secular (in the meaning that term had at that time) version of universal reason over the theocracies of the day. Leibniz in particular popularized the notion of East Asia as a haven of enlightened reason, based on the reports he got from missionaries about neo-confucianism. For Voltaire, it would be a sign of enlightened reason to cross over a cross into a cross-free zone, i.e., some place where reason rather than theocracy reigned. In that, he overestimated and over-romanticized the situation in Japan -- ironic in the sense that romanticism, the quest, etc., was the narrative folly Candide targeted. Or perhaps you read it differently... Dan From jvriens at free.fr Fri Nov 9 05:39:02 2007 From: jvriens at free.fr (Joy Vriens) Date: Fri Nov 9 05:39:13 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] NYTimes.com: Let Us Pray for Wealth References: <025e01c822ad$c59ac400$db339c04@Dan> Message-ID: Dan, >Christians generally extol the right to proselytize, but as anyone familiar >with the American Biblebelt can tell you, not only would someone going >door-to-door trying to get converts to Shiism be greeted with tremendous >hostility, in many places even trying to set up a Taijiquan school can run >afoul of neighborhoods who will employ zoning laws, etc., to drive them out >(I was involved in a court case in Florida along these lines). And the constitutional freedom of religion couldn't be of any help? I probably know the answer already, because like everywhere any stick will do to beat a dog, law or no law, constitution or not. > In Tennessee >a few years ago there was a big legal fight over whether a gift from Japan, >a big temple bell, should be prevented from being on display in a public >park, as a violation of the separation of Church and State -- Tennessee >being a state that would embrace school prayer, Ten Commandment displays in >the courthouse, and the site of the famous Scopes Monkey Trial where a >school teacher was convicted for teaching evolution back in 1925. In a strange way the separation of Church and State serves Church, because this sort of taboo like status gives it an enormous strength and value. Impossible to banalise it. Its sacredness (special status) is somehow recognised and reinforced by the State. Breasts and religious symbols can't be publicly shown, because they yield too much power. Joy From jvriens at free.fr Fri Nov 9 05:42:25 2007 From: jvriens at free.fr (Joy Vriens) Date: Fri Nov 9 05:42:41 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Voltaire References: <027c01c822b2$0ccaf5d0$db339c04@Dan> Message-ID: Dan, >I should add that Candide used to be one of my favorite books when I was a >teenager -- one of the first great satires I ever read. Competing popes in >Africa and various places, with their own progeny fighting for hegemony, >etc. The sort of "speech" Richard wouldn't approve of, but a very true and >funny expos? of the religious hypocrisies of the time. Like others of that >time (Hobbes, Spinoza, Leibniz, etc.), he favored a secular (in the meaning >that term had at that time) version of universal reason over the theocracies >of the day. Leibniz in particular popularized the notion of East Asia as a >haven of enlightened reason, based on the reports he got from missionaries >about neo-confucianism. For Voltaire, it would be a sign of enlightened >reason to cross over a cross into a cross-free zone, i.e., some place where >reason rather than theocracy reigned. In that, he overestimated and >over-romanticized the situation in Japan -- ironic in the sense that >romanticism, the quest, etc., was the narrative folly Candide targeted. > >Or perhaps you read it differently... Looks like a good analysis. Last I read it was when I was a student of French literature in Utrecht (Netherlands). half of all the references and allusions went way over my head. I browse through some passages every now and then with lots of respect for the old Voltaire. Joy From curt at cola.iges.org Fri Nov 9 09:22:31 2007 From: curt at cola.iges.org (curt) Date: Fri Nov 9 09:22:45 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Religious Persecution [was: NYTimes.com: Let UsPrayforWealth] In-Reply-To: <01cf01c82295$45803240$db339c04@Dan> References: <19F4C30C.08C1B13D.007A239A@cs.com><003401c8208f$2f7889a0$95339c04@Dan><6a517909fc0bf2f371219b9d978a64c1@earthlink.net><00e601c820a3$81f5b220$95339c04@Dan><72acf3fafc2cd3155e820d306740babf@earthlink.net> <017301c8226b$750bece0$db339c04@Dan> <01cf01c82295$45803240$db339c04@Dan> Message-ID: <47348947.3080906@cola.iges.org> Dan Lusthaus wrote: > So what Japan did was nothing unusual for the times -- exact mirror image of > what the Iberian Catholics did -- except the Spanish and Portugese Catholics > DID do this for religious reasons, and continued to persecute the converted, > while the Japanese motive was purely political. And, the Jews had been > living there -- and flourishing -- for many centuries before the Catholics > arrived. Richard hadn't offered them Utah yet. > > I think this understates the difference between the two cases in question. The Japanese were defending their nation against foreign aggression in the form of Christian Missionaries. There was nothing secret or even all that coy about the alliance between missionaries and European colonialism. But the Jews in Spain were not the advance men for would be foreign conquerors. The Japanese gave explicitly political reasons for they did - and those reasons mirrored the reality of the situation. The Spanish Christians gave explicitly religious reasons for what they did - and those reasons mirrored the systematic and systemic violent intolerance that had characterized Christianity since the year 325. Curt Steinmetz From selwyn at ntlworld.com Fri Nov 9 09:44:47 2007 From: selwyn at ntlworld.com (L.S. Cousins) Date: Fri Nov 9 09:57:19 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Religious Persecution In-Reply-To: <47348947.3080906@cola.iges.org> References: <19F4C30C.08C1B13D.007A239A@cs.com><003401c8208f$2f7889a0$95339c04@Dan><6a 517909fc0bf2f371219b9d978a64c1@earthlink.net><00e601c820a3$81f5b220$95339c 04@Dan><72acf3fafc2cd3155e820d306740babf@earthlink.net> <017301c8226b$750bece0$db339c04@Dan> <01cf01c82295$45803240$db339c04@Dan> <47348947.3080906@cola.iges.org> Message-ID: Curt, Are you not overstating the case somewhat here ? I am not convinced that Constantine engaged in 'systematic and systemic violent intolerance'. Even Theodosius did not do that. Otherwise we would not see the continuation of the schools of pagan philosophy in Athens until long after this and e.g. the temples in Greece would not have lasted as long as they did. It seems to me more a case of a slowly growing infection that gradually got worse in both Christianity and Islam over the course of half a millennium. Lance >and those reasons mirrored the systematic and systemic violent >intolerance that had characterized Christianity since the year 325. > >Curt Steinmetz From curt at cola.iges.org Fri Nov 9 12:55:49 2007 From: curt at cola.iges.org (curt) Date: Fri Nov 9 12:56:09 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Religious Persecution In-Reply-To: References: <19F4C30C.08C1B13D.007A239A@cs.com><003401c8208f$2f7889a0$95339c04@Dan><6a 517909fc0bf2f371219b9d978a64c1@earthlink.net><00e601c820a3$81f5b220$95339c 04@Dan><72acf3fafc2cd3155e820d306740babf@earthlink.net> <017301c8226b$750bece0$db339c04@Dan> <01cf01c82295$45803240$db339c04@Dan> <47348947.3080906@cola.iges.org> Message-ID: <4734BB45.8040603@cola.iges.org> L.S. Cousins wrote: > Curt, > > Are you not overstating the case somewhat here ? I am not convinced > that Constantine engaged in 'systematic and systemic violent > intolerance'. Even Theodosius did not do that. Otherwise we would not > see the continuation of the schools of pagan philosophy in Athens > until long after this and e.g. the temples in Greece would not have > lasted as long as they did. > > It seems to me more a case of a slowly growing infection that > gradually got worse in both Christianity and Islam over the course of > half a millennium. > The problem that the Christians faced was that no one had ever tried to impose one and only one religion on 60 million people before. It took them about 200 years to get it right. This story is told quite clearly and calmly by Ramsay MacMullen ("the greatest historian of the Roman Empire alive today": http://www.historians.org/perspectives/issues/2001/0103/0103ann2.cfm ) in his book "Christianity and Paganism in the Fourth to Eighth Centuries". The first chapter of that book is titled "Persecution", and MacMullen summarizes the chapter like this: "describing the determination of the Christian leadership to extirpate all religious alternatives, expressed in the silencing of Pagan sources and, beyond that, in the suppression of Pagan acts and practices, with increasing harshness and machinery of enforcement." Also of interest is MacMullen's book "Christianizing the Roman Empire", espcially chapter 10: "Conversion by Coercion". You see, prior to Constantine no such thing as a "machinery of enforcement" for a state religion existed - since previously people had followed hundreds of different religions side-by-side and had always done so. Constantine made Pagan sacrifices illegal - this would be the equivalent, for Catholics, of outlawing Mass. From that time forward it was just a matter of ratchetting up the enforcement. Constantius, Constantine's successor, reiterated the ban on sacrifices in 341. In 356 the "worship of images" was also banned. In the 380's the pace of violent suppression was quickening - this was when Libanius wrote his famous plea "For the Temples", in which he especially pleaded for the Sarapaeum in Alexandria - which was destroyed by Christian mobs a few years later. That it took 200 years to close all the loopholes and put the finishing touches on the apparatus for monolithic thought-control in no way diminishes the guilt of the people who set the ball rolling in the first place. Quite the opposite. But it does reflect well on the devotion and stubbornness of the Pagans who refused to go without a fight. Curt Steinmetz From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Fri Nov 9 15:22:22 2007 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Fri Nov 9 15:22:52 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] NYTimes.com: Let Us Pray for Wealth References: <025e01c822ad$c59ac400$db339c04@Dan> Message-ID: <006401c8231f$061d21f0$cc369c04@Dan> Joy, >> in many places even trying to set up a Taijiquan school can run > >afoul of neighborhoods who will employ zoning laws, etc., to drive them out > >(I was involved in a court case in Florida along these lines). > > And the constitutional freedom of religion couldn't be of any help? I probably know the answer already, because like everywhere any stick will do to beat a dog, law or no law, constitution or not. Good question! Well, there is federal law, then state law, then increasingly local laws (county law, city law), and the relation between them can become complicated. That was one of the underlying issues leading to the American Civil War in the 1860s -- States rights (i.e., ability to make their own laws, e.g. on slavery, and be free from Federal intervention) vs. Federal laws (Federal govt. trumps everything). Since the north won the war, one would expect that the Federal trumps the State, but, in reality, the battle is not over -- the federal govt. trying to end segregation in the South during the 1950s and 60s required federal troops, and made certain Southern demagogue governors (head of a State) very popular and iconic for resisting the Federal govt. This is one of the major reasons the South now votes primarily Republican instead of Democrat.. because LBJ -- whom Richard will remind you had a miserable evil side, prosecuting the Vietnam war -- also made civil rights his priority. So anti-war democrats got disgusted with the party, and the southern racists did as well. The Democrats have never quite recovered since. But back to local law -- throughout the South there are still many discriminatory laws on the books, or ways of (non-)enforcing laws that address discrimination. The court systems down there are completely complicit. The rest of the country got to see some of that during the fight between Gore and Bush in the courts in the aftermath of the 2000 election. The arrogance and irrationality of the court and political system (and their mutual complicities) were on display. I had just moved from Tallahassee Florida, the main stage, and even knew some of the players, so none of it was shocking or surprising - I had seen them do that many times before, including to me. That was business as usual. It was probably with the rising shock that they were playing in a rigged game (Dubya's brother was/is governor in Florida), that Gore's lawyers thought he might have a better chance at the US Supreme Court, filled with George the First appointees. They bet wrong (but probably wouldn't have prevailed in either arena). But the one thing they fear is federal law -- especially federal anti-discriminatory law, which, if invoked usually uncovers a snake's den of evil practices, and overturns local will. It's like shining a light into the dark, and all the vermin run for cover. They literally fear federal intervention, and will wiggle and twitch to avoid it. They have been fighting to buttress state immunity from federal intervention, and while everyone focuses on the republican right-wing Supreme Court appointments in terms of abortion rights, the real problem -- for several decades now -- has been a steady support in the Court for States rights and limiting Federal rights. The issues are usually too complex for sound-bytes, or decontextualized (e.g., a local question of water rights here, inheritance law there, etc. -- the Southerners choose which cases to bring to the Supreme Court very carefully, selecting cases that, in short-sound-bytes, decontextualized from the larger picture of States Rights, can evoke sympathy and support from the average person watching a 45 second explanation on the TV news), so the media gives such cases minimal to no coverage, but they have steadily been eating away at the power of the federal govt. to impose anti-discriminatory federal law on the local level. The South, in other words, is still fighting and at this point starting to win, the Civil War (which is still very much alive down there, and which they call the "War of Northern Aggression"). Zoning laws are local, so a neighborhood can get its local representatives to pass zoning laws it favors (or businesses can lobby representatives to get what they want). If, e.g., a taiji school loses on the local level, it can only appeal to a higher level (state court, federal court) under certain circumstances, e.g., if there is a gross violation of a federal law, but it is unlikely that a higher court will take on a zoning case. Mounting such appeal is also VERY expensive, not the sort of thing a taiji school that can't even run its own tiny business in peace could afford. The Southern court system is designed to support the boss and the rich, so the laws are written to tilt in the boss's favor, and if you try to fight back and have legal merit, they will tie up and delay and create new, expensive problems that will delay your progress for years, until you run out of money to pursue it further or die. You cannot win, that is guaranteed, so most people don't even try. Of course, the real motives for trying to drive a taiji school out of the neighborhood has nothing to do with zoning per se, but the application of a zoning law to do something else -- the "any stick" principle. We have a messy, complicated system -- or set of systems here. Buddhist content? Nothing, which is how some people still misunderstand "suunyataa. Dan From rahula_80 at yahoo.com Sat Nov 10 03:22:50 2007 From: rahula_80 at yahoo.com (Ngawang Dorje) Date: Sat Nov 10 09:24:03 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddhism & War In-Reply-To: <47348947.3080906@cola.iges.org> Message-ID: <200943.18785.qm@web44801.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Hi, It is said that there is no war in Buddhism. Chapter 25, Mahavamsa, we find: Arrived at Mahiyangana he overpowered the Damila Chatta. When he had slain the Damilas in that very place he came then to Ambatitthaka, which had a trench leading from the river, and (conquered) the Damila Titthamba; fighting the crafty and powerful foe for four months he (finally) overcame him by cunning,' since he placed his mother in his view. When the mighty man marching thence down (the river) had conquered seven mighty Damila princes in one day and had established peace, he gave over the booty to his troops. Therefore is (the place)called Khem?r?ma. http://www.vipassana.com/resources/mahavamsa/mhv25.php Apparently it is legitimate to use someone's mother as a hostage in Buddhism. No? Dutthagamani is reported also to have said: "Not for the joy of sovereignty is this toil of mine, my striving (has been) ever to establish the doctrine of the Sambuddha." http://www.vipassana.com/resources/mahavamsa/mhv25.php I am interested in how would Buddhists explain theses passages to non-Buddhist/skeptics? Thanks, Rahula __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From rhayes at unm.edu Sat Nov 10 09:37:56 2007 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Sat Nov 10 13:31:48 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddhism & War In-Reply-To: <200943.18785.qm@web44801.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <200943.18785.qm@web44801.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200711100937.56927.rhayes@unm.edu> On Saturday 10 November 2007 03:22, Ngawang Dorje wrote: > Apparently it is legitimate to use someone's mother as a hostage in > Buddhism. No? > > Dutthagamani is reported also to have said: > "Not for the joy of sovereignty is this toil of mine, my striving (has > been) ever to establish the doctrine of the Sambuddha." > http://www.vipassana.com/resources/mahavamsa/mhv25.php > > I am interested in how would Buddhists explain theses passages to > non-Buddhist/skeptics? Claiming to be a Buddhist does not guarantee that one has abandoned greed, hatred and delusion, nor does it insure that one has transcended the sort of ugly sectarianism and racism manifested by Dutthugamani. His behaviour pretty much confirms the teachings of the Buddha, who seems to regards kings (and military commanders in general) are pretty dangerous beings to have around. That Dutthugamani, a king with imperialistic aspirations, did not have the wisdom or compassion to follow the Buddha's essentially pacifist teachings comes as no big surprise. More surprising, perhaps, is that the majority of the bhikkhu-sangha supported him in his dastardly enterprises. But that is about what one can expect of any organized religion. Organization into groups does tend to breed violence, and to prepare one for pawnship. -- Richard Peace Hayes From rahula_80 at yahoo.com Sat Nov 10 19:33:40 2007 From: rahula_80 at yahoo.com (Ngawang Dorje) Date: Sun Nov 11 22:18:09 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddhism & War In-Reply-To: <200943.18785.qm@web44801.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <668942.6596.qm@web44801.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Hi, While I can accept Dutthagamani went to war, using your enemy's mother as a hostage goes against war ethics. I was wondering if anybody with expertise in Pali could help me look into this. AFAIK, in the history of Islam, no Muslim leader have used such a tactic. In Islam, they have a code of war ethics. This bring us to the question, is war necessary in certain situation? Is war a necessary evil? Sorry, to go off-track, but it comes to mind naturally. Thanks, Rahula __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From rahula_80 at yahoo.com Sat Nov 10 19:47:34 2007 From: rahula_80 at yahoo.com (Ngawang Dorje) Date: Sun Nov 11 22:18:11 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Lankavatara In-Reply-To: <200711100937.56927.rhayes@unm.edu> Message-ID: <469289.64112.qm@web44815.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Hi, Is there any other translations of the Lankavatara Sutra? Suzuki's is available here: http://lirs.ru/do/lanka_eng/lanka-nondiacritical.htm I am interested in a passage in Chapter 3. I found this passage, but the translator is unknown. At this time Mah?mati Bodhisatwa addressed Buddha and said, ?According to the assertion of the Great Teacher, if a male or female disciple should commit either of the unpardonable sins, he or she, nevertheless, shall not be cast into hell. World-honoured One! how can this be, that such a disciple shall escape though guilty of such sins ?? To whom Buddha replied, ?Mah?mati! attend, and weigh my words well! What are these live unpardonable sins of which you speak? They are these, to slay father or mother, to wound a Rahat, to offend (i.e. to place a stumbling- block in the way of) the members of the sangha (church), to draw the blood from the body of a Buddha. Mah?mati! say, then, how a man committing these sins can be guiltless? In this way?is not Love (Tanha) which covets pleasure more and more, and so produces ?birth??is not this the mother (m?t?) of all? And is not ?ignorance? (avidy?) the father(pit?) of all? To destroy these two, then, is to slay father and mother. And again, to cut off and destroy those ten ?kieshas? (Ch. shi) which like the rat, or the secret poison, work invisibly, and to get rid of all the consequences of these faults (i.e. to destroy all material associations), this is to wound a Rahat. And so to cause offence and overthrow a church or assembly, what is this but to separate entirely the connection of the live skandhas? (?live aggregates,? which is the same word as that used above for the ?Church?). And again, to draw the blood of a Buddha, what is this but to wound and get rid of the sevenfold body by thethree methods of escape. . . . Thus it is, Mah?mati, the holy male or female disciple may slay father and mother, wound a Rahat, overthrow the assembly, draw the blood of Buddha, and yet escape the punishment of the lowest hell (avichi).? And in order to explain and enforce this more fully, the World-honoured One added the following stanzas: ?Lust,? or carnal desire, this is the Mother, ?Ignorance,? this is the Father, The highest point of knowledge, this is Buddha, All the ?Kleshas,? these are the Rahats, The five Skandhas, these are the Priests, To commit the five unpardonable sins Is to destroy these five And yet not suffer the pains of hell.? I have compared this passage with Suzuki's. While the central idea is the same, they are not the same. Can someone clarify? Which is more accurate? Thanks, Rahula __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From selwyn at ntlworld.com Sat Nov 10 13:41:29 2007 From: selwyn at ntlworld.com (L.S. Cousins) Date: Sun Nov 11 22:18:39 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddhism & War In-Reply-To: <200943.18785.qm@web44801.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <200943.18785.qm@web44801.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: But let us note that this account dates from at least 500 years after the event. There is no particular reason to believe any of this. Lance >Hi, > > It is said that there is no war in Buddhism. > > Chapter 25, Mahavamsa, we find: > >Arrived at Mahiyangana he overpowered the Damila Chatta. When he had >slain the Damilas in that very place he came then to Ambatitthaka, >which had a trench leading from the river, and (conquered) the >Damila Titthamba; fighting the crafty and powerful foe for four >months he (finally) overcame him by cunning,' since he placed his >mother in his view. When the mighty man marching thence down (the >river) had conquered seven mighty Damila princes in one day and had >established peace, he gave over the booty to his troops. Therefore >is (the place)called Khem?r?ma. >http://www.vipassana.com/resources/mahavamsa/mhv25.php > > Apparently it is legitimate to use someone's mother as a hostage >in Buddhism. No? > > Dutthagamani is reported also to have said: >"Not for the joy of sovereignty is this toil of mine, my striving >(has been) ever to establish the doctrine of the Sambuddha." >http://www.vipassana.com/resources/mahavamsa/mhv25.php > > I am interested in how would Buddhists explain theses passages to >non-Buddhist/skeptics? > > Thanks, > Rahula From rahula_80 at yahoo.com Mon Nov 12 04:50:33 2007 From: rahula_80 at yahoo.com (Ngawang Dorje) Date: Mon Nov 12 11:14:11 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddhism & War In-Reply-To: <668942.6596.qm@web44801.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <139878.75963.qm@web44802.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Hi, Thanks, Lance.I am aware that Prof Dhammavihari question the accuracy of the Mahavamsa story in "Recording, Translating and Interpreting Sri Lankan Chronicle Data". The story in Mahavamsa, it seems, contradict the story in the Commentary to Digha Nikaya, Sumangalavilasini. So, the translation of Dutthagamani usisng his enemy's mother as hostage is correct? Thanks, Rahula __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From tatelman at sympatico.ca Mon Nov 12 05:09:58 2007 From: tatelman at sympatico.ca (Joel Tatelman) Date: Mon Nov 12 11:14:40 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Lankavatara In-Reply-To: <469289.64112.qm@web44815.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <469289.64112.qm@web44815.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <5C37F401-966A-43EA-9FCC-65FAA8062336@sympatico.ca> Rahula, This is hardly certain, but the language of the translation you quote (in particular "Rahat" for "Arhat") reminds me of the idiom of Samuel Beal. He translated a lot of Buddhist texts from Chinese in the latter part of the 19th century and Indian publishers continue to reprint his works. Hope this at least gives you some direction to search. Me, I'd trust Suzuki first... Regards, Joel Tatelman. On 10-Nov-07, at 9:47 PM, Ngawang Dorje wrote: > Hi, > > Is there any other translations of the Lankavatara Sutra? > > Suzuki's is available here: > http://lirs.ru/do/lanka_eng/lanka-nondiacritical.htm > > I am interested in a passage in Chapter 3. I found this passage, > but the translator is unknown. > > At this time Mah?mati Bodhisatwa addressed Buddha and said, > ?According to the assertion of the Great Teacher, if a male or > female disciple should commit either of the unpardonable sins, he > or she, nevertheless, shall not be cast into hell. World-honoured > One! how can this be, that such a disciple shall escape though > guilty of such sins ?? To whom Buddha replied, ?Mah?mati! attend, > and weigh my words well! > > What are these live unpardonable sins of which you speak? They are > these, to slay father or mother, to wound a Rahat, to offend (i.e. > to place a stumbling- block in the way of) the members of the > sangha (church), to draw the blood from the body of a Buddha. > Mah?mati! say, then, how a man committing these sins can be > guiltless? In this way?is not Love (Tanha) which covets pleasure > more and more, and so produces ?birth??is not this the mother > (m?t?) of all? And is not ?ignorance? (avidy?) the father(pit?) of > all? To destroy these two, then, is to slay father and mother. And > again, to cut off and destroy those ten ?kieshas? (Ch. shi) which > like the rat, or the secret poison, work invisibly, and to get rid > of all the consequences of these faults (i.e. to destroy all > material associations), this is to wound a Rahat. And so to cause > offence and overthrow a church or assembly, what is this but to > separate entirely the connection of the live skandhas? (?live > aggregates,? which is > the same word as that used above for the ?Church?). And again, to > draw the blood of a Buddha, what is this but to wound and get rid > of the sevenfold body by thethree methods of escape. . . . Thus it > is, Mah?mati, the holy male or female disciple may slay father and > mother, wound a Rahat, overthrow the assembly, draw the blood of > Buddha, and yet escape the punishment of the lowest hell (avichi).? > And in order to explain and enforce this more fully, the World- > honoured One added the following stanzas: > > ?Lust,? or carnal desire, this is the Mother, > ?Ignorance,? this is the Father, > The highest point of knowledge, this is Buddha, > All the ?Kleshas,? these are the Rahats, > The five Skandhas, these are the Priests, > To commit the five unpardonable sins > Is to destroy these five > And yet not suffer the pains of hell.? > > I have compared this passage with Suzuki's. While the central > idea is the same, they are not the same. Can someone clarify? Which > is more accurate? > > Thanks, > Rahula > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From selwyn at ntlworld.com Mon Nov 12 12:43:34 2007 From: selwyn at ntlworld.com (L.S. Cousins) Date: Tue Nov 13 10:20:46 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddhism & War In-Reply-To: <139878.75963.qm@web44802.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <139878.75963.qm@web44802.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Rahula, >So, the translation of Dutthagamani usisng his enemy's mother as >hostage is correct? > > Thanks, > Rahula I don't think so. Mahaava.msa 35 8-9 itself is unclear. The interpretation of the .tiikaa is that D. captured his enemy by offering his own mother in marriage i.e. he enticed him out of a strongly fortified position. Lance From jkirk at spro.net Tue Nov 13 12:43:33 2007 From: jkirk at spro.net (jkirk) Date: Wed Nov 14 19:03:55 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Reviews of two films relevant to Buddhism studies, in JBE Message-ID: <002501c8262d$799f5c90$2930cece@OPTIPLEX> Titles: _ Amongst White Clouds _ , about the practice of recluse Chan monks in China; and _ On the Road with the Red God Macchendranath _ , a film about a Newari Buddhist and Hindu deity's every twelve year's jatra in Nepal. (Distributor information can be found in the review headers.) My reviews of these two films have recently been uploaded to the _ Journal of Buddhist Ethics _ website: HYPERLINK "http://www.buddhistethics.org/14/kirkpatrick-review.html"http://www.buddhis tethics.org/14/kirkpatrick-review.html Both of these films have appeared in various film festivals around the world. Cheers, Joanna No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.31/1128 - Release Date: 11/13/2007 11:09 AM From jvriens at free.fr Wed Nov 14 09:13:55 2007 From: jvriens at free.fr (Joy Vriens) Date: Wed Nov 14 19:05:26 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Quoting Nagarjuna? References: Message-ID: I found the following quote on http://indian-philosophy.braincells.com/ "When the fully enlightened teachers do not appear and when the disciples have disappeared, the wisdom of the self-enlightened ones will arise completely without a teacher." - Naagaarjuna's Mulamaadhyamaka Kaarikaa (2nd century CE) Is this a quote of Nagarjuna, MMK or elsewhere? I don't remember having read it. Joy From rahula_80 at yahoo.com Tue Nov 13 13:11:37 2007 From: rahula_80 at yahoo.com (Ngawang Dorje) Date: Wed Nov 14 19:05:55 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Mahavamsa In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <292552.9439.qm@web44803.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Dear Professor, Did you meant Mahaava.msa 35 or 25? It is obvious that I do not have the .tiikaa.So, what exactly did the .tiikaa say? What I understand by reading your reply is that D. offered his own mother for marriage to Damila Titthamba? Thanks a lot, Rahula "L.S. Cousins" wrote: Rahula, >So, the translation of Dutthagamani usisng his enemy's mother as >hostage is correct? > > Thanks, > Rahula I don't think so. Mahaava.msa 35 8-9 itself is unclear. The interpretation of the .tiikaa is that D. captured his enemy by offering his own mother in marriage i.e. he enticed him out of a strongly fortified position. Lance _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l --------------------------------- Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now. From rhayes at unm.edu Tue Nov 13 15:14:43 2007 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Wed Nov 14 19:06:21 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] What Bodhidharma saw when he faced Wall Street for nine years Message-ID: <200711131514.43942.rhayes@unm.edu> For those interested in seeing an article about Sam Harris's praise of Buddhism as a religion almost free of violent expressions of intolerance, here is the link: http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110010842 Always good to see that Curt Steinmetz and Sam Harris are in substantial agreement. Pretty fancy to see an article on Buddhism in the Wall Street Journal, eh? Next we'll being news on the closing tick at the New York Stock Exchange in Tricycle as Buddha-dharma and Capitalism merge as indistinguishable features of the Church of America, a religion based on flag worship and endless repetition of the magic mantra "9/11". -- Richard P. Hayes Department of Philosophy University of New Mexico From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Tue Nov 13 11:53:28 2007 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Wed Nov 14 19:07:06 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Western Buddhism References: <139878.75963.qm@web44802.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <015601c82626$7b528f00$57339c04@Dan> I pass on a link to an interesting piece on Western Buddhism from the Wall Street Journal, of all places. Lots to think about, lots to disagree about, but definitely relevant to recurrent discussions on this list. http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110010842 One question might be -- what percentage of the subscribers to this list are under 50? Another question: How many who identify themselves, in whole or in part, as Buddhists, have raised their children "Buddhist," and of those children, how many are enthusiastic practitioners of Buddhism today? Dan Lusthaus From rhayes at unm.edu Wed Nov 14 19:13:37 2007 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Wed Nov 14 19:13:46 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Emergency over Message-ID: <200711141913.37964.rhayes@unm.edu> Dear denizens, Noting that buddha-l had stopped carrying messages about Buddhism, I placed it on emergency moderation. Actually, there was no need to do that. I really just wondered what would happen if I pushed the "Emergency moderation" button. Now I know. Mail piles up. All the messages that had little or no connection with Buddhism, including several of my own, were "terminated with extreme prejudice" (as the US military used to like to say when what they really meant was "murdered".) Have fun talking about Buddhism. And only Buddhism. Moderately emergently yours, Richard Hayes From rhayes at unm.edu Wed Nov 14 19:52:30 2007 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Wed Nov 14 19:52:38 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Western Buddhism In-Reply-To: <015601c82626$7b528f00$57339c04@Dan> References: <139878.75963.qm@web44802.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <015601c82626$7b528f00$57339c04@Dan> Message-ID: <200711141952.31055.rhayes@unm.edu> On Tuesday 13 November 2007 11:53, Dan Lusthaus wrote: > Another question: How many who identify themselves, in whole or in part, as > Buddhists, have raised their children "Buddhist," and of those children, > how many are enthusiastic practitioners of Buddhism today? Interesting question. When my children were young, I took every precaution to conceal from them that I was a Buddhist. It's difficult for me to recall exactly why I thought that was a such good idea, but I think I thought of Buddhism as an oddball thing for a Western person to be associated with, and I wanted my kids to be weird in their own chosen way, not in a way chosen for them by their parents. My guess is that the attitude I just described was pretty common among Buddhists of my age (which keeps changing but is currently 62 and rising). -- Richard Hayes Department of Philosophy University of New Mexico From dharmafarer at gmail.com Wed Nov 14 20:19:19 2007 From: dharmafarer at gmail.com (Piya Tan) Date: Wed Nov 14 20:19:25 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Western Buddhism In-Reply-To: <200711141952.31055.rhayes@unm.edu> References: <139878.75963.qm@web44802.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <015601c82626$7b528f00$57339c04@Dan> <200711141952.31055.rhayes@unm.edu> Message-ID: Some of the best known western scholars of Buddhism (and other non-religious fields) have wildly Christian parents, which could have suffocated them (the children) away from their faith. My children know very well I am Buddhist and a full time lay teachers who enjoys translatings the Nikayas, and often help me to retrieve Pali volumes from the home Tipitaka library. But I make it a rule never to initiate a Buddhist discussion with them. Interestingly, they are the ones who often question me about what I am doing, who is Buddha, etc, which I welcome. Occasionally, I see my younger son walking around wearing his favourite quilt cover around himself like a monk! I never told him about how a monk dresses. We all know children (we were them and still are mostly), that they do notice things and can be like sponges of learning. I had small "fight" with a pair of Mormons (well-dressed young guys with name tags) in a crowded bus recently. One of them started off chatting with me as if we were old friends, asking my name, etc, I told him I was not interested in talking. "You must be Buddhist!" he retorted. "I'm still not interested in chatting." "Wow, you must be deeply hurt," he continued. That's it, I thought, and took my stand: I told the Indian commuters around me (it was Deepavali): "They are Christian evangelists, and want to convert you!" Then he retorted, "Why can't I talk to them: they are my friends." Turning to the Indian nearest him, I asked: "Are you his friend?" A gentle smile broke on the man's face and a gentle shake of his head. Finally that section of the bus was peaceful, with the people chatting amongst themselves unchristianly. No, I did not feel good, but it was much better not harbouring anger in the heart. I love honest religious dialogue. Oh yes, there are those amongst us here who would feel deeply honoured to be spoken to unannounced by a white evangelist, and maybe become good Christians after that. Why don't they listen to Christ who admonished them never to come to Asia. Piya Tan On Nov 15, 2007 10:52 AM, Richard Hayes wrote: > On Tuesday 13 November 2007 11:53, Dan Lusthaus wrote: > > > Another question: How many who identify themselves, in whole or in part, > as > > Buddhists, have raised their children "Buddhist," and of those children, > > how many are enthusiastic practitioners of Buddhism today? > > Interesting question. When my children were young, I took every precaution > to > conceal from them that I was a Buddhist. It's difficult for me to recall > exactly why I thought that was a such good idea, but I think I thought of > Buddhism as an oddball thing for a Western person to be associated with, > and > I wanted my kids to be weird in their own chosen way, not in a way chosen > for > them by their parents. > > My guess is that the attitude I just described was pretty common among > Buddhists of my age (which keeps changing but is currently 62 and rising). > > -- > Richard Hayes > Department of Philosophy > University of New Mexico > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l > -- The Minding Centre Blk 644 Bukit Batok Central #01-68 (2nd flr) Singapore 650644 Website: dharmafarer.googlepages.com From jvriens at free.fr Thu Nov 15 01:39:42 2007 From: jvriens at free.fr (Joy Vriens) Date: Thu Nov 15 01:39:53 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Western Buddhism References: <015601c82626$7b528f00$57339c04@Dan> Message-ID: Dan about >http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110010842 Lots to disagree about indeed and at the same time it somehow manages to hit the nail on the hammer. The main subject of the article is the survival of a religion (not unrelated to Richard's post on the churching of America). And IMO the problem is that it treats religions like lobbies... and those lobbies obviously through statistics about their representativity, i.e. (political) influence. What is the objective of a religion? To merely be a topic of sociology as one sees more and more or is it something like "discovering the intrinsic freedom of consciousness, unencumbered by any dogma" as Sam Harris says about esoteric Buddhism? Buddhism, and especially esoteric Buddhism, is the product of a desire of renunciation and detachment (funny combination of words) like its other upanisadic brethren and sisters. It's about autonomy (kevala), extinction, about going to a soteriologic (more or less coreless) core or center, rather than surviving and spreading on the surface for other than salvatory reasons. If the object of a new Western Buddhist "religion" is "to imagine a new model for religion altogether--one that is nondogmatic, practice-based and peaceful", then according to Mr. Strand there is "all the more reason to keep Buddhism in America alive". But a religion can't be kept alive and "in good health" sociologically and statiscally speaking without dogma. So how do we deal with that? Everything well considered, do we really want to be a religion? >One question might be -- what percentage of the subscribers to this list are >under 50? I have one more year to go under 50 before I move on, go forth, statiscally. >Another question: How many who identify themselves, in whole or in part, as >Buddhists, have raised their children "Buddhist," and of those children, how >many are enthusiastic practitioners of Buddhism today? I don't identify with being a Buddhist, but Buddhism takes a big place in my life, although it has to share more and more with Upanisads, esoteric jainism, mild shaivism and vaishnavism and other mystic mumbo jumbo (all drinking from very similar sources). I am afraid there is not much space for rituals and ritualism and following a party line. I don't raise my children as Buddhists, but try to teach them through my very imperfect example some Buddhist and Jain morality. No meditation apart from some advice about breathing and a general critical attitude towards all the images that are thrown upon them. I am quite pleased with the result so far. Joy From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Thu Nov 15 01:57:45 2007 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Thu Nov 15 01:58:05 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Western Buddhism References: <015601c82626$7b528f00$57339c04@Dan> Message-ID: <00d601c82765$97b9de60$44369c04@Dan> Joy, The article is not challenging the idea that various people -- of a certain generation -- have found some satisfaction with their flirtation with Buddhism. The question it is asking -- which I think is an extremely legitimate question, and one which I have raised for many years -- is the question of transmittability. Is the sort of "Western Buddhism" that has enjoyed some popularity in recent decades capable of any staying power, or will it disappear with the present, aging generation, that has been embracing -- the article claims -- not so much Buddhism per se, as that term applies historically to Budddhists of the last 2500 years, but to an experiment in the name of an imagined Buddhism, so divorced from actual Buddhism, that it cannot pass down to another generation, who will either have to invent their own experiment (if so inclined), or turn to some other type of experiment having nothing overt to do with Buddhism, real or imagined. The article raises this question with some melancholy, since the author finds the experiment otherwise worthwhile. The crux, though, is the transmittability issue. Has this "experiment" created something that can be transmitted, passed on, or is it merely a single generation's indulgence? Interesting question. Dan From jvriens at free.fr Thu Nov 15 02:55:27 2007 From: jvriens at free.fr (Joy Vriens) Date: Thu Nov 15 02:55:56 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Western Buddhism References: <00d601c82765$97b9de60$44369c04@Dan> Message-ID: Dan, >The article is not challenging the idea that various people -- of a certain >generation -- have found some satisfaction with their flirtation with >Buddhism. The question it is asking -- which I think is an extremely >legitimate question, and one which I have raised for many years -- is the >question of transmittability. Is the sort of "Western Buddhism" that has >enjoyed some popularity in recent decades capable of any staying power, or >will it disappear with the present, aging generation, that has been >embracing -- the article claims -- not so much Buddhism per se, as that term >applies historically to Budddhists of the last 2500 years, but to an >experiment in the name of an imagined Buddhism, so divorced from actual >Buddhism, that it cannot pass down to another generation, who will either >have to invent their own experiment (if so inclined), or turn to some other >type of experiment having nothing overt to do with Buddhism, real or >imagined. The article raises this question with some melancholy, since the >author finds the experiment otherwise worthwhile. >The crux, though, is the transmittability issue. Has this "experiment" >created something that can be transmitted, passed on, or is it merely a >single generation's indulgence? Interesting question. I can't imagine any Buddhism that isn't an imagined Buddhism. As for transmission, what do we understand by that? If we transmit data, the data are packaged in such a way that none of them will be lost. But the experience of the same data by the sender will not be the same as the experience of them by the receiver. It's very likely that they will not focus on the same data and therefor not have the same experience. When they transmit "the package" they may give more importance to specific data, but since the receiver has access to the whole context, he can readjust the bias and pick his own pet data. What is different between an imagined traditional Buddhism and Western Buddhism is that the former may have been more preoccupied with the transmission and the goods that are transmitted and the latter by what one can get out of those goods on a personal level. It is perhaps more consumer-oriented and less culture-carrying. But the whole package of fundamentals is and will be available, I have no doubt about it. Again what is transmission? Isn't intentional transmission itself an illusion? As a parent what do we think we transmit to our children? As children what did our parents succeed in intentionally transmitting to us? Did we *really* assimilate what they intentionally wanted to transmit, or did we simply receive them as transmittable goods to be further transmitted to our children? Think of scepticism and of how it is transmitted. There is no actual school or tradition and it has no dogmas, in theory, and yet it manages to survive without an actual transmission. :-) Joy From alex at chagchen.org Thu Nov 15 03:04:15 2007 From: alex at chagchen.org (Alex Wilding) Date: Thu Nov 15 03:04:23 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Western Buddhism In-Reply-To: <00d601c82765$97b9de60$44369c04@Dan> References: <015601c82626$7b528f00$57339c04@Dan> <00d601c82765$97b9de60$44369c04@Dan> Message-ID: <000901c8276e$e12b3450$0200000a@Tsogyal> Picking up from Dan's post... Another question in my mind about the article revolves around the extent to which its premisses (let's grant them some validity for the moment) are based on an insight into the American situation specifically. That is all that it claims to be, after all. My snapshot of Western Buddhist centres in the British islands, Germany and in Australia has a good proportion of younger people in it. Maybe I'm just getting so old that everyone else seems young, but I don't think that's the explanation. To my limited knowledge it's only in America that people dashed ahead in significant numbers to conceive of an American Buddhism. We don't have large followings for English, European or Australian Buddhisms. I suspect that in the rest of the world we still feel connected to the traditions we are learning from. FWIW Alex W From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Thu Nov 15 03:33:52 2007 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Thu Nov 15 03:34:43 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Western Buddhism References: <015601c82626$7b528f00$57339c04@Dan><00d601c82765$97b9de60$44369c04@Dan> <000901c8276e$e12b3450$0200000a@Tsogyal> Message-ID: <000d01c82773$0575fd00$e1339c04@Dan> Alex makes a good point. We should maybe change the subject line to "American Buddhism." I don't know what the actual demographics in the US are (I do see some younger zealots, but in tiny numbers), but I do know plenty of American Buddhists who, like Bob Thurman, have managed to convey some sense of Buddhism to their children, but whose children are not gung-ho Buddhists. Uma has said in interviews that keeps all that "stuff" at arm's length, though she "respects" it. There is something -- to address Joy's observation -- about many religions by which they implant themselves generationally. That a century of Communism in the USSR didn't extirpate Christianity, or half a century of Communism and Maoism in China did little -- except to a now aging generation -- to eliminate Confucian, Buddhist, etc. (and, yes, Chinese Christian) adherence, says something "religion," including Buddhism. That sense of religion has not been part of the the Western or at least American package -- and, as Joy's comments suggest, probably deliberately excluded from what people found themselves drawn to Buddhism for. It is an entirely different question whether Buddhism de-religionized is a preferable commodity. De-religionized Buddhism, however, is precisely the one that does not seem to be tranmittable. It's an interesting conundrum. Let me rephrase the question: Anyone have any reports of having successfully raised "Buddhist" children? Dan From cfynn at gmx.net Thu Nov 15 07:26:20 2007 From: cfynn at gmx.net (Christopher Fynn) Date: Thu Nov 15 07:26:38 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Western Buddhism In-Reply-To: <000d01c82773$0575fd00$e1339c04@Dan> References: <015601c82626$7b528f00$57339c04@Dan><00d601c82765$97b9de60$44369c04@Dan> <000901c8276e$e12b3450$0200000a@Tsogyal> <000d01c82773$0575fd00$e1339c04@Dan> Message-ID: <473C570C.30707@gmx.net> Dan Lusthaus wrote: > Let me rephrase the question: Anyone have any reports of having successfully > raised "Buddhist" children? Hi Dan Though we never pushed it on them, both our children consider themselves Buddhist - and they both seem to be taking it seriously enough to make it part of their careers. Earlier this year my son graduated from SOAS where he studied Tibetan and Buddhism and he is now doing an MA. My daughter is studying Art History specialising in Asian & Buddhist Art. Although they were brought up in the UK, mom is a Tibetan - so only one parent is a "convert" - Chris From Jackhat1 at aol.com Thu Nov 15 08:45:40 2007 From: Jackhat1 at aol.com (Jackhat1@aol.com) Date: Thu Nov 15 08:46:03 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Western Buddhism Message-ID: In a message dated 11/14/2007 8:07:33 P.M. Central Standard Time, vasubandhu@earthlink.net writes: One question might be -- what percentage of the subscribers to this list are under 50? Another question: How many who identify themselves, in whole or in part, as Buddhists, have raised their children "Buddhist," and of those children, how many are enthusiastic practitioners of Buddhism today? Most but not all of the members of my sangha including myself are over 50. A conclusion from this might be that only older adults are now (and have been in the past) attracted to a Buddhist practice or, for that matter any spiritual practice at all. This does not imply that Buddhism is dying out. I think the type of Jesus movement, for one example, that attracts young people now might not attract older adults. Most of the people I know who exuberantly called themselves Jesus freaks when they were young have now fallen away from Christianity altogether. Jack ************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com From bcarral at gmail.com Thu Nov 15 06:07:33 2007 From: bcarral at gmail.com (Benito Carral) Date: Thu Nov 15 10:19:14 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Western Buddhism In-Reply-To: <000d01c82773$0575fd00$e1339c04@Dan> References: <015601c82626$7b528f00$57339c04@Dan><00d601c82765$97b9de60$44369c04@Dan> <000901c8276e$e12b3450$0200000a@Tsogyal> <000d01c82773$0575fd00$e1339c04@Dan> Message-ID: <456459270.20071115140733@gmail.com> On Thursday, November 15, 2007, Dan Lusthaus wrote: > It is an entirely different question whether Buddhism > de-religionized is a preferable commodity. > De-religionized Buddhism, however, is precisely the > one that does not seem to be tranmittable. It's an > interesting conundrum. When I think in the transmission of the Buddhism, I always find the core Buddhist ideas grafted in indigenous religions or living metanarratives. I think that Buddhism in the West faces the problem that most Westeners don't have wholesome living metanarratives. So, for instance, if one takes Chinese Buddhism and discard the Chinese thing (which gives life and social meaning), one still has the individualist and materialist "Western" thing. We have so-called "Buddhists" but not Buddhism (as a cohesive factor or meaningful relantioships engendering practice)--I really think that this is what we call "Western" Buddhism. I find just natural that young people who look for live and social meaning doesn't consider "Western" Buddhism as something interesting to get involved with. Chinese Buddhism, for instance, would be more appealing since it says to young people, "Have sex with your spouse. That's OK. Don't have sex with others. Live and practice together until death comes. Support each other. If there is some problem, that's OK. Don't divorce. That's your way to burn karma. Be nice. Stay happy together." That is what "Western" Buddhism fails to provide, and that is what some young people are looking for. That is also why some teachers like the Dalai Lama or Thich Nhat Hanh say that one doesn't need to become a Buddhist and advice to take root in one's closer traditions. I have some interesting thougths about this topic that my experience as a Chan teacher in a Western country has arisen. If someone is interested, I would be glad to share them. Best wishes, -- Benito Carral Asturias, Sepharad (Spain) From rebreedon at ucdavis.edu Thu Nov 15 04:51:07 2007 From: rebreedon at ucdavis.edu (Richard Breedon) Date: Thu Nov 15 10:19:39 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Western Buddhism In-Reply-To: <000d01c82773$0575fd00$e1339c04@Dan> References: <015601c82626$7b528f00$57339c04@Dan><00d601c82765$97b9de60$44369c04@Dan> <000901c8276e$e12b3450$0200000a@Tsogyal> <000d01c82773$0575fd00$e1339c04@Dan> Message-ID: <85204DC8-BB3D-4EE5-B7AE-920C8239EA4C@physics.ucdavis.edu> On Nov 15, 2007, at 2:33 AM, Dan Lusthaus wrote: ... > > Let me rephrase the question: Anyone have any reports of having > successfully > raised "Buddhist" children? My twin boys, now 12, would without a doubt identify themselves as Buddhist. They recite prayers in Pali before they go to bed and know how to prostrate before any image they may encounter in a temple, be it a Wat Mahatat in a Thai city or Wat Sacramento in California, where we live. This is because they are not being raised under my sort of American Zen-whatever non-theistic but-is-it-really-Buddhism influence, but because of my Thai wife's ingrained Theravadan practice and the support of her family. I think daily ritual and family involvement are very important for the kind of generational continuity of a religion that is under consideration in this discussion. Richard Breedon Dept. of Physics, UC Davis Note: Based on previous experience, I anticipate that this message will get rejected from Buddha-L (in spite of my being a subscriber for nearly 20 years), so I have cc'd both Dan and Richard in the hope that perhaps one of you might be kind enough to at least quote my comment in a response that does get posted. From curt at cola.iges.org Thu Nov 15 11:59:32 2007 From: curt at cola.iges.org (curt) Date: Thu Nov 15 11:59:46 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Western Buddhism In-Reply-To: <00d601c82765$97b9de60$44369c04@Dan> References: <015601c82626$7b528f00$57339c04@Dan> <00d601c82765$97b9de60$44369c04@Dan> Message-ID: <473C9714.30104@cola.iges.org> Dan Lusthaus wrote: > The question it is asking -- which I think is an extremely > legitimate question, and one which I have raised for many years -- is the > question of transmittability. Is the sort of "Western Buddhism" that has > enjoyed some popularity in recent decades capable of any staying power, or > will it disappear with the present, aging generation, that has been > embracing -- the article claims -- not so much Buddhism per se, as that term > applies historically to Budddhists of the last 2500 years, but to an > experiment in the name of an imagined Buddhism .... I think a longer historical view helps to put things into perspective. This has been going on for at least 200 years, as Westerners have "looked to the East" in order to fill the void in our souls. I would suggest the following periodization for Western Buddhism: Transcendentalist Buddhism 1. no self identified western Buddhists 2. interest in buddhism among scholars and writers - usually "well heeled" (Thoreau a notable exception) 3. little if any differentiation between Hinduism and Buddhism 4. Buddhism is not especially associated with Occult ideas 5. Buddhism associated vaguely with "new" ideas in a positive way 6. very little if any first hand knowledge of Asia or Asians among Westerners - and vice-versa 7. Schopenhauer (1788-1860), Emerson (1803-1882), Thoreau (1817-1862) Esoteric/Orientalist Buddhism 1. first self-identified western Buddhists 2. these are well educated and rich, mostly 3. beginning to differentiate Buddhism and Hinduism 4. Buddhism closely associated with Occult 5. Buddhism associated with "progressive", pacifist and even socialistic ideas 6. a few Western pioneers travels to Asia, and a few Asian pioneers travel to the West 7. Helena Petrovna Blavatsky (1831-1891), Annie Besant (1847-1933), Alexandra David-Neel (1868-1969), Alan Bennett (1872-1923), Hermann Hesse (1877-1962) Countercultural Buddhism 1. significant increase in numbers of self-identified Buddhists in the West 2. these are mostly young middle class kids ("beatniks" and then "hippies") 3. more differentiation between Buddhism and Hinduism 4. Buddhism beginning to be differentiated from Occult 5. Buddhism still associated with "liberal" or even "radical" ideas in a very general way by way of the counterculture, but there is also a split between a certain type of hippie who was very interested in political activism and "turned off" by religion (John Lennon) and other hippies who were interested in religion and "turned off" by politics (George Harrison) 6. Many Asian teachers come to the west and large numbers of Westerners travel to Asia 7. Ruth Fuller Sasaki (1892-1967), Christmas Humphreys (1901-1983), Alan Watts (1915-1973), Sangharakshita (1925 - ), Alan Ginsberg (1926-1997) Middle-Class, Middle-Aged Buddhism 1. increase in number of Buddhists levels off dramatically 2. Western Buddhist population aging - and becoming more clearly and self-consciously middle-class (they get jobs, get married, have kids, buy houses - stuff like that). 3. increasing differentiation among different types and schools of Buddhism 4. Buddhism becomes more clearly differentiated from the Occult - but simultaneously becomes increasingly conflated with new-age self-help blather 5. Western Buddhists become more conservative while simultaneously becoming more "politically correct": an age of "revelations", scandals, investigations and ethics committees 6. Westerners begin to become Buddhist teachers in their own right 7. Harrison Ford (65), Richard Gere (58), Uma Thurman's father (66), Stephen Batchelor (54), Jerry Brown (69), Phil Jackson (62) Curt Steinmetz From jehms at xs4all.nl Thu Nov 15 13:18:33 2007 From: jehms at xs4all.nl (Erik Hoogcarspel) Date: Thu Nov 15 13:18:41 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Quoting Nagarjuna? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <473CA999.3050907@xs4all.nl> Joy Vriens schreef: > I found the following quote on http://indian-philosophy.braincells.com/ > > "When the fully enlightened teachers do not appear and when the disciples have disappeared, the wisdom of the self-enlightened ones will arise completely without a teacher." > - Naagaarjuna's Mulamaadhyamaka Kaarikaa (2nd century CE) > > Is this a quote of Nagarjuna, MMK or elsewhere? I don't remember having read it. > > Hi Joy, this is a translation of MMK 18.12 sambhuddhaanaamanutpaade s'raavakaa.naam punahk.saye j?aanam pratyekabuddhaanaamasamsargaatpravartate When Buddhas don't appear and Hearers also disappear understanding arises in the Pratyeakabuddhas without contact. It seems to me that N is saying to his readers that he considers himself to be a Pratyekabuddha. -- Groet Erik Info: www.xs4all.nl/~jehms Weblog: http://www.volkskrantblog.nl/pub/blogs/blog.php?uid=2950 Productie: http://stores.lulu.com/jehmsstudio From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Thu Nov 15 13:27:09 2007 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Thu Nov 15 13:27:56 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Western Buddhism References: <015601c82626$7b528f00$57339c04@Dan> <00d601c82765$97b9de60$44369c04@Dan> <473C9714.30104@cola.iges.org> Message-ID: <005601c827c5$f54e5050$22369c04@Dan> One interesting factor that seems to be emerging is that it makes a huge difference -- in terms of transmittability to children -- if one of the spouses is a "native" Buddhist, i.e., someone born Buddhist into a "Buddhist lifestyle." Obviously such a parent would have their own childhood experiences to draw on, to remember, to reenact. Any success stories with non-"native" Buddhist parents? Or is this a missing ingredient for Western (aka American) Buddhists? Dan From rhayes at unm.edu Thu Nov 15 13:59:17 2007 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Thu Nov 15 13:59:40 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Western Buddhism In-Reply-To: <200711141952.31055.rhayes@unm.edu> References: <139878.75963.qm@web44802.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <015601c82626$7b528f00$57339c04@Dan> <200711141952.31055.rhayes@unm.edu> Message-ID: <200711151359.17494.rhayes@unm.edu> On Wednesday 14 November 2007 19:52, Richard Hayes wrote: > When my children were young, I took every precaution > to conceal from them that I was a Buddhist. I forgot to add that both of my offspring discovered Buddhist meditation as adults. They both do vipassana seriously, and talk about most things in ways that sounds pretty Buddhist to my ear, and they occasionally read books by Pema Chodron and Thich Nhat Hanh, but neither one of them has acquired any of the quaint affectations that often accompany Buddhism, such as bowing, shaving the head, or eating kimchi. So now we are back to the question: who gets to say whether or not someone is a Buddhist? By my lights, my offspring are Buddhist in every way that really matters. They certainly do not claim to be Buddhist, and probably no Japanese priest would recognize them as Buddhist. If I get to say, I'd say I brought them up Buddhist and that they still are. If the Japanese priests gets to take the census, then I did not raise my children as Buddhists and they never have been, are not and probably never will be. As is almost always the case when there is a disagreement between me and a priest of any religion, I'm right. -- Richard P. Hayes From mlatorra at nmsu.edu Thu Nov 15 14:56:49 2007 From: mlatorra at nmsu.edu (Mr Michael A. La Torra) Date: Thu Nov 15 14:56:56 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Western Buddhism Message-ID: <1790833.1195163809671.JavaMail.mlatorra@nmsu.edu> Dan Lusthaus" vasubandhu@earthlink.net wrote: >One question might be -- what percentage of the subscribers to >his list are under 50? LaTorra response: I am Buddhist and 4 years past 50. What percentage past 50 that 4 years represents, I leave to the readers and their calculators. Since the question was framed in terms of being under 50, however, I think the answer would be -108% (i.e., I am 108% on the wrong side of 50). But surely the absolute value of that magical number 108 must be auspicious! >Another question: How many who identify themselves, in whole >or in part, as Buddhists, have raised their children "Buddhist," >and of those children, how many are enthusiastic practitioners >of Buddhism today? LaTorra response: I am 100% Buddhist but my children are being raised Christian according to the wishes of my wife. I am a Zen priest, so it's sort of difficult for me to be otherwise. And believe me, I tired. My wife is a devout Christian, who is very active in the local (very conservative) Episcopal Church (still part of the Anglican Communion as of this writing, but that could change any day now). I used to belong to this church, too. But when the pastor found out I had been ordained a Zen priest, he refused me Communion. He announced this in a very off-putting telephone call, for which he later apologized. My shadow no longer darkens the nave of his church, except on special occasions? ?such as the annual Christmas pageant, which all 3 of my children have participated in over the years. The younger two who still live at home go to church services twice per week with their mother. And they are in no wise Buddhist. At home, I rarely talk about the dharma or meditation or any other Buddhist topics. But perhaps my actions speak louder than any words ever could. A few weeks ago, as I was preparing for bed, I noticed on my pillow a slip of paper with writing in a child's hand on it. I asked my wife what it was. She said that Asia, our 9-year-old daughter, had left it there for me. This is what it said: "Daddy your body is not big, but your spirit is bigger." --------------------------- Regards, Michael LaTorra mlatorra@nmsu.edu College Associate Professor Department of English New Mexico State University From curt at cola.iges.org Thu Nov 15 19:47:01 2007 From: curt at cola.iges.org (curt) Date: Thu Nov 15 19:47:10 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Western Buddhism In-Reply-To: <005601c827c5$f54e5050$22369c04@Dan> References: <015601c82626$7b528f00$57339c04@Dan> <00d601c82765$97b9de60$44369c04@Dan> <473C9714.30104@cola.iges.org> <005601c827c5$f54e5050$22369c04@Dan> Message-ID: <473D04A5.9040200@cola.iges.org> Dan Lusthaus wrote: > One interesting factor that seems to be emerging is that it makes a huge > difference -- in terms of transmittability to children -- if one of the > spouses is a "native" Buddhist, i.e., someone born Buddhist into a "Buddhist > lifestyle." Obviously such a parent would have their own childhood > experiences to draw on, to remember, to reenact. > > Any success stories with non-"native" Buddhist parents? Or is this a missing > ingredient for Western (aka American) Buddhists? > > Many western Buddhist converts have gone out of their way to avoid (and as often as not actively and arrogantly disparage) the more emotional/devotional side of Buddhism - precisely the side that is more likely to capture the imagination, and the heart, of a child. Curt Steinmetz From rhayes at unm.edu Thu Nov 15 22:09:31 2007 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Thu Nov 15 22:09:37 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Western Buddhism In-Reply-To: <473D04A5.9040200@cola.iges.org> References: <015601c82626$7b528f00$57339c04@Dan> <00d601c82765$97b9de60$44369c04@Dan> <473C9714.30104@cola.iges.org> <005601c827c5$f54e5050$22369c04@Dan> <473D04A5.9040200@cola.iges.org> Message-ID: <1195189771.7237.1.camel@localhost> On Thu, 2007-11-15 at 21:47 -0500, curt wrote: > Many western Buddhist converts have gone out of their way to avoid (and > as often as not actively and arrogantly disparage) the more > emotional/devotional side of Buddhism - precisely the side that is more > likely to capture the imagination, and the heart, of a child. Many western converts to Buddhism have done their best to get to the very heart of Buddhism, rather than the childish devotionalism and sentimentality that engages immature minds. -- Richard Hayes Department of Philosophy University of New Mexico From cfynn at gmx.net Fri Nov 16 01:03:07 2007 From: cfynn at gmx.net (Christopher Fynn) Date: Fri Nov 16 01:03:27 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Western Buddhism In-Reply-To: <1195189771.7237.1.camel@localhost> References: <015601c82626$7b528f00$57339c04@Dan> <00d601c82765$97b9de60$44369c04@Dan> <473C9714.30104@cola.iges.org> <005601c827c5$f54e5050$22369c04@Dan> <473D04A5.9040200@cola.iges.org> <1195189771.7237.1.camel@localhost> Message-ID: <473D4EBB.5050006@gmx.net> Richard Hayes wrote: > On Thu, 2007-11-15 at 21:47 -0500, curt wrote: > >> Many western Buddhist converts have gone out of their way to avoid (and >> as often as not actively and arrogantly disparage) the more >> emotional/devotional side of Buddhism - precisely the side that is more >> likely to capture the imagination, and the heart, of a child. > > Many western converts to Buddhism have done their best to get to the > very heart of Buddhism, rather than the childish devotionalism and > sentimentality that engages immature minds. > Richard Is the "emotional/devotional" side of Buddhism necessarily "childish"? To me that sounds a little like saying ideas and emotions expressed through means like art, poetry or music are somehow inferior to those expressed through books on logic and philosophy. - Chris From rbzeuschner at roadrunner.com Fri Nov 16 01:13:13 2007 From: rbzeuschner at roadrunner.com (Bob Zeuschner) Date: Fri Nov 16 01:13:17 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Western Buddhism and devotion In-Reply-To: <473D04A5.9040200@cola.iges.org> References: <015601c82626$7b528f00$57339c04@Dan> <00d601c82765$97b9de60$44369c04@Dan> <473C9714.30104@cola.iges.org> <005601c827c5$f54e5050$22369c04@Dan> <473D04A5.9040200@cola.iges.org> Message-ID: <473D5119.1070603@roadrunner.com> I can't speak for others, but there are supposed to be at least four ways of being religious. One is devotion to deities. I can't find an ounce of _bhakti_ anywhere in my own nature; if anything, I push it away (not good for a Buddhist). Another way to be religious is to enjoy religious rituals. I find them uninteresting and of little personal value. Another way is meditative; I find some value in _dhyana_. Another way is to use one's rational mind, one's ability to think carefully and critically, which is how I understand _jnana_ or _prajna_, and seems to be the only way that I can participate in religion. For this reason, I find myself unable to inculcate devotional or ritual Buddhism in my children, for personally I find myself unable to relate to these other _marga_. Bob Dept. of Philosophy curt wrote: > Dan Lusthaus wrote: >> One interesting factor that seems to be emerging is that it makes a huge >> difference -- in terms of transmittability to children -- if one of the >> spouses is a "native" Buddhist, i.e., someone born Buddhist into a >> "Buddhist >> lifestyle." Obviously such a parent would have their own childhood >> experiences to draw on, to remember, to reenact. >> >> Any success stories with non-"native" Buddhist parents? Or is this a >> missing >> ingredient for Western (aka American) Buddhists? >> >> > > Many western Buddhist converts have gone out of their way to avoid (and > as often as not actively and arrogantly disparage) the more > emotional/devotional side of Buddhism - precisely the side that is more > likely to capture the imagination, and the heart, of a child. > > Curt Steinmetz > > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l > > From clasqm at mweb.co.za Fri Nov 16 03:07:47 2007 From: clasqm at mweb.co.za (Michel Clasquin-Johnson) Date: Fri Nov 16 03:08:20 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Western Buddhism and devotion In-Reply-To: <473D5119.1070603@roadrunner.com> References: <015601c82626$7b528f00$57339c04@Dan> <00d601c82765$97b9de60$44369c04@Dan> <473C9714.30104@cola.iges.org> <005601c827c5$f54e5050$22369c04@Dan> <473D04A5.9040200@cola.iges.org> <473D5119.1070603@roadrunner.com> Message-ID: <03FF7603-35C4-46CE-A717-3D9B4294F95F@mweb.co.za> AT LEAST four, yes, but you are taking the traditional classification scheme of Advaita Hinduism (by no means the only form of Hinduism there is) as canonical. Contemporary scholars have put a little further thought into the matter. FWIW, Dale Cannon ("Six ways of being religious") identifies 6: The Way of Sacred Rite The Way of Right Action The Way of Devotion The Way of Shamanic meditation The Way of Mystical Quest The Way of Reasoned Enquiry Frederic Streng's ("Understanding Religious Life") analysis is more subtle and detailed. He divides it into Traditional ways Personal Apprehension of a Holy Presence Creation of Community through Sacred Symbols Living in Harmony with Cosmic Law Attaining Freedom through Spiritual Discipline Nontraditional ways The Religious Significance of Fulfilling Human Relationships The Religious Significance of Social Responsibility The Power of Rationality The Power of Artistic creativity The Religious Response to Physical Existence There are probably other classification schemes as well: I haven't been keeping up. Now it is easy for us eggheads on Buddha-L to claim that, for instance, we have no truck with "Creation of Community through Sacred Symbols". Oh yeah? How do you feel about someone urinating on the flag of your country? You might not be driven to homicidal rage by it, but as soon as you feel, "Well, that is really not done", you are participating in "Creation of Community through Sacred Symbols". In fact, even if you applaud such an action, you are participating in it: You simply respond to a different set of symbols that work for a different community. Or, Let's take "Personal Apprehension of a Holy Presence". Remove the "Holy" and it becomes obvious. We need not go into the supernatural here: It is just the human response to a Presence that transcends a particular personality. If you encounter a judge in his court, you address him as "your honour". Even if after court hours, with no robes and paraphernalia, you call him "Charlie". The office of a judge gives the incumbent an aura, a "holiness" that enforces respect even if in your opinion that particular judge is an idiot. A small number of judges are clearly not idiots: they carry that aura with them, and people tend to call them "your honour" even after hours. I'll bet that if our own Richard Hayes were ever to meet George Bush in person, he might call him a @#%^$&*@, but he would phrase it as "You are a @#%^$&*@, Mr President". There is simply no way that any human being can claim to be 100% rational all the time. Well, Lt Commander Data, maybe, but he's an android and doesn't count. As Joseph Campbell once wrote: "(observe) any professor of philosophy at play in a bowling alley: watch him twist and turn after the ball has left his hand, to bring it over to the standing pins" . (C'mon, Bob, you enjoyed that, admit it). Whether there are 4, 6 or 9 factors of being religious (or should we say "of being human"?), they are all present in some sense in all of us. Oh, one of them can dominate to the extent of 90% or whatever. But the others are there, we can access them if we want to. Just keep in mind that they also operate in the everyday world, not just in spiritual or supernatural realms, if such exist. [obligatory Buddhist content] Contrary to popular opinion, ritual and devotion in Buddhism was hardly a Mahayana invention. The Kitagirisutta (MN 70) to name just one, speaks of people being freed by faith. [end of obligatory Buddhist content] On 16 Nov 2007, at 10:13 AM, Bob Zeuschner wrote: > I can't speak for others, but there are supposed to be at least four > ways of being religious. > One is devotion to deities. I can't find an ounce of _bhakti_ > anywhere in my own nature; if anything, I push it away (not good for > a Buddhist). > Another way to be religious is to enjoy religious rituals. I find > them uninteresting and of little personal value. > Another way is meditative; I find some value in _dhyana_. > Another way is to use one's rational mind, one's ability to think > carefully and critically, which is how I understand _jnana_ or > _prajna_, and seems to be the only way that I can participate in > religion. > For this reason, I find myself unable to inculcate devotional or > ritual Buddhism in my children, for personally I find myself unable > to relate to these other _marga_. > Bob > Dept. of Philosophy > From wdkish81 at yahoo.com Fri Nov 16 06:00:44 2007 From: wdkish81 at yahoo.com (Bill Kish) Date: Fri Nov 16 06:00:51 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Western Buddhism In-Reply-To: <200711161011.lAGABW6F032315@ns1.swcp.com> Message-ID: <503892.85586.qm@web30511.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Dan Lusthaus: >Any success stories with non-"native" Buddhist parents? One that comes to mind is Ethan Nichtern, who is not only a Buddhist, but a Buddhist teacher in the same tradition that his father David Nichtern is. Here is a link for his bio: http://www.theidproject.com/ethan_bio.htm. I would imagine he would be a good person to speak with regarding the issue of being a 2nd generation Buddhist in the USA and how others in his generation have or have not embraced the Buddhism of their parents. He may even touch on the subject in his recently published book "One City: A Declaration of Interdependence", but I can't say for sure. Also, Robert Thurman has other children besides Uma. His son Dechen, e.g., credits his involvement in yoga as being instrumental in helping him to eventually become involved in Tibetan Buddhism. See the teacher bio for Dechen Thurman at http://www.jivamuktiyoga.com/fms/index.html --------- Bill Kish ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/sports;_ylt=At9_qDKvtAbMuh1G1SQtBI7ntAcJ From jehms at xs4all.nl Fri Nov 16 13:00:36 2007 From: jehms at xs4all.nl (Erik Hoogcarspel) Date: Fri Nov 16 13:00:39 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Western Buddhism In-Reply-To: <200711151359.17494.rhayes@unm.edu> References: <139878.75963.qm@web44802.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <015601c82626$7b528f00$57339c04@Dan> <200711141952.31055.rhayes@unm.edu> <200711151359.17494.rhayes@unm.edu> Message-ID: <473DF6E4.3060806@xs4all.nl> Richard Hayes schreef: > As is almost always the case when there is a disagreement between me and a > priest of any religion, I'm right. > That's what any priest would also say, the difference is only in the eye, sorry 'I'. And as we Buddhists know, there ain't such a thing, so the disagreement seems to be an illusion. Another thing about Western Buddhism: if there would be such a thing, it would be the first Buddhism that lives with science. In our world reading the Heart Sutra a hundred times doesn't cure a sick person but an operation does. Reading het Heart Sutra is pure romanticism. Even the Asian Buddhist teachers prefer the hospital to the Heart Sutra. This is new. Even the value and authenticity of Buddhist texts is decided upon by scientists and not by hierofants. Being enlightened doesn't give you more knowledge about the world, having a computer does. So I think that Western Buddhism has to be more pure, more concentrated on Buddhist values and virtues. Modern thought turned devotion into romanticism, postmodern thought turns ritual into play and philosophy is not the highway to Truth, but just the best way to keep conversation going. -- Erik Info: www.xs4all.nl/~jehms Weblog: http://www.volkskrantblog.nl/pub/blogs/blog.php?uid=2950 Productie: http://stores.lulu.com/jehmsstudio From curt at cola.iges.org Fri Nov 16 13:55:36 2007 From: curt at cola.iges.org (curt) Date: Fri Nov 16 13:55:50 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Western Buddhism In-Reply-To: <473DF6E4.3060806@xs4all.nl> References: <139878.75963.qm@web44802.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <015601c82626$7b528f00$57339c04@Dan> <200711141952.31055.rhayes@unm.edu> <200711151359.17494.rhayes@unm.edu> <473DF6E4.3060806@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <473E03C8.1010908@cola.iges.org> Erik Hoogcarspel wrote: > > Another thing about Western Buddhism: if there would be such a thing, > it would be the first Buddhism that lives with science. The idea that science is something only recently invented by Europeans is incorrect. Buddhism and Hinduism have all along existed side by side with tremendous advances in science, medicine, mathematics, engineering, and, of course, philosophy - in India and China. Curt From rbzeuschner at roadrunner.com Fri Nov 16 17:20:26 2007 From: rbzeuschner at roadrunner.com (Bob Zeuschner) Date: Fri Nov 16 17:21:06 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Western Buddhism and devotion In-Reply-To: <03FF7603-35C4-46CE-A717-3D9B4294F95F@mweb.co.za> References: <015601c82626$7b528f00$57339c04@Dan> <00d601c82765$97b9de60$44369c04@Dan> <473C9714.30104@cola.iges.org> <005601c827c5$f54e5050$22369c04@Dan> <473D04A5.9040200@cola.iges.org> <473D5119.1070603@roadrunner.com> <03FF7603-35C4-46CE-A717-3D9B4294F95F@mweb.co.za> Message-ID: <473E33CA.5050004@roadrunner.com> Hi Michel -- I can hardly recognize my original remarks in your reaction, but let me clarify. Michel Clasquin-Johnson wrote: > AT LEAST four, yes, but you are taking the traditional classification > scheme of Advaita Hinduism (by no means the only form of Hinduism there > is) as canonical. Contemporary scholars have put a little further > thought into the matter. I did not claim the four I listed as exhaustive ("at least four"), and I am well aware of the other "ways of being religious" that you mention, but didn't use them in my brief remarks discussing my own Western American attitude toward Buddhism. I most certainly do not take Advaita as "canonical," just a nice and convenient starting place. > > Now it is easy for us eggheads on Buddha-L to claim that, for instance, > we have no truck with "Creation of Community through Sacred Symbols". Oh > yeah? How do you feel about someone urinating on the flag of your > country? You might not be driven to homicidal rage by it, but as soon as > you feel, "Well, that is really not done", you are participating in > "Creation of Community through Sacred Symbols". In fact, even if you > applaud such an action, you are participating in it: You simply respond > to a different set of symbols that work for a different community. If I approve, or disapprove, I participate. In fact, that means that unless I am neutral, I participate in lots of things -- and the resulting category is simply so broad as to be virtually meaningless. Most of the examples you provide are sociological, but hardly exclusive to any religion, hardly essential to religion. > > There is simply no way that any human being can claim to be 100% > rational all the time. Well, Lt Commander Data, maybe, but he's an > android and doesn't count. Of course not, but since I did not even imply such a remark, it doesn't apply (it is a "straw man"). I've been playing acoustic blues guitar for 40 years, and never once thought it was rational. It is very emotional and satisfying. As I did observe, I find no trace of devotion in my makeup (so I don't teach that to my children), I find little interest in ritual in my makeup (so I don't teach that to my children), I find some interest in meditation, and when it comes to my take on Buddhist RELIGION, the only way that I can approach it is via the intellect and rationality. There are dozens of ways of being religious, mine is "grand tradition," although I most certainly teach all the various ways of being religious to my students. > > [obligatory Buddhist content] Contrary to popular opinion, ritual and > devotion in Buddhism was hardly a Mahayana invention. The Kitagirisutta > (MN 70) to name just one, speaks of people being freed by faith. [end of > obligatory Buddhist content] Much of early Buddhism is devotional. Those aspects have little appeal for me, personally, although I do teach it. > On 16 Nov 2007, at 10:13 AM, Bob Zeuschner wrote: > >> I can't speak for others, but there are supposed to be at least four >> ways of being religious. >> One is devotion to deities. I can't find an ounce of _bhakti_ anywhere >> in my own nature; if anything, I push it away (not good for a Buddhist). >> Another way to be religious is to enjoy religious rituals. I find them >> uninteresting and of little personal value. >> Another way is meditative; I find some value in _dhyana_. >> Another way is to use one's rational mind, one's ability to think >> carefully and critically, which is how I understand _jnana_ or >> _prajna_, and seems to be the only way that I can participate in >> religion. >> For this reason, I find myself unable to inculcate devotional or >> ritual Buddhism in my children, for personally I find myself unable to >> relate to these other _marga_. >> Bob >> Dept. of Philosophy From curt at cola.iges.org Fri Nov 16 18:00:58 2007 From: curt at cola.iges.org (curt) Date: Fri Nov 16 18:01:13 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Western Buddhism and devotion In-Reply-To: <473E33CA.5050004@roadrunner.com> References: <015601c82626$7b528f00$57339c04@Dan> <00d601c82765$97b9de60$44369c04@Dan> <473C9714.30104@cola.iges.org> <005601c827c5$f54e5050$22369c04@Dan> <473D04A5.9040200@cola.iges.org> <473D5119.1070603@roadrunner.com> <03FF7603-35C4-46CE-A717-3D9B4294F95F@mweb.co.za> <473E33CA.5050004@roadrunner.com> Message-ID: <473E3D4A.7090507@cola.iges.org> Bob Zeuschner wrote: > > Much of early Buddhism is devotional. Those aspects have little appeal > for me, personally, although I do teach it. > I think I read somewhere (Gombrich, I'm pretty sure) that prior to the production of Buddha images, Buddhists made images of the Buddha's feet and worshipped those (or did whatever it is that Buddhists do with, to, at images). Worshipping the feet of one's teacher is standard fare for Indian spirituality - and it doesn't get much more "devotional" than that! Curt From david.r.webster at blueyonder.co.uk Fri Nov 16 02:29:32 2007 From: david.r.webster at blueyonder.co.uk (David Webster) Date: Fri Nov 16 19:24:16 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Western Buddhism In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I am under 50! Non-Buddhist. It seems as though the generation of scholars that I was taught by at Uni - or came across at conferences / writing (now, indeed, in their 50s) seemed to be mostly practicing Buddhist. Many of my generation (not quite yet 40...) who study Buddhism [here in the UK at least] seem to be clearly self-defined as non-Buddhist.. What's that all about then? d. ---------------------------------------- Dr David Webster Course Leader: Religion, Philosophy & Ethics University of Gloucestershire 01242 71 4778 e-mail: dwebster@glos.ac.uk Course blog: HYPERLINK "http://www.r-p-e.blogspot.com" http://www.r-p-e.blogspot.com ---------------------------------------- -----Original Message----- From: buddha-l-bounces@mailman.swcp.com [mailto:buddha-l-bounces@mailman.swcp.com] On Behalf Of Jackhat1@aol.com Sent: 15 November 2007 15:46 To: buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] Western Buddhism In a message dated 11/14/2007 8:07:33 P.M. Central Standard Time, vasubandhu@earthlink.net writes: One question might be -- what percentage of the subscribers to this list are under 50? Another question: How many who identify themselves, in whole or in part, as Buddhists, have raised their children "Buddhist," and of those children, how many are enthusiastic practitioners of Buddhism today? Most but not all of the members of my sangha including myself are over 50. A conclusion from this might be that only older adults are now (and have been in the past) attracted to a Buddhist practice or, for that matter any spiritual practice at all. This does not imply that Buddhism is dying out. I think the type of Jesus movement, for one example, that attracts young people now might not attract older adults. Most of the people I know who exuberantly called themselves Jesus freaks when they were young have now fallen away from Christianity altogether. Jack ************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com _______________________________________________ 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 Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.33/1133 - Release Date: 15/11/2007 20:57 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.33/1133 - Release Date: 15/11/2007 20:57 From rhayes at unm.edu Fri Nov 16 19:39:28 2007 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Fri Nov 16 19:39:45 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Western Buddhism In-Reply-To: <473D4EBB.5050006@gmx.net> References: <015601c82626$7b528f00$57339c04@Dan> <00d601c82765$97b9de60$44369c04@Dan> <473C9714.30104@cola.iges.org> <005601c827c5$f54e5050$22369c04@Dan> <473D04A5.9040200@cola.iges.org> <1195189771.7237.1.camel@localhost> <473D4EBB.5050006@gmx.net> Message-ID: <1195267168.6961.7.camel@localhost> On Fri, 2007-11-16 at 14:03 +0600, Christopher Fynn wrote: > Is the "emotional/devotional" side of Buddhism necessarily "childish"? I think so. > To me that sounds a little like saying ideas and emotions expressed through > means like art, poetry or music are somehow inferior to those expressed through > books on logic and philosophy. I don't think the form of expression has anything to do with it. My favorite poets are not particularly devotional. I think of devotion as a fawning sentimentality over someone perceived to be outside oneself. Seeing the source of one's strength as outside oneself strikes me as immature thinking. Mature practice consists in seeing that all of one's strength comes from within, and that all objects of worship or devotion are just projections of strength one either has or wishes one had. I think one can get this latter idea across in poetry and art. I don't think one can express much of anything through music alone, so let me leave that out of the discussion for the time being. Thanks for the opportunity to clarify my thoughts on the matter. -- Richard Hayes Department of Philosophy University of New Mexico From rhayes at unm.edu Fri Nov 16 19:43:42 2007 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Fri Nov 16 19:43:51 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Western Buddhism In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1195267422.6961.12.camel@localhost> On Fri, 2007-11-16 at 09:29 +0000, David Webster wrote: > It seems as though the generation of scholars that I was taught by at Uni - > or came across at conferences / writing (now, indeed, in their 50s) seemed > to be mostly practicing Buddhist. > > Many of my generation (not quite yet 40...) who study Buddhism [here in the > UK at least] seem to be clearly self-defined as non-Buddhist.. > > What's that all about then? That's about what I would expect. The generation who taught you had fallen in love with Buddhism. Your generation realized that Bob Dylan was speaking the truth when he said "You can't be wise and in love at the same time." I expect your generation to produce far better scholarship on Buddhism than mine has done; we were all so enamoured of our object of study that we could not see it at all clearly. -- Richard Hayes Department of Philosophy University of New Mexico From rhayes at unm.edu Fri Nov 16 20:06:44 2007 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Fri Nov 16 20:06:52 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Western Buddhism In-Reply-To: <473DF6E4.3060806@xs4all.nl> References: <139878.75963.qm@web44802.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <015601c82626$7b528f00$57339c04@Dan> <200711141952.31055.rhayes@unm.edu> <200711151359.17494.rhayes@unm.edu> <473DF6E4.3060806@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <1195268804.6961.36.camel@localhost> On Fri, 2007-11-16 at 21:00 +0100, Erik Hoogcarspel wrote: > Richard Hayes schreef: > > As is almost always the case when there is a disagreement between me and a > > priest of any religion, I'm right. > > > That's what any priest would also say, the difference is only in the > eye, sorry 'I'. Aye, but when a priest says such a thing, his tongue is not sufficiently far in his cheek. > Another thing about Western Buddhism: if there would be such a thing, it > would be the first Buddhism that lives with science. It would certainly be the first kind of Buddhism did live in a culture whose intellectual landscape was dominated by scientific method as the most trusted method of acquiring new insights. These days I have been getting a great deal of enjoyment (and inspiration) from Brian Swimme and Thomas Berry's "The Universe Story," an ambitious attempt to tell the story of the the creation of the universe and the evolution of human beings in a way that is simultaneously close to how contemporary science tells the story and supportive of a responsible and compassionate way of living in the world. I heard Thomas Berry talking about the book shortly after it was written, and I have listened to many of Briane Swimme's recorded lectures. If I may borrow a Quaker expression, their way of telling the story speaks to my condition. While I have become quite wary of labels, if I were to allow myself to wear the label "Buddhist", I would say that Swimme and Berry's telling of the story has deepened my Buddhist practice. -- Richard Hayes Department of Philosophy University of New Mexico From jvriens at free.fr Fri Nov 16 21:23:13 2007 From: jvriens at free.fr (Joy Vriens) Date: Fri Nov 16 21:23:25 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Western Buddhism References: <005601c827c5$f54e5050$22369c04@Dan> Message-ID: Dan, >Any success stories with non-"native" Buddhist parents? Or is this a missing >ingredient for Western (aka American) Buddhists? When we talk about (or desperately search for) success stories of "Western Buddhist" parents successully transmitting "Western Buddhism" to their children, we should also remember the stories of utter failure of the parents of those parents. They failed to transmit their religion to their children, who went off to become vague buddhists. How did that happen, what went wrong? The only thing that the second generation of parents can authentically transmit is that failure. And they seem pretty successful in that. Joy From jvriens at free.fr Fri Nov 16 21:28:07 2007 From: jvriens at free.fr (Joy Vriens) Date: Fri Nov 16 21:28:17 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Western Buddhism References: <1195267422.6961.12.camel@localhost> Message-ID: Richard, >David Webster wrote: >> Many of my generation (not quite yet 40...) who study Buddhism [here in the >> UK at least] seem to be clearly self-defined as non-Buddhist.. >> What's that all about then? >That's about what I would expect. The generation who taught you had >fallen in love with Buddhism. Your generation realized that Bob Dylan >was speaking the truth when he said "You can't be wise and in love at >the same time." I expect your generation to produce far better >scholarship on Buddhism than mine has done; we were all so enamoured of >our object of study that we could not see it at all clearly. Deep bow for your answer mr Hayes. Yet, at the same time, I would say that whoever is not enamoured with the object of their study doesn't see it. And "it" is not necessarily the object of the study. Joy From jvriens at free.fr Fri Nov 16 21:47:06 2007 From: jvriens at free.fr (Joy Vriens) Date: Fri Nov 16 21:47:15 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Western Buddhism References: <1195267168.6961.7.camel@localhost> Message-ID: Richard, >Seeing the source of one's strength as outside oneself strikes me as >immature thinking. Mature practice consists in seeing that all of one's >strength comes from within, I wonder what the Buddha would think about that? He did tell us to be islands unto ourselves, but he wasn't very specific about an "inside oneself" and a "within". Not that I have a problem with that, but I do have a problem knowing what is inside and what outside. Joy From curt at cola.iges.org Sat Nov 17 06:05:43 2007 From: curt at cola.iges.org (curt) Date: Sat Nov 17 06:06:04 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Western Buddhism In-Reply-To: References: <1195267168.6961.7.camel@localhost> Message-ID: <473EE727.4060302@cola.iges.org> Joy Vriens wrote: > Richard, > >> Seeing the source of one's strength as outside oneself strikes me as >> immature thinking. Mature practice consists in seeing that all of one's >> strength comes from within, >> > > I wonder what the Buddha would think about that? He did tell us to be islands unto ourselves, but he wasn't very specific about an "inside oneself" and a "within". Not that I have a problem with that, but I do have a problem knowing what is inside and what outside. > The Buddha did, of course, mention something about there being no self in the first place, however. And if there is no self then there is no "other". Curt From at8u at virginia.edu Sat Nov 17 06:45:32 2007 From: at8u at virginia.edu (Alberto Todeschini) Date: Sat Nov 17 06:45:46 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] First ever foreigner to become monk in China? In-Reply-To: <200711170244.lAH2i2UM030465@ns1.swcp.com> References: <200711170244.lAH2i2UM030465@ns1.swcp.com> Message-ID: <473EF07C.1070000@virginia.edu> Dear All, Today's Corriere della Sera, one of Italy's most important newspapers, reports that according to an article in the China Daily, an Italian has become the first ever foreigner to become monk in China. Is this correct? No other foreigner has become Buddhist in China? Perhaps we should add "in modern times". Even so, would that be correct? Here is the article: http://www.corriere.it/esteri/07_novembre_17/cavalera_monaco_buddista.shtml If you are interested, you could try ask Google to translate it into English. It sometimes does a half decent job with some European languages. Thank you for your thoughts, Alberto Todeschini From jkirk at spro.net Sat Nov 17 10:00:27 2007 From: jkirk at spro.net (jkirk) Date: Sat Nov 17 10:00:28 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] First ever foreigner to become monk in China? In-Reply-To: <473EF07C.1070000@virginia.edu> References: <200711170244.lAH2i2UM030465@ns1.swcp.com> <473EF07C.1070000@virginia.edu> Message-ID: <002f01c8293b$5a6e0c70$0400a8c0@OPTIPLEX> Dear All, Today's Corriere della Sera, one of Italy's most important newspapers, reports that according to an article in the China Daily, an Italian has become the first ever foreigner to become monk in China. Is this correct? No other foreigner has become Buddhist in China? Perhaps we should add "in modern times". Even so, would that be correct? .................. Alberto Todeschini ================================================== From: Kirkpatrick [jkirk@spro.net] Several foreign (e.g., not Chinese) women renouncers--from Thailand and other areas, have gone to China earlier on to be ordained in a Buddhist tradition, since the bhikkhuni tradition had been lost in Sri Lanka, Burma, and Thailand. Here's one article reflecting this situation: http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php?id=52,4632,0,0,1,0 "...If women still insist, they will be simply dismissed and told to go to Mahayana Buddhism in Taiwan, Korea, Vietnam or China for female ordination. The mutual understanding, however, is that they will remain outsiders to the Thai Sangha and never be accepted as equal to monks....In 1996, the clergy in Sri Lanka restored the Bhikkhuni order. It was decided that Mahayana Bhikkhunis could co-preside over female ordination because the Bhikkhuni order in Mahayana could be traced back historically to Theravada origins. The Thai Sangha has simply snubbed the move." In any case, in the vinaya the bhikshunis are never 'equal' to bhiskshus, but it's true that in Thailand such China-ordained nuns are not acepted as ordained nuns by the Thai sangha. Quite a few (I don't know how mnay) women have already done this before your Italian chap went to China to ordain. Joanna Kirkpatrick No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.0/1136 - Release Date: 11/17/2007 2:55 PM From jkirk at spro.net Sat Nov 17 10:29:00 2007 From: jkirk at spro.net (jkirk) Date: Sat Nov 17 10:29:01 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Eastern Buddhism In-Reply-To: References: <1195267422.6961.12.camel@localhost> Message-ID: <003501c8293f$57b09d50$0400a8c0@OPTIPLEX> From: Kirkpatrick [jkirk@spro.net] On a tangent from the western Buddhism thread, I just want to say that I watched Akira Kurosawa's film version last night of Maxim Gorky's _The Lower Depths_ (_Donzoko_). Have to admit I've never seen the Gorky play nor read it. Kurosawa says that he made a lot of changes in adapting the play to his purposes. Since I've not seen nor read the play, I can't address the changes. But Kurosawa's version is a study in both samsara and compassion, and to my mind is a very Buddhistic film. An old man pilgrim monk arrives amidst the seedy denizens of a lower depths somewhere in Japan, at the bottom of a refuse pit (we're talking late Edo period here), and asks to stay there for a while. "Gramps" as they call him is given a bunk that was empty, and winds up gently advising various of his shared-quarters neighbors during their wild passions and disputes with one another. At the end, after he has moved on, someone recalls his compassion. Mostly they accuse him of talking comfortable lies, while "they" perceive the truth of reality, and then get drunk. It's a retooled version of the film and the subtitles are in contemporary US English slang, a bit grating-- but then I never saw the original with original subtitles, that may not have been any better. A beautiful filmic exposition of delusion, hatred, and desire and how the social lowest of the low are so attached to their existential situation that they cannot imagine getting out of it, even though some of them dream of it. The pilgrim monk is the only one who has ever been out of the pit. Has anyone on the list seen this film, and/or the Gorky play? Jean Renoir filmed it in France in 1931, and Kurosawa's dates from 1957. Joanna K. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.0/1136 - Release Date: 11/17/2007 2:55 PM From jkirk at spro.net Sat Nov 17 10:56:10 2007 From: jkirk at spro.net (jkirk) Date: Sat Nov 17 10:56:08 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] FW: H-Japan (E): CFP: The Journal of Japanese and Korean Cinema Message-ID: <000901c82943$235dda00$0400a8c0@OPTIPLEX> X-posted. Just in, call for articles for this new journal. Inspired to submit an article, anyone? Joanna K. ====================================================== H-Japan November 17, 2007 From: Aaron Gerow The Journal of Japanese and Korean Cinema, a fully refereed forum for the dissemination of scholarly work devoted to the cinemas of Japan and Korea and the interactions and relations between them, seeks essays for its inaugural issue devoted to Japanese-Korea cinematic connections. Possible topics for this first issue include, but are not limited to: remakes across national borders; co-productions; censorship and regulation of Japanese films in Korea; Representations of Koreans in Japanese film/Japanese in Korean Film; Reception; Casting/stars; Korean cinema under colonialism; manga adaptations across national borders; Japanese influence on Korean cinema/Korean on Japanese cinema Future submissions may include essays devoted to issues specific to either Japanese or Korean cinema, but articles on interactions between them will also continue to be considered. Topics for essays for future issues may concern: historical considerations and reconsiderations; authorship; genre; spectatorship and audiences; reception of Japanese and Korean cinema regionally and globally Information for prospective authors: Submit the article as an e-mail attachment in word format. Essays should be 6,000-8,000 words. Please include abstract of 150-200 words. Include a separate, short biography in the third person. Please give contact details, including e-mail address. Provide up to six key words for indexing. Do not put identifying information in your essay. Text including notes should be in Times New Roman, 12 point. Everything must be double-spaced. Quotations must be in English. The first mention of a film should include its original title, director's surname and year of release. In all subsequent references, the title should be translated into English, unless known by original title in all markets. Use explanatory endnotes, not footnotes. Use MLA style for references and works cited. Editors: David Desser and Frances Gateward, University of Illinois Unit for Cinema Studies 3072 FLB 707 S. Mathews University of Illinois Urbana, IL 61801? USA Fax (217) 244-4019 Phone (217) 244-2705 jjkc@live.com No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.0/1136 - Release Date: 11/17/2007 2:55 PM From at8u at virginia.edu Sat Nov 17 11:17:51 2007 From: at8u at virginia.edu (Alberto Todeschini) Date: Sat Nov 17 11:17:58 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] RE: First ever foreigner to become monk in China? In-Reply-To: <200711171756.lAHHuKUS021371@ns1.swcp.com> References: <200711171756.lAHHuKUS021371@ns1.swcp.com> Message-ID: <473F304F.2020705@virginia.edu> From: Kirkpatrick [jkirk@spro.net] Several foreign (e.g., not Chinese) women renouncers--from Thailand and other areas, have gone to China earlier on to be ordained in a Buddhist tradition, since the bhikkhuni tradition had been lost in Sri Lanka, Burma, and Thailand. Hi Joanna, That's right! I had completely forgotten about that. So I wonder why all the fuss. Allegedly, the article was right on the cover of the China Daily. Perhaps a male westerner's conversion and ordination makes a good story. Obviously, China Daily didn't try very hard to check their story for accuracy, or simply chose to disregard the ordinations you mention. Regards, Alberto Todeschini From jkirk at spro.net Sat Nov 17 13:58:49 2007 From: jkirk at spro.net (jkirk) Date: Sat Nov 17 13:58:46 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] RE: First ever foreigner to become monk in China? In-Reply-To: <473F304F.2020705@virginia.edu> References: <200711171756.lAHHuKUS021371@ns1.swcp.com> <473F304F.2020705@virginia.edu> Message-ID: <000e01c8295c$a6efe9d0$0400a8c0@OPTIPLEX> From: Kirkpatrick [jkirk@spro.net] Several foreign (e.g., not Chinese) women renouncers--from Thailand and other areas, have gone to China earlier on to be ordained in a Buddhist tradition, since the bhikkhuni tradition had been lost in Sri Lanka, Burma, and Thailand. Hi Joanna, That's right! I had completely forgotten about that. So I wonder why all the fuss. Allegedly, the article was right on the cover of the China Daily. Perhaps a male westerner's conversion and ordination makes a good story. Obviously, China Daily didn't try very hard to check their story for accuracy, or simply chose to disregard the ordinations you mention. Regards, Alberto Todeschini =============== Or maybe the Chinese had in mind the "first Italian" to convert in China? J No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.0/1136 - Release Date: 11/17/2007 2:55 PM From jkirk at spro.net Sat Nov 17 14:05:35 2007 From: jkirk at spro.net (jkirk) Date: Sat Nov 17 14:05:31 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] RE: First ever foreigner to become monk in China? In-Reply-To: <473F304F.2020705@virginia.edu> References: <200711171756.lAHHuKUS021371@ns1.swcp.com> <473F304F.2020705@virginia.edu> Message-ID: <001901c8295d$98f0e2c0$0400a8c0@OPTIPLEX> Could also be Chinese male chauvinism! Women converts don't count maybe -----Original Message----- From: buddha-l-bounces@mailman.swcp.com [mailto:buddha-l-bounces@mailman.swcp.com] On Behalf Of Alberto Todeschini Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2007 11:18 AM To: buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com Subject: [Buddha-l] RE: First ever foreigner to become monk in China? From: Kirkpatrick [jkirk@spro.net] Several foreign (e.g., not Chinese) women renouncers--from Thailand and other areas, have gone to China earlier on to be ordained in a Buddhist tradition, since the bhikkhuni tradition had been lost in Sri Lanka, Burma, and Thailand. Hi Joanna, That's right! I had completely forgotten about that. So I wonder why all the fuss. Allegedly, the article was right on the cover of the China Daily. Perhaps a male westerner's conversion and ordination makes a good story. Obviously, China Daily didn't try very hard to check their story for accuracy, or simply chose to disregard the ordinations you mention. Regards, Alberto Todeschini _______________________________________________ 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 Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.0/1136 - Release Date: 11/17/2007 2:55 PM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.0/1136 - Release Date: 11/17/2007 2:55 PM From twin_oceans at yahoo.com Sat Nov 17 22:56:20 2007 From: twin_oceans at yahoo.com (Katherine Masis) Date: Sat Nov 17 22:56:25 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Loving your object of study Message-ID: <140009.38697.qm@web54502.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Richard wrote: " . . . we were all so enamoured of our object of study that we could not see it at all clearly." Joy wrote: ?Yet, at the same time, I would say that whoever is not enamoured with the object of their study doesn't see it.? What does "l'enamorament" mean here? After reading Charles Muller?s and Richard Hayes? online papers about the divide between scholars (Buddhologists) and practitioners (Buddhists), it puzzles me that the divide even exists. I can understand Buddhists, Christians or people of any faith practicing with little or no knowledge of their faith (though I would not be comfortable in that position), but it strikes me as odd that Buddhologists would have little interest in Buddhist practice. I don?t think I?ve ever heard of a Christian theologian--no matter how avant-garde or rebellious against institutionalized forms of worship--who didn?t have some sort of Christian practice. Of course there are theologians who abandon their practice and their faith, but then they abandon theology as well and turn to other forms of scholarship (e.g., Karen Armstrong). Katherine Masis --------------------------------- Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage. From rbzeuschner at roadrunner.com Sat Nov 17 23:08:48 2007 From: rbzeuschner at roadrunner.com (Bob Zeuschner) Date: Sat Nov 17 23:08:52 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Loving your object of study In-Reply-To: <140009.38697.qm@web54502.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <140009.38697.qm@web54502.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <473FD6F0.3030806@roadrunner.com> The answer is that scholarship IS the practice, and we in the West make a separation between scholarship vs. practice. Bob Katherine Masis wrote: > Richard wrote: > " . . . we were all so enamoured of our object of study that we could not see it at all clearly." > > Joy wrote: > ?Yet, at the same time, I would say that whoever is not enamoured with the object of their study doesn't see it.? > > What does "l'enamorament" mean here? After reading Charles Muller?s and Richard Hayes? online papers about the divide between scholars (Buddhologists) and practitioners (Buddhists), it puzzles me that the divide even exists. I can understand Buddhists, Christians or people of any faith practicing with little or no knowledge of their faith (though I would not be comfortable in that position), but it strikes me as odd that Buddhologists would have little interest in Buddhist practice. I don?t think I?ve ever heard of a Christian theologian--no matter how avant-garde or rebellious against institutionalized forms of worship--who didn?t have some sort of Christian practice. Of course there are theologians who abandon their practice and their faith, but then they abandon theology as well and turn to other forms of scholarship (e.g., Karen Armstrong). > > Katherine Masis From james.blumenthal at oregonstate.edu Sat Nov 17 23:30:08 2007 From: james.blumenthal at oregonstate.edu (Blumenthal, James) Date: Sat Nov 17 23:30:43 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Loving your object of study References: <140009.38697.qm@web54502.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <0AA38D9E66B59D4B8EB25114CCA9EB7E045B86A1@NWS-EXCH1.nws.oregonstate.edu> "I don?t think I?ve ever heard of a Christian theologian--no matter how avant-garde or rebellious against institutionalized forms of worship--who didn?t have some sort of Christian practice." I may be nitpicking word choice here, but "theology," by definition is normative; it is done by a person of faith, albeit with the benefit of the tools of the academy. There are historians of Christianity who are not Christian, just as there are scholars of Buddhism, historians and otherwise, who do not identify as Buddhists. I raise this distinction because in recent years there has a movement among scholars of Buddhism who are also practitioners to speak "theologically", that is to say from within the tradition in constructive ways while using the critical tools of the academy to carry out this function. They have been doing this to address questions and concerns that affect contemporary practice communities such as feminist critiques of Buddhism, the ecological crisis, engaged Buddhism, etc. I understand the question people are raising. It seems odd to an insider that somebody would take such a strong interest in a tradition and not have a personal committment. Jim Blumenthal James Blumenthal Department of Philosophy Oregon State University 102-A Hovland Hall Corvallis, OR 97213 From twin_oceans at yahoo.com Sun Nov 18 10:06:43 2007 From: twin_oceans at yahoo.com (Katherine Masis) Date: Sun Nov 18 10:06:50 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Loving your object of study Message-ID: <775387.66790.qm@web54507.mail.re2.yahoo.com> (a) Jim wrote: ?I understand the question people are raising. It seems odd to an insider that somebody would take such a strong interest in a tradition and not have a personal commitment.? (b) Bob wrote: ?The answer is that scholarship IS the practice, and we in the West make a separation between scholarship vs. practice.? (a) Yes, that?s it, Jim?because the interest is VERY strong, not just a passing fancy. (b) OK, Bob, that makes sense?the gnani path. Katherine --------------------------------- Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now. From stephen.hopkins at ukonline.co.uk Sun Nov 18 19:00:47 2007 From: stephen.hopkins at ukonline.co.uk (Steve Hopkins) Date: Sun Nov 18 19:00:53 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] The Aquarian Gospel: Jesus, India, & Buddhism Message-ID: Denizens - A report in today's Guardian of a new film in the making that 'portrays Jesus as a holy man and teacher inspired by a myriad of eastern religions in India' might interest Buddha l'ers. 'We think that Indian religions and Buddhism, especially with the idea of meditation, played a big part in Christ's thinking. In the film we are looking beyond the canonised gospels to the 'lost' gospels," said William Sees Keenan, the producer.' The report also includes this: "I have seen the scrolls which show Buddhist monks talking about Jesus's visits. There are also coins from that period which show Yuzu or have the legend Issa on them, referring to Jesus from that period," said Fida Hassnain, former director of archaeology at the University of Srinagar. Hassnain, who has written books on the legend of Jesus in India, points out that there was extensive traffic between the Mediterranean and India around the time of Jesus's life. The academic pointed out that in Srinagar a tomb of Issa is still venerated. "It is the Catholic church which has closed its mind on the subject. Historians have not." You can find the article here: http://film.guardian.co.uk/news/story/ 0,,2213087,00.html Regards, Steve Hopkins From jkirk at spro.net Sun Nov 18 19:15:45 2007 From: jkirk at spro.net (jkirk) Date: Sun Nov 18 19:15:57 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] The Aquarian Gospel: Jesus, India, & Buddhism In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000e01c82a52$1fc024b0$0400a8c0@OPTIPLEX> You can even see his tomb in Kashmir, on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aauXxuLHnQ Joanna K. ================== Denizens - A report in today's Guardian of a new film in the making that 'portrays Jesus as a holy man and teacher inspired by a myriad of eastern religions in India' might interest Buddha l'ers. 'We think that Indian religions and Buddhism, especially with the idea of meditation, played a big part in Christ's thinking. In the film we are looking beyond the canonised gospels to the 'lost' gospels," said William Sees Keenan, the producer.' The report also includes this: "I have seen the scrolls which show Buddhist monks talking about Jesus's visits. There are also coins from that period which show Yuzu or have the legend Issa on them, referring to Jesus from that period," said Fida Hassnain, former director of archaeology at the University of Srinagar. Hassnain, who has written books on the legend of Jesus in India, points out that there was extensive traffic between the Mediterranean and India around the time of Jesus's life. The academic pointed out that in Srinagar a tomb of Issa is still venerated. "It is the Catholic church which has closed its mind on the subject. Historians have not." You can find the article here: http://film.guardian.co.uk/news/story/ 0,,2213087,00.html Regards, Steve Hopkins _______________________________________________ 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 Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.0/1137 - Release Date: 11/18/2007 5:15 PM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.0/1137 - Release Date: 11/18/2007 5:15 PM From jkirk at spro.net Sun Nov 18 19:40:38 2007 From: jkirk at spro.net (jkirk) Date: Sun Nov 18 19:40:34 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] The Aquarian Gospel: Jesus, India, & Buddhism In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000f01c82a55$920a1460$0400a8c0@OPTIPLEX> Denizens - A report in today's Guardian of a new film in the making that 'portrays Jesus as a holy man and teacher inspired by a myriad of eastern religions in India' might interest Buddha l'ers. 'We think that Indian religions and Buddhism, especially with the idea of meditation, played a big part in Christ's thinking. In the film we are looking beyond the canonised gospels to the 'lost' gospels," said William Sees Keenan, the producer.' The report also includes this: "I have seen the scrolls which show Buddhist monks talking about Jesus's visits. There are also coins from that period which show Yuzu or have the legend Issa on them, referring to Jesus from that period," said Fida Hassnain, former director of archaeology at the University of Srinagar. Hassnain, who has written books on the legend of Jesus in India, points out that there was extensive traffic between the Mediterranean and India around the time of Jesus's life. The academic pointed out that in Srinagar a tomb of Issa is still venerated. "It is the Catholic church which has closed its mind on the subject. Historians have not." You can find the article here: http://film.guardian.co.uk/news/story/ 0,,2213087,00.html Regards, Steve Hopkins ================================================================ From: Kirkpatrick [jkirk@spro.net] Not having a first-rate library to hand, I hit google, and after reading through large amounts of true-believer websites, I finally hit on this one which points out various problems with Novotich's book, _The Unknown Jesus_., which seems to have been the main source for such speculations. http://www.karma2grace.org/page.asp?pg=78 For ex (quoting this text)... "F. Max Muller (1823-1900), the great Orientalist of the nineteenth century and translator and editor of the multivolumed Sacred Books of the East, subjected the Issa thesis to critical scrutiny soon after its publication. Lest anyone accuse him of ill intentions,[13] in 1882,12 years before Notovitch's publication, he had written that he "would be extremely grateful if anybody would point out to me the historical channels through which Buddhism influenced early Christianity," because he had been searching in vain for this his entire life.[14] Muller thought that if the Issa text were legitimate, it would help establish the historicity of Jesus, despite the text's difference from the New Testament accounts.[15] Writing in 1894, Muller found it exceedingly difficult to believe that a text of this importance was not listed in the Kandjur and Tandjur collections, the "excellent catalogues of manuscripts and books of the Buddhists in Tibet and China." He found it "impossible or next to impossible...that this Sutra of Issa, composed in the first century of our era, should not have found a place either in the Kandjur or in the Tandjur."[16] Notovitch responded by saying that those catalogs didn't exhaust the manuscript resources at his disposal at the Himis monastery.[17] Yet how plausible is it that Issa would not be well-known in India if, in fact, Jesus had actually been there? We would expect this text to be listed in the major catalogs if Issa had the impact in India that "The Life of Saint Issa" claims that he did. We should also remember Notovitch's lack of scholarly standing and Muller's world renown.[18]" There is more in this article. The author, whose name I didn't find, is obviously a Christian. Right now with Christianity reported to be the fastest growing religion in the world, it's understandable that a film of this sort reported by Steve would be produced, especially I suspect because a powerful lobby in India is strongly anti-missionary and anti-conversion to anything outside of Hinduism. Joanna K. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.0/1137 - Release Date: 11/18/2007 5:15 PM From jkirk at spro.net Sun Nov 18 19:45:26 2007 From: jkirk at spro.net (jkirk) Date: Sun Nov 18 19:45:20 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] The Aquarian Gospel: Jesus, India, & Buddhism In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <001001c82a56$3d4cda60$0400a8c0@OPTIPLEX> Ps--here is another interesting site that presents the various folk (?) narratives of the travels of Jesus between his early 20s and when he popped up in his homeland again. This one includes a story that he went to Japan. "He was never crucified because he switched places with his younger brother Isukiri and managed to flee across Siberia to Alaska and back to Japan by boat." Etc. http://www.letusreason.org/NAM18.htm Joanna K. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.0/1137 - Release Date: 11/18/2007 5:15 PM From rahula_80 at yahoo.com Sun Nov 18 20:01:09 2007 From: rahula_80 at yahoo.com (Ngawang Dorje) Date: Sun Nov 18 20:01:15 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] The Aquarian Gospel: Jesus, India, & Buddhism In-Reply-To: <001001c82a56$3d4cda60$0400a8c0@OPTIPLEX> Message-ID: <35932.5547.qm@web44801.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Hi, Jesus in Japan http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1632067,00.html http://metropolis.co.jp/tokyotravel/tokyojapantravel/3523/tokyojapantravelinc.htm http://thiaoouba.com/tomb.htm http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article669332.ece Regards, Rahula jkirk wrote: Ps--here is another interesting site that presents the various folk (?) narratives of the travels of Jesus between his early 20s and when he popped up in his homeland again. This one includes a story that he went to Japan. "He was never crucified because he switched places with his younger brother Isukiri and managed to flee across Siberia to Alaska and back to Japan by boat." Etc. http://www.letusreason.org/NAM18.htm Joanna K. --------------------------------- Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now. From rahula_80 at yahoo.com Sun Nov 18 20:08:48 2007 From: rahula_80 at yahoo.com (Ngawang Dorje) Date: Sun Nov 18 20:08:54 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] The Aquarian Gospel: Jesus, India, & Buddhism In-Reply-To: <000f01c82a55$920a1460$0400a8c0@OPTIPLEX> Message-ID: <529857.49798.qm@web44815.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Hi, May I point you to this website: http://www.tombofjesus.com/ Regards, Rahula ========== From: Kirkpatrick [jkirk@spro.net] "Not having a first-rate library to hand, ........................" --------------------------------- Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage. From jkirk at spro.net Sun Nov 18 21:20:22 2007 From: jkirk at spro.net (jkirk) Date: Sun Nov 18 21:20:18 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Loving your object of study In-Reply-To: <140009.38697.qm@web54502.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <140009.38697.qm@web54502.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <000e01c82a63$80d17a40$0400a8c0@OPTIPLEX> What does "l'enamorament" mean here? After reading Charles Muller?s and Richard Hayes? online papers about the divide between scholars (Buddhologists) and practitioners (Buddhists), it puzzles me that the divide even exists. ............................ Katherine Masis ============================================================== Several months ago a similar issue was discussed on another list, and some posts seemed relevant to the point made by Katherine. I shall quote from one such post without including the author's name (I wrote for his permission but he hasn't replied, so protecting his identity). "...It appears to be less controversial to be a committed Buddhist and a scholar of Buddhism than to be a committed Hindu and a scholar of Hinduism in the contemporary academy. I would add that it is also less controversial to be a committed Hindu of South Asian descent and a scholar of Hinduism than it is to be a committed Hindu of European descent and a scholar of Hinduism. My firsthand evidence for this are the numerous messages I have received over the last couple of years commending me for my "boldness" and "courage" in being open about my religious commitments as a lay member of the Vedanta Society/Ramakrishna Mission. ...In terms of...Buddhism being regarded more positively by secular scholars than either Hinduism or Christianity, my suspicion would be that the issue here is theism. Part of the attraction of Buddhism for many Westerners is that it allows for a non-theistic spirituality--'Buddhism without beliefs,' etc.--whereas Hinduism and Christianity share strong theistic commitments, and even incarnational theologies. These are just my preliminary thoughts on the topic you have raised....." His remarks fitted some of my own experience when I was working in academe. Joanna K. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.0/1137 - Release Date: 11/18/2007 5:15 PM From jehms at xs4all.nl Mon Nov 19 02:23:40 2007 From: jehms at xs4all.nl (Erik Hoogcarspel) Date: Mon Nov 19 02:23:46 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] The Aquarian Gospel: Jesus, India, & Buddhism In-Reply-To: <35932.5547.qm@web44801.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <35932.5547.qm@web44801.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4741561C.1040403@xs4all.nl> Ngawang Dorje schreef: > Hi, > > Jesus in Japan > http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1632067,00.html > http://metropolis.co.jp/tokyotravel/tokyojapantravel/3523/tokyojapantravelinc.htm > http://thiaoouba.com/tomb.htm > http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article669332.ece > > Regards, > Rahula > > > jkirk wrote: > Ps--here is another interesting site that presents the various folk (?) > narratives of the travels of Jesus between his early 20s and when he popped > up in his homeland again. > This one includes a story that he went to Japan. "He was never crucified > because he switched places with his younger brother Isukiri and managed to > flee across Siberia to Alaska and back to Japan by boat." Etc. > http://www.letusreason.org/NAM18.htm > Joanna K. > > It's funny to see rumors like this return now and again like they're in an orbit around the globe. It's all nonsense of course. The best research I read about it is in German: http://www.amazon.de/Jesus-Indien-Ende-einer-Legende/dp/3466202701 I suppose this is also to be found in English, probably in http://www.amazon.com/India-Europe-Wilhelm-Halbfass/dp/0887067956/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195464134&sr=8-1 erik From Jackhat1 at aol.com Mon Nov 19 09:54:23 2007 From: Jackhat1 at aol.com (Jackhat1@aol.com) Date: Mon Nov 19 09:54:47 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Loving your object of study Message-ID: In a message dated 11/18/2007 11:07:39 A.M. Central Standard Time, twin_oceans@yahoo.com writes: ?The answer is that scholarship IS the practice, and we in the West make a separation between scholarship vs. practice.? (a) Yes, that?s it, Jim?because the interest is VERY strong, not just a passing fancy. (b) OK, Bob, that makes sense?the gnani path. Is there anything in the suttas that support the gnani path? Jack ************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com From curt at cola.iges.org Mon Nov 19 10:17:53 2007 From: curt at cola.iges.org (curt) Date: Mon Nov 19 10:18:17 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Loving your object of study In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4741C541.2040303@cola.iges.org> The very existence of "Sutras" assumes a group of experts dedicated to their preservation and explication. Curt Jackhat1@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 11/18/2007 11:07:39 A.M. Central Standard Time, > twin_oceans@yahoo.com writes: > > ?The answer is that scholarship IS the practice, and we in the West make a > separation between scholarship vs. practice.? > > (a) Yes, that?s it, Jim?because the interest is VERY strong, not just a > passing fancy. > > (b) OK, Bob, that makes sense?the gnani path. > > > Is there anything in the suttas that support the gnani path? > > Jack > > > > ************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l > > > From benitocdl at yahoo.es Sat Nov 17 07:32:38 2007 From: benitocdl at yahoo.es (Benito Carral) Date: Mon Nov 19 10:29:18 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: First ever foreigner to become monk in China? In-Reply-To: <473EF07C.1070000@virginia.edu> References: <200711170244.lAH2i2UM030465@ns1.swcp.com> <473EF07C.1070000@virginia.edu> Message-ID: <1366640019.20071117153238@yahoo.es> On Saturday, November 17, 2007, Alberto Todeschini wrote: > Is this correct? No other foreigner has become > Buddhist in China? I think that we should distinguish between Buddhists and Buddhist monks. There are many Western Buddhists who have links with the mainland. For instance, there is a summer retreat at Bailin si (Hebei) with an important Western attendance. I myself was visiting Chinese monasteries and meeting abbots in 2002. I received many important Dharma gifts. The old abbot of Yummen si, who was sick in the mountaisn with one assistant, phoned the monastery to send his greetings and I have a lovely time with the new abbot, the director of studies, and the teacher of music. Ven. Jing-hui, then Vice-chairman of the Chinese Buddhist Association, accepted to be the spiritual advisor of my ministry to the Spanish-speaking world, he also invited me to become a monk and work with him in China, which I had to refuse due to some personal circumstances. Then I met John Crook (an English Chan teacher in Sheng-yen's lineage) in the Summer Palace (Beijing), who was also visiting monasteries and abbots with some of his students. We had a wonderful time together sharing about teaching Chan in the West. I hope this helps. I think that there were no Western monks in China at that time. Maybe someone else knows better. Best wishes, -- Benito Carral Asturias, Spain From ellwbj at nus.edu.sg Sat Nov 17 18:18:19 2007 From: ellwbj at nus.edu.sg (John Whalen-Bridge) Date: Mon Nov 19 10:30:02 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] (the recycling of) Western Buddhists References: <200711171756.lAHHuKUV021371@ns1.swcp.com> Message-ID: IN RESPONSE TO JOY'S RESPONSE TO DAN... >Subject: Re: Re: [Buddha-l] Western Buddhism >Dan ; Any success stories with non-"native" Buddhist parents? Or is this a missing >The only thing that the second generation of parents can authentically transmit is that failure. And they seem >pretty successful in that. >Joy Thanks Joy! Now I feel better! The kids' grandparents were communist on one side and quite poor on the other, neither of which got passed along in full measure either. My older son was conceived with 49 days of my mother's passing and I sometimes tell him has to go to bed or do homework because he made me do it. When he said "I didn't choose to be born in his family," I said "That's not how we look at it around here." When I told him, after he got ticked off about going to bed or doing homework, that he should just calm down since getting angry is just a bad habit that doesn't accomplish much (when practiced habitually, anyway), he said: "DAD: You're a Buddhist. You believe CALM and HAPPY are good things. I'm NOT a Buddhist. I'm an atheist and I think it's good to be angry." The kid was maybe eight years old at this point, not yet big enough to wallop me. I said, "You thought Buddhism was stupid in your last life, and you haven't learned a thing, so go to bed." So a possible solution that we could entertain under more rigorous scientific conditions and possibly make into an AAR article: second-generation Buddhists become anti-Buddhists precisely because we hail from the bardo those relatives and loved ones whom we became Buddhist to tick off in the first place, so it's our own karma coming back to crow. The solution is to be nice to these kids, don't make them do all of their homework for example, so that they will later hail us from the bardo and we can try again. Question about another thread from a few weeks back: does anyone know whether anyone responded to Zizek's latest "Please invite me to China again" anti-Buddhist screed? A Moderater may tell me to not entangle threads like this, but I'd like to bow three times in honor of Norman Mailer, a wonderful writer and immoderate soul whose books haven't really been read since 1980, and so he's rousingly strange humor is unknown, while his worst literary karma and personal mistakes are celebrated with glee. He argued over and over again for reincarnation. Those his conception of reincarnation was anything but Buddhist, I'm wondering about the possibilities of locating his next incarnation and passing the kid a laptop. I can't think of anyone in American literture these days who can step out and away from how We are supposed to think with the gusto of a Mailer or a Henry Miller. There is a kind of freedom of mind--not cautious, correct thinking, to be sure, that is just missing, now. Or rather, it was public, and now it is relatively private. Hoping for a literary tulku, JWB All best wishes, JWB Whalen-Bridge @ English Language and Literature National University of Singapore 7 Arts Link, Blk AS5 Singapore 117570 (Also @ http://courses.nus.edu.sg/course/ellwbj/jwb/ ) ________________________________ From: buddha-l-bounces@mailman.swcp.com on behalf of buddha-l-request@mailman.swcp.com Sent: Sun 11/18/2007 1:56 AM To: buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com Subject: buddha-l Digest, Vol 33, Issue 24 Send buddha-l mailing list submissions to buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to buddha-l-request@mailman.swcp.com You can reach the person managing the list at buddha-l-owner@mailman.swcp.com When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of buddha-l digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: Western Buddhism (Richard Hayes) 2. Re: Re: [Buddha-l] Western Buddhism (Joy Vriens) 3. Re: RE: [Buddha-l] Western Buddhism (Joy Vriens) 4. Re: Re: [Buddha-l] Western Buddhism (Joy Vriens) 5. Re: Western Buddhism (curt) 6. First ever foreigner to become monk in China? (Alberto Todeschini) 7. RE: First ever foreigner to become monk in China? (jkirk) 8. Eastern Buddhism (jkirk) 9. FW: H-Japan (E): CFP: The Journal of Japanese and Korean Cinema (jkirk) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 20:06:44 -0700 From: Richard Hayes Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] Western Buddhism To: Buddhist discussion forum Message-ID: <1195268804.6961.36.camel@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain On Fri, 2007-11-16 at 21:00 +0100, Erik Hoogcarspel wrote: > Richard Hayes schreef: > > As is almost always the case when there is a disagreement between me and a > > priest of any religion, I'm right. > > > That's what any priest would also say, the difference is only in the > eye, sorry 'I'. Aye, but when a priest says such a thing, his tongue is not sufficiently far in his cheek. > Another thing about Western Buddhism: if there would be such a thing, it > would be the first Buddhism that lives with science. It would certainly be the first kind of Buddhism did live in a culture whose intellectual landscape was dominated by scientific method as the most trusted method of acquiring new insights. These days I have been getting a great deal of enjoyment (and inspiration) from Brian Swimme and Thomas Berry's "The Universe Story," an ambitious attempt to tell the story of the the creation of the universe and the evolution of human beings in a way that is simultaneously close to how contemporary science tells the story and supportive of a responsible and compassionate way of living in the world. I heard Thomas Berry talking about the book shortly after it was written, and I have listened to many of Briane Swimme's recorded lectures. If I may borrow a Quaker expression, their way of telling the story speaks to my condition. While I have become quite wary of labels, if I were to allow myself to wear the label "Buddhist", I would say that Swimme and Berry's telling of the story has deepened my Buddhist practice. -- Richard Hayes Department of Philosophy University of New Mexico ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 05:23:13 +0100 From: "Joy Vriens" Subject: Re: Re: [Buddha-l] Western Buddhism To: "buddha-l" Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Dan, >Any success stories with non-"native" Buddhist parents? Or is this a missing >ingredient for Western (aka American) Buddhists? When we talk about (or desperately search for) success stories of "Western Buddhist" parents successully transmitting "Western Buddhism" to their children, we should also remember the stories of utter failure of the parents of those parents. They failed to transmit their religion to their children, who went off to become vague buddhists. How did that happen, what went wrong? The only thing that the second generation of parents can authentically transmit is that failure. And they seem pretty successful in that. Joy ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 05:28:07 +0100 From: "Joy Vriens" Subject: Re: RE: [Buddha-l] Western Buddhism To: "buddha-l" Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Richard, >David Webster wrote: >> Many of my generation (not quite yet 40...) who study Buddhism [here in the >> UK at least] seem to be clearly self-defined as non-Buddhist.. >> What's that all about then? >That's about what I would expect. The generation who taught you had >fallen in love with Buddhism. Your generation realized that Bob Dylan >was speaking the truth when he said "You can't be wise and in love at >the same time." I expect your generation to produce far better >scholarship on Buddhism than mine has done; we were all so enamoured of >our object of study that we could not see it at all clearly. Deep bow for your answer mr Hayes. Yet, at the same time, I would say that whoever is not enamoured with the object of their study doesn't see it. And "it" is not necessarily the object of the study. Joy ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 05:47:06 +0100 From: "Joy Vriens" Subject: Re: Re: [Buddha-l] Western Buddhism To: "buddha-l" Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Richard, >Seeing the source of one's strength as outside oneself strikes me as >immature thinking. Mature practice consists in seeing that all of one's >strength comes from within, I wonder what the Buddha would think about that? He did tell us to be islands unto ourselves, but he wasn't very specific about an "inside oneself" and a "within". Not that I have a problem with that, but I do have a problem knowing what is inside and what outside. Joy ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 08:05:43 -0500 From: curt Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] Western Buddhism To: Buddhist discussion forum Message-ID: <473EE727.4060302@cola.iges.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Joy Vriens wrote: > Richard, > >> Seeing the source of one's strength as outside oneself strikes me as >> immature thinking. Mature practice consists in seeing that all of one's >> strength comes from within, >> > > I wonder what the Buddha would think about that? He did tell us to be islands unto ourselves, but he wasn't very specific about an "inside oneself" and a "within". Not that I have a problem with that, but I do have a problem knowing what is inside and what outside. > The Buddha did, of course, mention something about there being no self in the first place, however. And if there is no self then there is no "other". Curt ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 08:45:32 -0500 From: Alberto Todeschini Subject: [Buddha-l] First ever foreigner to become monk in China? To: buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com Message-ID: <473EF07C.1070000@virginia.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Dear All, Today's Corriere della Sera, one of Italy's most important newspapers, reports that according to an article in the China Daily, an Italian has become the first ever foreigner to become monk in China. Is this correct? No other foreigner has become Buddhist in China? Perhaps we should add "in modern times". Even so, would that be correct? Here is the article: http://www.corriere.it/esteri/07_novembre_17/cavalera_monaco_buddista.shtml If you are interested, you could try ask Google to translate it into English. It sometimes does a half decent job with some European languages. Thank you for your thoughts, Alberto Todeschini ------------------------------ Message: 7 Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 10:00:27 -0700 From: "jkirk" Subject: RE: [Buddha-l] First ever foreigner to become monk in China? To: "'Buddhist discussion forum'" Message-ID: <002f01c8293b$5a6e0c70$0400a8c0@OPTIPLEX> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1250" Dear All, Today's Corriere della Sera, one of Italy's most important newspapers, reports that according to an article in the China Daily, an Italian has become the first ever foreigner to become monk in China. Is this correct? No other foreigner has become Buddhist in China? Perhaps we should add "in modern times". Even so, would that be correct? .................. Alberto Todeschini ================================================== From: Kirkpatrick [jkirk@spro.net] Several foreign (e.g., not Chinese) women renouncers--from Thailand and other areas, have gone to China earlier on to be ordained in a Buddhist tradition, since the bhikkhuni tradition had been lost in Sri Lanka, Burma, and Thailand. Here's one article reflecting this situation: http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php?id=52,4632,0,0,1,0 "...If women still insist, they will be simply dismissed and told to go to Mahayana Buddhism in Taiwan, Korea, Vietnam or China for female ordination. The mutual understanding, however, is that they will remain outsiders to the Thai Sangha and never be accepted as equal to monks....In 1996, the clergy in Sri Lanka restored the Bhikkhuni order. It was decided that Mahayana Bhikkhunis could co-preside over female ordination because the Bhikkhuni order in Mahayana could be traced back historically to Theravada origins. The Thai Sangha has simply snubbed the move." In any case, in the vinaya the bhikshunis are never 'equal' to bhiskshus, but it's true that in Thailand such China-ordained nuns are not acepted as ordained nuns by the Thai sangha. Quite a few (I don't know how mnay) women have already done this before your Italian chap went to China to ordain. Joanna Kirkpatrick No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.0/1136 - Release Date: 11/17/2007 2:55 PM ------------------------------ Message: 8 Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 10:29:00 -0700 From: "jkirk" Subject: [Buddha-l] Eastern Buddhism To: "'Buddhist discussion forum'" Message-ID: <003501c8293f$57b09d50$0400a8c0@OPTIPLEX> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1250" From: Kirkpatrick [jkirk@spro.net] On a tangent from the western Buddhism thread, I just want to say that I watched Akira Kurosawa's film version last night of Maxim Gorky's _The Lower Depths_ (_Donzoko_). Have to admit I've never seen the Gorky play nor read it. Kurosawa says that he made a lot of changes in adapting the play to his purposes. Since I've not seen nor read the play, I can't address the changes. But Kurosawa's version is a study in both samsara and compassion, and to my mind is a very Buddhistic film. An old man pilgrim monk arrives amidst the seedy denizens of a lower depths somewhere in Japan, at the bottom of a refuse pit (we're talking late Edo period here), and asks to stay there for a while. "Gramps" as they call him is given a bunk that was empty, and winds up gently advising various of his shared-quarters neighbors during their wild passions and disputes with one another. At the end, after he has moved on, someone recalls his compassion. Mostly they accuse him of talking comfortable lies, while "they" perceive the truth of reality, and then get drunk. It's a retooled version of the film and the subtitles are in contemporary US English slang, a bit grating-- but then I never saw the original with original subtitles, that may not have been any better. A beautiful filmic exposition of delusion, hatred, and desire and how the social lowest of the low are so attached to their existential situation that they cannot imagine getting out of it, even though some of them dream of it. The pilgrim monk is the only one who has ever been out of the pit. Has anyone on the list seen this film, and/or the Gorky play? Jean Renoir filmed it in France in 1931, and Kurosawa's dates from 1957. Joanna K. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.0/1136 - Release Date: 11/17/2007 2:55 PM ------------------------------ Message: 9 Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 10:56:10 -0700 From: "jkirk" Subject: [Buddha-l] FW: H-Japan (E): CFP: The Journal of Japanese and Korean Cinema To: "'Buddhist discussion forum'" Message-ID: <000901c82943$235dda00$0400a8c0@OPTIPLEX> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" X-posted. Just in, call for articles for this new journal. Inspired to submit an article, anyone? Joanna K. ====================================================== H-Japan November 17, 2007 From: Aaron Gerow The Journal of Japanese and Korean Cinema, a fully refereed forum for the dissemination of scholarly work devoted to the cinemas of Japan and Korea and the interactions and relations between them, seeks essays for its inaugural issue devoted to Japanese-Korea cinematic connections. Possible topics for this first issue include, but are not limited to: remakes across national borders; co-productions; censorship and regulation of Japanese films in Korea; Representations of Koreans in Japanese film/Japanese in Korean Film; Reception; Casting/stars; Korean cinema under colonialism; manga adaptations across national borders; Japanese influence on Korean cinema/Korean on Japanese cinema Future submissions may include essays devoted to issues specific to either Japanese or Korean cinema, but articles on interactions between them will also continue to be considered. Topics for essays for future issues may concern: historical considerations and reconsiderations; authorship; genre; spectatorship and audiences; reception of Japanese and Korean cinema regionally and globally Information for prospective authors: Submit the article as an e-mail attachment in word format. Essays should be 6,000-8,000 words. Please include abstract of 150-200 words. Include a separate, short biography in the third person. Please give contact details, including e-mail address. Provide up to six key words for indexing. Do not put identifying information in your essay. Text including notes should be in Times New Roman, 12 point. Everything must be double-spaced. Quotations must be in English. The first mention of a film should include its original title, director's surname and year of release. In all subsequent references, the title should be translated into English, unless known by original title in all markets. Use explanatory endnotes, not footnotes. Use MLA style for references and works cited. Editors: David Desser and Frances Gateward, University of Illinois Unit for Cinema Studies 3072 FLB 707 S. Mathews University of Illinois Urbana, IL 61801??? USA Fax (217) 244-4019 Phone (217) 244-2705 jjkc@live.com No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.0/1136 - Release Date: 11/17/2007 2:55 PM ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l End of buddha-l Digest, Vol 33, Issue 24 **************************************** From rhayes at unm.edu Mon Nov 19 10:50:19 2007 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Mon Nov 19 10:50:28 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Loving your object of study In-Reply-To: <140009.38697.qm@web54502.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <140009.38697.qm@web54502.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200711191050.19796.rhayes@unm.edu> On Saturday 17 November 2007 22:56, Katherine Masis wrote: > it strikes me as odd that > Buddhologists would have little interest in Buddhist practice. I would find it odd if a person who promoted the practice of murder, theft, sexual promiscuity, lying and intoxication would take an interest in Buddhism. But I can easily imagine, say, a devout Muslim or Anglican or Baptist, dedicated to promoting kindness and love, being very interested in studying Buddhism. In fact, I don't even have to imagine it. I have actually seen it! If we take a page from the book of the Catholic theologian Rahner, who said that anyone who strives to live a wholesome, productive, compassionate life is ipso facto an anonymous Christian, we could equally say that anyone dedicated to such things is also an anonymous Buddhist. Anyone who follows the precepts and has any kind of contemplative practice at all is, I would argue, someone who has an interest in what Buddhists call Buddhist practice, although they may prefer to put some other label on the practice. What I was trying to say, and no doubt said rather awkwardly, was that anyone who sees Buddhist doctrine as uniquely in possession of truth, or who sees Buddhist practice as uniquely or supremely effective in helping people cope with their suffering, is in love with Buddhism. Such a person is like the unfortunate person who thinks that another human being is the only sentient being capable of making him or her happy. Such a person is said to be in love. And being in love in this way is an obstacle to seeing things clearly. Indeed, being in love in this way is an obstacle to practicing the kind of love that Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Mohists and even some psychoanalysts endorse. -- Richard Hayes Department of Philosophy University of New Mexico From rhayes at unm.edu Mon Nov 19 11:12:52 2007 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Mon Nov 19 11:12:59 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Loving your object of study In-Reply-To: <000e01c82a63$80d17a40$0400a8c0@OPTIPLEX> References: <140009.38697.qm@web54502.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <000e01c82a63$80d17a40$0400a8c0@OPTIPLEX> Message-ID: <200711191112.52314.rhayes@unm.edu> On Sunday 18 November 2007 21:20, Joanna Kirkpatrick quoted someone who wrote: > "...It appears to be less controversial to be a committed Buddhist and a > scholar of Buddhism than to be a committed Hindu and a scholar of Hinduism > in the contemporary academy. I would add that it is also less > controversial to be a committed Hindu of South Asian descent and a scholar > of Hinduism than it is to be a committed Hindu of European descent and a > scholar of Hinduism." One of my former colleagues, who died some years ago, observed that in the United States and Canada it would be completely unthinkable to have a non-Jew teaching Judaism in a department of religious studies, equally unthinkable to have a non-Christian teaching courses on Christianity, highly improbable to have Muslim teaching Islam and of no real consequence to have a non-Buddhist or non-Hindu teaching those religions. He said that he suspected the prevailing prejudices were that only Jews or Christians have insight into their own religions and therefore only insiders can teach them, while Muslims would be fanatical and therefore incapable of the kind of objectivity that the academic study of religion requires. Hinduism and Buddhism, he speculated, had not yet managed to constellate a consensual prejudice either for or against them. Like any very broad generalization, this one would have to be taken with a grain of salt and would have to be stated with more nuances to be accurate, but it seems to me, very broadly speaking, pretty much correct. At a conference held in 2000 on teaching Buddhism in the academy, several people reported that they felt it important to hide their commitment to Buddhism from their colleagues, lest they be perceived as incapable of objectivity. I never saw anything like that in Canada; indeed, the fact that I was known to be a Buddhist practitioner was seen as a great asset when I was hired to teach Buddhist studies. (Little did my colleagues know that a good many Buddhists over the years have seen me as a fraud and a charlatan, because I allegedly don't have the right view of Right View.) -- Richard Hayes Department of Philosophy University of New Mexico From rhayes at unm.edu Mon Nov 19 11:16:22 2007 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Mon Nov 19 11:16:30 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Loving your object of study In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200711191116.23045.rhayes@unm.edu> On Monday 19 November 2007 09:54, Jackhat1@aol.com wrote: > Is there anything in the suttas that support the gnani path? Yes. -- Richard Hayes Department of Philosophy University of New Mexico From Jackhat1 at aol.com Mon Nov 19 11:32:20 2007 From: Jackhat1 at aol.com (Jackhat1@aol.com) Date: Mon Nov 19 11:32:35 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Loving your object of study Message-ID: In a message dated 11/19/2007 12:17:53 P.M. Central Standard Time, rhayes@unm.edu writes: > Is there anything in the suttas that support the gnani path? Yes. Cute. Where? Jack ************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com From rhayes at unm.edu Mon Nov 19 12:31:03 2007 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P Hayes) Date: Mon Nov 19 12:31:09 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Loving your object of study Message-ID: <7735148.1195500663195.JavaMail.cpadmin@atik> Jackhat1@aol.com wrote: > >In a message dated 11/19/2007 12:17:53 P.M. Central Standard Time, >rhayes@unm.edu writes: > >> Is there anything in the suttas that support the gnani path? > >Yes. > >Cute. Where? Sorry about that. I hit the SEND icon by mistake; it is located right next to the CANCEL icon on my e-mail interface. I do have a passage in the Anguttara-nikaya that supports something very much like the j~naani path, but the book is in my office on campus, and I am working at home today. When I can locate the exact passage, I'll send the reference. The context of the passage I have in mind is a dispute between three monks. One claims that to attain nibbana it is necessary to practice jhaana; another says it is sufficient to have an intellectual understanding; a third says it is possible to attain nibbana by serving the Tathagata. The three monks go to the Buddha to settle their dispute, and he says that one can achieve liberation by ANY of those three methods. Latter commentarial tradition identified the second method in language that sounds a lot like the language used in Brahmanical tradition to describe j~naana-yoga. The third method, liberation through service, is described in ways that make it sound very much like a counterpart to bhakti-yoga or karma-yoga, or perhaps a combination of the two. ------------------------ Richard Hayes Department of Philosophy University of New Mexico Office: 525 Humanities Phone: 277-8232 From Jackhat1 at aol.com Mon Nov 19 12:41:47 2007 From: Jackhat1 at aol.com (Jackhat1@aol.com) Date: Mon Nov 19 12:42:22 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Loving your object of study Message-ID: In a message dated 11/19/2007 1:31:46 P.M. Central Standard Time, rhayes@unm.edu writes: I do have a passage in the Anguttara-nikaya that supports something very much like the j~naani path, but the book is in my office on campus, and I am working at home today. When I can locate the exact passage, I'll send the reference. Many thanks. I looked for something like this for a long time. Jack ************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com From twin_oceans at yahoo.com Mon Nov 19 13:05:28 2007 From: twin_oceans at yahoo.com (Katherine Masis) Date: Mon Nov 19 13:05:32 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: P.S. Message-ID: <589459.34453.qm@web54502.mail.re2.yahoo.com> P.S. I must add that reading Richard's and Charle's papers cannot be blamed for my jumping to conclusions; the jumping was entirely my own. Katherinie --------------------------------- Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage. From twin_oceans at yahoo.com Mon Nov 19 13:36:56 2007 From: twin_oceans at yahoo.com (Katherine Masis) Date: Mon Nov 19 13:37:00 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Loving your object of study Message-ID: <561855.52542.qm@web54502.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Richard Hayes wrote: "What I was trying to say, and no doubt said rather awkwardly, was that anyone who sees Buddhist doctrine as uniquely in possession of truth, or who sees Buddhist practice as uniquely or supremely effective in helping people cope with their suffering, is in love with Buddhism." ------------------ OK, Richard, that clears up what "l'enamorament" was all about. Since I had just read Charles Muller's and your respective online papers, I immediately jumped to the conclusion that the being-in-love meant some kind of "practice." I left "practice" undefined. Instead of "practice," I should have said "affiliation" which is a much broader term and, for me at least, does *not* necessarily entail being a member of a group or institution. What Bob said about the scholarship itself being the practice makes sense. Jack asked if there are any suttas which support the gnani path; I ask this question as well. Katherine --------------------------------- Be a better pen pal. Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how. From curt at cola.iges.org Mon Nov 19 13:57:12 2007 From: curt at cola.iges.org (curt) Date: Mon Nov 19 13:57:35 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Loving your object of study In-Reply-To: <561855.52542.qm@web54502.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <561855.52542.qm@web54502.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4741F8A8.2040207@cola.iges.org> "In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is." Yogi Berra Katherine Masis wrote: > Richard Hayes wrote: > > "What I was trying to say, and no doubt said rather awkwardly, was that anyone who sees Buddhist doctrine as uniquely in possession of truth, or who sees Buddhist practice as uniquely or supremely effective in helping people cope with their suffering, is in love with Buddhism." > > ------------------ > > OK, Richard, that clears up what "l'enamorament" was all about. Since I had just read Charles Muller's and your respective online papers, I immediately jumped to the conclusion that the being-in-love meant some kind of "practice." I left "practice" undefined. Instead of "practice," I should have said "affiliation" which is a much broader term and, for me at least, does *not* necessarily entail being a member of a group or institution. > > What Bob said about the scholarship itself being the practice makes sense. Jack asked if there are any suttas which support the gnani path; I ask this question as well. > > Katherine > > > --------------------------------- > Be a better pen pal. Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how. > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l > > > From jvriens at free.fr Tue Nov 20 02:56:19 2007 From: jvriens at free.fr (Joy Vriens) Date: Tue Nov 20 02:56:37 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Loving your object of study References: <7735148.1195500663195.JavaMail.cpadmin@atik> Message-ID: Richard, >The context of the passage I have in mind is a dispute between three >monks. One claims that to attain nibbana it is necessary to practice >jhaana; another says it is sufficient to have an intellectual >understanding; a third says it is possible to attain nibbana by serving >the Tathagata. The three monks go to the Buddha to settle their >dispute, and he says that one can achieve liberation by ANY of those >three methods. Latter commentarial tradition identified the second >method in language that sounds a lot like the language used in >Brahmanical tradition to describe j~naana-yoga. The third method, >liberation through service, is described in ways that make it sound >very much like a counterpart to bhakti-yoga or karma-yoga, or perhaps a >combination of the two. Also see the KiiTaagiri Sutta, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.070.than.html Gombrich dedicates a chapter to this subject in How Buddhism Began. Joy From jvriens at free.fr Tue Nov 20 06:16:47 2007 From: jvriens at free.fr (Joy Vriens) Date: Tue Nov 20 06:16:57 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] (the recycling of) Western Buddhists References: Message-ID: John, >So a possible solution that we could entertain under more rigorous scientific conditions and possibly make into an AAR article: second-generation Buddhists become anti-Buddhists precisely because we hail from the bardo those relatives and loved ones whom we became Buddhist to tick off in the first place, so it's our own karma coming back to crow. The solution is to be nice to these kids, don't make them do all of their homework for example, so that they will later hail us from the bardo and we can try again. Like your atheist son (:-)) I wouldn't draw the bardo into it if we can keep it so a simple action-reaction. If you define yourself as something, then that spot is taken and another person can't take it. The other person can only come up with a different self definition. Take two people who define themselves as Buddhists, you can bet they will find ways to define themselves as a different Buddhist than the other one, and very likely a better one. Even the ways they achieve calm and peace or to be calm and peaceful will be different. The ways of self spin are limitless. What I learn from that is to not take my self definition too seriously, to never use it as a confrontational argument and to accept others (including myself, because the way I see myself doesn't have much to do with myself, I am another too) as different. When my kids try to take an opposite stand (and they do so simply for the sake of it, no bardo business there), then I tend to not take their stand too serio! usly, like I do with my own stand. A stand is a stand. Stands may have the tendancy to look for a confrontation (to stop when stopped by another stand), but I don't need to identify with them or to give them more credit than simply being a stand. Apart from that, my kids have to go to bed when it's time and have to do their homework. My or their self definition doesn't come into that. Joy From Jackhat1 at aol.com Tue Nov 20 07:21:05 2007 From: Jackhat1 at aol.com (Jackhat1@aol.com) Date: Tue Nov 20 07:21:18 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Loving your object of study Message-ID: In a message dated 11/20/2007 3:57:15 A.M. Central Standard Time, jvriens@free.fr writes: Latter commentarial tradition identified the second >method in language that sounds a lot like the language used in >Brahmanical tradition to describe j~naana-yoga. The third method, >liberation through service, is described in ways that make it sound >very much like a counterpart to bhakti-yoga or karma-yoga, or perhaps a >combination of the two. Also see the KiiTaagiri Sutta, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.070.than.html Gombrich dedicates a chapter to this subject in How Buddhism Began. Joy, How do you see this sutta supporting an only intellectual approach to the dhamma? My understanding is that it says the opposite: " Having heard the Dhamma, one remembers it. Remembering, one penetrates the meaning of the teachings. Penetrating the meaning, one comes to an agreement through pondering the teachings. There being an agreement through pondering the teachings, desire arises. When desire has arisen, one is willing. When one is willing, one contemplates. Having contemplated, one makes an exertion. Having made an exertion, one realizes with the body the ultimate truth and, having penetrated it with discernment, sees it?" jack ************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com From jvriens at free.fr Tue Nov 20 07:53:39 2007 From: jvriens at free.fr (Joy Vriens) Date: Tue Nov 20 07:53:50 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Loving your object of study References: Message-ID: >Also see the KiiTaagiri Sutta, >http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.070.than.html >Gombrich dedicates a chapter to this subject in How Buddhism Began. Jack, >How do you see this sutta supporting an only intellectual approach to the >dhamma? I don't. I thought it was supporting the idea that one can achieve liberation by any of five/seven? methods. I haven't checked Gombrich's chapter in How Buddhism Began, but I thought it was referring to this sutta. I will check and come back to you if I am wrong about it. Joy From jkirk at spro.net Tue Nov 20 08:08:37 2007 From: jkirk at spro.net (jkirk) Date: Tue Nov 20 08:09:31 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] (the recycling of) Western Buddhists In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <003c01c82b87$3a4f1620$0400a8c0@OPTIPLEX> Apart from that, my kids have to go to bed when it's time and have to do their homework. My or their self definition doesn't come into that. Joy ============ From: Kirkpatrick [jkirk@spro.net] Right on, Joy. We seem to be viewing the familial transmission of the Buddhist way merely as a matter of self-definition, but it ain't always so. My parents were staunch Protestant Episcopalians and we kids followed along in that path. It was only years, and much thought and living life, later that one of my sisters decided atheism was the way to go, the other sister new age goddess-ism, and me Buddhism. My parents by that time weren't all that churchy either. Dad (whose father was a Methodist preacher) was a Mason (and they have all kinds of imported beliefs) so he wasn't disturbed when I told him I was persuaded by Buddhism. There must be a vast variety of experiences preceding the adoption of Buddhist practices by "western" parents and by their kids, or not. Joanna K. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.0/1139 - Release Date: 11/19/2007 12:35 PM From curt at cola.iges.org Tue Nov 20 08:14:37 2007 From: curt at cola.iges.org (curt) Date: Tue Nov 20 08:15:05 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Loving your object of study In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4742F9DD.8090302@cola.iges.org> Jackhat1@aol.com wrote: > How do you see this sutta supporting an only intellectual approach to the > dhamma? I doubt that anyone anywhere has ever advocated "an only intellectual approach to the dharma". Many (probably most) of the great "intellectuals" of both Buddhism and Hinduism have been mystics who practiced and preached a devotional approach to religion. After all, Nagarjuna's name doesn't refer to his analytical/intellectual abilities - but rather to his up close and personal relationship with the snake people who live under the earth and taught him everything he knew about Prajna Paramita. Curt Steinmetz From Jackhat1 at aol.com Tue Nov 20 08:28:42 2007 From: Jackhat1 at aol.com (Jackhat1@aol.com) Date: Tue Nov 20 08:29:37 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Loving your object of study Message-ID: In a message dated 11/20/2007 9:15:35 A.M. Central Standard Time, curt@cola.iges.org writes: I doubt that anyone anywhere has ever advocated "an only intellectual approach to the dharma". === There is a group at _http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/_ (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/) that advocates "an only intellectual approach." They feel an understanding gained through studying the Abhidhamma is sufficient. I had understood Bob's comment about scholarship being the practice as an "only intellectual approach." Was I incorrect? jack. ************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com From rhayes at unm.edu Tue Nov 20 09:03:30 2007 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Tue Nov 20 09:03:40 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Loving your object of study In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200711200903.31121.rhayes@unm.edu> On Tuesday 20 November 2007 07:21, Jackhat1@aol.com wrote: > How do you see this sutta supporting an only intellectual approach to the > dhamma? My understanding is that it says the opposite: " Having heard the > Dhamma, one remembers it. Remembering, one penetrates the meaning of the > teachings. Penetrating the meaning, one comes to an agreement through > pondering the teachings. There being an agreement through pondering the > teachings, desire arises. When desire has arisen, one is willing. When one > is willing, one contemplates. Having contemplated, one makes an exertion. > Having made an exertion, one realizes with the body the ultimate truth > and, having penetrated it with discernment, sees it?" All that sounds a lot like intellectual work to me. How do you see it, Jack? -- Richard Hayes Department of Philosophy University of New Mexico From rhayes at unm.edu Tue Nov 20 09:06:07 2007 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Tue Nov 20 09:06:17 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Loving your object of study In-Reply-To: <4742F9DD.8090302@cola.iges.org> References: <4742F9DD.8090302@cola.iges.org> Message-ID: <200711200906.08055.rhayes@unm.edu> On Tuesday 20 November 2007 08:14, curt wrote: > After all, > Nagarjuna's name doesn't refer to his analytical/intellectual abilities > - but rather to his up close and personal relationship with the snake It is usually believed that Nagarjuna's name refers to where he was born. It is not in any obvious way a religious name. Buddhists in his day didn't seem to change their names when they too ordination. -- Richard Hayes Department of Philosophy University of New Mexico From rhayes at unm.edu Tue Nov 20 09:08:48 2007 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Tue Nov 20 09:09:01 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Loving your object of study In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200711200908.48421.rhayes@unm.edu> On Tuesday 20 November 2007 08:28, Jackhat1@aol.com wrote: > There is a group at _http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/_ > (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/) that advocates "an only > intellectual approach." They feel an understanding gained through studying > the Abhidhamma is sufficient. They belong to a very old tradition, one that goes back to the time of the Buddha. It would be a mistake to say that the intellectual approach works for everyone, and just as much a mistake to say that it works for no one. The same can be said for other approaches. -- Richard Hayes Department of Philosophy University of New Mexico From Jackhat1 at aol.com Tue Nov 20 09:38:28 2007 From: Jackhat1 at aol.com (Jackhat1@aol.com) Date: Tue Nov 20 09:38:43 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Loving your object of study Message-ID: In a message dated 11/20/2007 10:04:25 A.M. Central Standard Time, rhayes@unm.edu writes: On Tuesday 20 November 2007 07:21, Jackhat1@aol.com wrote: > How do you see this sutta supporting an only intellectual approach to the > dhamma? My understanding is that it says the opposite: " Having heard the > Dhamma, one remembers it. Remembering, one penetrates the meaning of the > teachings. Penetrating the meaning, one comes to an agreement through > pondering the teachings. There being an agreement through pondering the > teachings, desire arises. When desire has arisen, one is willing. When one > is willing, one contemplates. Having contemplated, one makes an exertion. > Having made an exertion, one realizes with the body the ultimate truth > and, having penetrated it with discernment, sees it?" All that sounds a lot like intellectual work to me. How do you see it, Jack? ==== I see it as describing the 3 stages of the 'progress of the disciple'.1. Understanding the doctrine (pariyatti). 2. Practicing it (patipatti) and 3. Penetrating it (pativedha) and realising it. Scholarship only deals with 1 and not necessarily 2 and 3. To make it clear, I am not denigrating scholarship nor scholars. Jack ************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com From jvriens at free.fr Tue Nov 20 09:56:28 2007 From: jvriens at free.fr (Joy Vriens) Date: Tue Nov 20 09:56:39 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Loving your object of study References: <7735148.1195500663195.JavaMail.cpadmin@atik> Message-ID: Richard, >The context of the passage I have in mind is a dispute between three >monks. One claims that to attain nibbana it is necessary to practice >jhaana; another says it is sufficient to have an intellectual >understanding; a third says it is possible to attain nibbana by serving >the Tathagata. The three monks go to the Buddha to settle their >dispute, and he says that one can achieve liberation by ANY of those >three methods. Latter commentarial tradition identified the second >method in language that sounds a lot like the language used in >Brahmanical tradition to describe j~naana-yoga. The third method, >liberation through service, is described in ways that make it sound >very much like a counterpart to bhakti-yoga or karma-yoga, or perhaps a >combination of the two. While checking Gombrich's How Buddhism Began (chapter Retracing an ancient debate) I discovered the sutta Richard was looking for. AN I.118-20 for those who know how to read these chemical formulas. Joy From Jackhat1 at aol.com Tue Nov 20 10:10:54 2007 From: Jackhat1 at aol.com (Jackhat1@aol.com) Date: Tue Nov 20 10:11:11 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Loving your object of study Message-ID: In a message dated 11/20/2007 10:57:17 A.M. Central Standard Time, jvriens@free.fr writes: While checking Gombrich's How Buddhism Began (chapter Retracing an ancient debate) I discovered the sutta Richard was looking for. AN I.118-20 for those who know how to read these chemical formulas Joy, Any idea where I can find this? Access to Insight only has up to AN 1.52. Jack ************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com From jkirk at spro.net Tue Nov 20 11:56:30 2007 From: jkirk at spro.net (jkirk) Date: Tue Nov 20 11:56:27 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Loving your object of study In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <001801c82ba7$102ebb50$0400a8c0@OPTIPLEX> Richard wrote: All that sounds a lot like intellectual work to me. How do you see it, Jack? ============== I see it as describing the 3 stages of the 'progress of the disciple'.1. Understanding the doctrine (pariyatti). 2. Practicing it (patipatti) and 3. Penetrating it (pativedha) and realising it. Scholarship only deals with 1 and not necessarily 2 and 3. To make it clear, I am not denigrating scholarship nor scholars. Jack ============================================================= Well, as I see it Jack's version is excessively literal-minded. Scholarship, as proven by the vast library of Buddhological publications, researches, observes, analyses and interprets all three, not just pariyatti. Joanna K. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.1/1141 - Release Date: 11/20/2007 11:34 AM From curt at cola.iges.org Tue Nov 20 12:23:01 2007 From: curt at cola.iges.org (curt) Date: Tue Nov 20 12:23:29 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Loving your object of study In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47433415.2070306@cola.iges.org> Jackhat1@aol.com wrote: > > There is a group at _http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/_ > (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/) that advocates "an only > intellectual approach." They feel an understanding gained through studying the > Abhidhamma is sufficient. > > I had understood Bob's comment about scholarship being the practice as an > "only intellectual approach." Was I incorrect? > > jack. > > > I wouldn't speak for Bob - but to me it sounded like he was saying that it is a mistake to "make a separation between scholarship vs. practice". Which I agree with - and, moreover, I would contend that this is (a) common-sense, and (b) widely accepted among Buddhists and Hindus. The quickest way to liberation is almost certainly to focus (but not exclusively) on whatever one is *least* inclined to. If you want to get fancy you could do a weighted average over all of the yogas - where the weight is assigned in reverse proportion to one's proclivities. But it's simpler to just do them all - which is really not that complicated: Read. Pray. Meditate. Help. Repeat. Curt P.S. The yahoo group's description clearly states that "The discussions include matters of both theory and practice, with the aim of developing precise understanding of dhammas (the ?realities? of the present moment)." The description also says that they are "under the guidance" of Khun Sujin Boriharnwanaket - who is a vipassana (meditation) teacher. From rbzeuschner at roadrunner.com Tue Nov 20 14:55:03 2007 From: rbzeuschner at roadrunner.com (Bob Zeuschner) Date: Tue Nov 20 14:55:16 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Loving your object of study In-Reply-To: <47433415.2070306@cola.iges.org> References: <47433415.2070306@cola.iges.org> Message-ID: <474357B7.7060000@roadrunner.com> Curt did understand my remark: it is a Western presupposition that makes us separate out the wisdom/intellectual approach from the "practice" approach. The pathway of wisdom is a form of practice. I recall that David Kalupahana has a chapter in one of his books which discusses the A.N. sutra's analysis of the monk who practiced the pathway of wisdom and achieved the goal of Nirvana, and the monk who practiced the pathway of dhyana, and achieved Nirvana. As I remember, the pathways are separable yet achieve the same goal. I think this might have been in his "Buddhist Philosophy: A Historical Analysis" published by U.H. but I don't have the book in front of me in my office. It might have been in his book on Buddhist causality (pratityasamutpada). I just can't remember. Bob curt wrote: > Jackhat1@aol.com wrote: >> I had understood Bob's comment about scholarship being the practice >> as an "only intellectual approach." Was I incorrect? >> >> > I wouldn't speak for Bob - but to me it sounded like he was saying that > it is a mistake to "make a separation between scholarship vs. practice". > Which I agree with - and, moreover, I would contend that this is (a) > common-sense, and (b) widely accepted among Buddhists and Hindus. From Jackhat1 at aol.com Tue Nov 20 16:19:47 2007 From: Jackhat1 at aol.com (Jackhat1@aol.com) Date: Tue Nov 20 16:19:57 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Loving your object of study Message-ID: In a message dated 11/20/2007 12:57:27 P.M. Central Standard Time, jkirk@spro.net writes: I see it as describing the 3 stages of the 'progress of the disciple'.1. Understanding the doctrine (pariyatti). 2. Practicing it (patipatti) and 3. Penetrating it (pativedha) and realising it. Scholarship only deals with 1 and not necessarily 2 and 3. To make it clear, I am not denigrating scholarship nor scholars. Jack ============================================================= Well, as I see it Jack's version is excessively literal-minded. Scholarship, as proven by the vast library of Buddhological publications, researches, observes, analyses and interprets all three, not just pariyatti ==== Is researching, observing, analyzing and interpreting 2 and 3 the same as actually practicing, penetrating and realizing them? To me that is the same as applying scholarship to swimming is the same as learning how to swim. I must be missing something. jack **************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest products. (http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001) From jkirk at spro.net Tue Nov 20 16:34:55 2007 From: jkirk at spro.net (jkirk) Date: Tue Nov 20 17:43:52 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Loving your object of study In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000a01c82bcd$f4ea3960$0400a8c0@OPTIPLEX> To make it clear, I am not denigrating scholarship nor scholars. Jack ============================================================= Well, as I see it Jack's version is excessively literal-minded. Scholarship, as proven by the vast library of Buddhological publications, researches, observes, analyses and interprets all three, not just pariyatti ==== Is researching, observing, analyzing and interpreting 2 and 3 the same as actually practicing, penetrating and realizing them? To me that is the same as applying scholarship to swimming is the same as learning how to swim. I must be missing something. jack ==================== Some category mistakes going on here. I'm not up for quibbling. Cheers, Joanna No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.1/1141 - Release Date: 11/20/2007 11:34 AM From twin_oceans at yahoo.com Tue Nov 20 20:15:27 2007 From: twin_oceans at yahoo.com (Katherine Masis) Date: Tue Nov 20 20:15:32 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Re: Loving your object of study Message-ID: <133894.27199.qm@web54505.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Jack wrote: There is a group at _http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/_ (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/) that advocates "an only intellectual approach." They feel an understanding gained through studying the Abhidhamma is sufficient. Richard wrote: They belong to a very old tradition, one that goes back to the time of the Buddha. It would be a mistake to say that the intellectual approach works for everyone, and just as much a mistake to say that it works for no one. The same can be said for other approaches. ------------------------------- I joined that list about four months ago and as far as I can tell, the list doesn't follow an exclusively intellectual approach. The people who post offer a lot of detailed recommendations for practicing mindfulness "across the board" in daily life, as well as commentaries on texts and how to apply them in our "inner" and "outer" lives. Of course, the list also offers a wealth of links to texts and other resources. From the list's homepage: "A discussion forum for anyone interested in understanding the Buddha's teachings as found in all three baskets of the Tipitaka, the original record of the Buddha's word in the Theravada tradition, and as further elucidated in the ancient commentaries of that tradition. The discussions include matters of both theory and practice, with the aim of developing precise understanding of dhammas (the ?realities? of the present moment). The group started in Bangkok in the early 1970's under the guidance of the Thai Theravadin teacher Khun Sujin Boriharnwanaket." Katherine Masis --------------------------------- Get easy, one-click access to your favorites. Make Yahoo! your homepage. From gruenig at tulane.edu Tue Nov 20 23:57:44 2007 From: gruenig at tulane.edu (Gruenig, Hans Werner ) Date: Tue Nov 20 23:57:50 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Loving your object of study Message-ID: Hello Denizens, Regarding this jhana/intellect/service reference cited by Richard: (1) I'm not sure the sutta has been identified yet. Richard, will you provide the quote with a book/page# reference? (2) I stumbled into another sutta entitled "Scholars and Meditators" (AN VI, 46) in which Mahacunda tells monks who are meditators and scholars to stop judging each other. Excerpt: "Therefore, friends, you should train yourselves thus: 'Though we are Dhamma-experts, we will praise also those monks who are meditators.' And why? Such outstanding men are rare in the world who have personal experience of the deathless element (Nibbana). "And the other monks, too, should train themselves thus: 'Though we ourselves are meditators, we will praise also those monks who are Dhamma-experts.' And why? Such outstanding persons are rare in the world who can by their wisdom clearly understand a difficult subject." (Thera & Bodhi, _Numerical Discourses of the Buddha_, BPS 1999, p.164) Of note here: this appears to suggest that it is the meditators and not the scholars/dhamma-experts who access Nibbana. (3) Jack, I agree with the distinction you have articulated (with the 'learning to swim' vs. 'applying scholarship to swimming' metaphor) which echoes Curt's Yogi Berra quote on theory vs. practice. In the current discussion, to avoid the 'category mistake' it strikes me as useful to delineate (not to mutual exclusion) roughly: (a) intellectual inquiry which aims for and impacts one's own liberation; (b) intellectual inquiry which doesn't aim for or impact one's own liberation; It is possible to engage in (b) passionately as a scholar (or speculative philosopher) and not practice the dharma. It is possible to engage in (a) as a seeker and not practice scholarship. The fact that we can use terms like "observing" and "analyzing" to describe activities in both (a) and (b) does not make (a) and (b) the same -- or even the named activities the same. In terms of (a), we might also want to delineate: - speculative theoretical reflection; - application of cognitive insights and meditations; - deconstructive meditations; - other applications of the intellect. Thus even within (a), not all "intellectual" approaches to liberation are of the same method or caliber or produce the same (typical) results. (4) My Theravada, Zen, and Dzogchen teachers/traditions have indicated to varying degrees that (a) is helpful but limited and insufficient for a complete experience of liberation. Theravada Buddhists often delineate three levels of wisdom which are of increasing value: heard wisdom (taken to heart), intellectually reasoned wisdom (taken to heart), and directly perceived liberating wisdom which arises through a path which includes sustained (partly non-intellectual) mindfulness and meditation practices. Dzogchen and Zen teachers often point to the vital possibility of experiencing non-conceptual wisdom beyond the reach of intellectual activity. In all of these traditions, teachers have indicated that liberation occurs through direct perception, not reasoning alone. Success via a purely intellectual path of liberation may be possible for some, but essential aspects of many Buddhist traditions (e.g., important folds of the 8 Fold Path; shikantaza; Dzogchen; etc.) appear inaccessible to those on the purely intellectual path. Because "the thicket of views" can quickly become an impediment -- and because all major advances in my own practice have come through practices which included essential non-intellectual components -- I remain tentatively cautious about an "intellect only" path. Two Rupees, -Hans Gruenig. From jvriens at free.fr Wed Nov 21 00:29:02 2007 From: jvriens at free.fr (Joy Vriens) Date: Wed Nov 21 00:29:12 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] (the recycling of) Western Buddhists References: <003c01c82b87$3a4f1620$0400a8c0@OPTIPLEX> Message-ID: Joanna, >We seem to be viewing the familial transmission of the Buddhist way merely >as a matter of self-definition, but it ain't always so. My parents were >staunch Protestant Episcopalians and we kids followed along in that path. It >was only years, and much thought and living life, later that one of my >sisters decided atheism was the way to go, the other sister new age >goddess-ism, and me Buddhism. I find the idea of transmission problematic. And I mean intentional transmission and especially the notion of "successful transmission". Generation n tries intentionally to transmit something to generation n+1. Read "Generation n tries to put its stamp or mark on generation n+1". Generation n will already "survive" physically in generation n+1, but it would also like to survive in ideas or ideology. Generation n already intentionally or intentionally put its mark on generation n+1, including in ideas and ideology, but it seems to need an irrefutable tangible proof, something symbolic that only serves the purpose of expressing loyalty and honouring memory. Filiation and affiliation. We have been generated, we have been raised, we have been given the gift of life and more, but intentional transmission would make it a gift with strings attached. "If you love someone, set them free". It seems akward that if one wants to transmit something like trust in God, trust in life, trust in others, one is doing the contrary by intentional transmission of something specific, in addition to everything that is already transmitted anyway. It seems to me that whatever one wants to transmit can't be transmitted, because it is already there and that by wanting to transmit it one is doing the opposite. Omnis determinatio est negatio as another old hippy used to say. Forgive me for not knowing all the denominations of Protestantism and what they stand for, but initially it seems to have been more along the lines of non-transmission. Luther fascinates me (although I was raised a catholic myself), but I have not much time for Lutheranism and other protestant transmissions. Like many mystics, the only thing Luther in his better moments seemed to have wanted to "transmit" is to have a direct relation with God. He says himself he doesn't want to bind anybody to his words or thoughts, but simply wants to be an exemple for others to follow or not, to amend or not. That sort of freedom of thought and speech and non-intererence with another's relationship to God seems to have been transmitted at least in your family. For me the real pleasure is in the rapport we have ourselves with the raw material of religion in all its expressions, not in a clinical performance of it, not in a devotional attitude or loyalty towards it. It has to be a struggle of some sort, otherwise there is no real full contact and no real "transmission". At least that is my I admit romantic view of it. Joy From jvriens at free.fr Wed Nov 21 00:29:27 2007 From: jvriens at free.fr (Joy Vriens) Date: Wed Nov 21 00:29:32 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Loving your object of study References: Message-ID: Jack, >Any idea where I can find this? Access to Insight only has up to AN 1.52. Testifying with body Thus have I heard: On a certain occasion the Exalted One was staying near Savatthi at Jeta Grove, in Anathapindika?s Park. Now the venerable Savittha and Kotthita the Great went to visit the venerable Sariputta, and on coming to him greeted him courteously . . . As he sat at one side the venerable Sariputta said this to the venerable Savittha: ?Reverend Savittha, there are these three persons to be found in the world. What three? One who has testified to the truth with body, one who has won view, and one released by faith. These are the three . . . Now sir, of these three which seems to you most excellent and choice?? ?Yes, reverend Sariputta, there are these three persons . . . Of these three I prefer the one released by faith. Why so? Because in this one the faculty of faith is most developed.? Then the venerable Sariputta asked the same question of the venerable Kotthita the Great, who replied: ?To me the one who has testified to the truth with body seems most excellent and choice. Why so? Because in this one the faculty of concentration is most developed.? [Note that this term implies that samadhi is a matter of bodily training -- that is the letting go of "things." This would approach the mental processes as a totality: let go of Vitaka and Vicara, not as a matter of letting go of individual ideas one at a time, but in one fell swoop, by considering all that falls within the concept of mentation and letting it go.] Then the venerable Kotthita the Great asked the same question of the venerable Sariputta, who replied: ?Reverend Kotthita, there are these three persons . . . Of these three he who has won view seems to me the most excellent and choice. Why? Because, sir, in this one the faculty of insight is most developed.? [The two words here are vijja (vision) and pannindriyam (not vipassana! Pannindriyam: The faculty of wisdom.)] Then said the venerable Sariputta to the two others: ?Now, sirs, we have all three expressed our views according to our several leanings. Suppose we go together to visit the Exalted One, and on coming to him let us tell him of this matter. According as the Exalted One shall decide it, so will we uphold.? ?Very good, sir,? said the other two to the venerable Sariputta. So all three went to visit the Exalted One, and on coming to him saluted him and sat down at one side. So seated the venerable Sariputta told the Exalted One (all the talk they had had on the subject0. Then said the Exalted One: ?It is no easy matter, Sariputta, to decide off-hand [meaning without examining specific individuals] which of these three persons is the most excellent and choice. It may well be that this person who is released by faith is on the path to arahantship: that this one who has testified to the truth with body is a once-returner or a non-returner: that this one who has won view is also a once-returner or a non-returner. It is no easy thing, Sariputta, to decide off-hand about this matter. It may well be that this person who has testified to the truth with body is on the path to arahantship: that the other two are once-returners or non-returners. Or again it may well be that this person who has won view is on the path to arahantship, while the two others are once-returners or non-returners. Indeed it is no easy task, Sariputta, to decide off-hand which of these three persons is most excellent and choice.? http://halfsmile.org/buddhadust/www.buddhadust.org/TheOnes/theonesenglish211-234.htm From rahula_80 at yahoo.com Wed Nov 21 04:22:21 2007 From: rahula_80 at yahoo.com (Ngawang Dorje) Date: Wed Nov 21 04:22:31 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Loving your object of study In-Reply-To: <200711200908.48421.rhayes@unm.edu> Message-ID: <923423.62048.qm@web44808.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Dear Professor, Once, you wrote in a discussion group: "Every time I teach my introductory course on Buddhism, there are a dozen people who jump up and say "Isn't it contradictory to desire to be without desire?" Even during the Buddha's time people were posing this question. The Buddha gave a beautiful answer in the Majjhima Nikaya." May I know which sutta were you referring to? Were you reffering to the Bhumia Sutta (MN 126) Thanks, Rahula --------------------------------- Get easy, one-click access to your favorites. Make Yahoo! your homepage. From rahula_80 at yahoo.com Wed Nov 21 04:23:35 2007 From: rahula_80 at yahoo.com (Ngawang Dorje) Date: Wed Nov 21 04:23:41 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Loving your object of study In-Reply-To: <200711200908.48421.rhayes@unm.edu> Message-ID: <760079.68789.qm@web44807.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Dear Moderator, The email I sent just now was a personal email. Could you reject it, please? Thanks, Rahula --------------------------------- Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage. From Jackhat1 at aol.com Wed Nov 21 07:01:46 2007 From: Jackhat1 at aol.com (Jackhat1@aol.com) Date: Wed Nov 21 07:02:07 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Loving your object of study Message-ID: In a message dated 11/20/2007 6:44:38 P.M. Central Standard Time, jkirk@spro.net writes: ==== Is researching, observing, analyzing and interpreting 2 and 3 the same as actually practicing, penetrating and realizing them? To me that is the same as applying scholarship to swimming is the same as learning how to swim. I must be missing something. jack ==================== Some category mistakes going on here. I'm not up for quibbling. Cheers, Joanna ----- Joanna, I'm not into quibbling but do want to learn. Can you please say more about category mistakes? Pretty please. I don't have a position that I have to defend. Jack **************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest products. (http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001) From Jackhat1 at aol.com Wed Nov 21 07:56:34 2007 From: Jackhat1 at aol.com (Jackhat1@aol.com) Date: Wed Nov 21 07:56:41 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Loving your object of study Message-ID: In a message dated 11/21/2007 1:30:07 A.M. Central Standard Time, jvriens@free.fr writes: ?Reverend Kotthita, there are these three persons . . . Of these three he who has won view seems to me the most excellent and choice. Why? Because, sir, in this one the faculty of insight is most developed.? [The two words here are vijja (vision) and pannindriyam (not vipassana! Pannindriyam: The faculty of wisdom.)] Joy, Thanks for posting this. I read the above excerpt not to refer to intellectual knowledge or scholarship but to insight which may have been gained by aid of conceptual knowledge or gained without any conceptual knowledge at all. How do you read it? Jack **************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest products. (http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001) From Jackhat1 at aol.com Wed Nov 21 07:59:30 2007 From: Jackhat1 at aol.com (Jackhat1@aol.com) Date: Wed Nov 21 07:59:46 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Loving your object of study Message-ID: In a message dated 11/21/2007 12:58:29 A.M. Central Standard Time, gruenig@tulane.edu writes: (3) Jack, I agree with the distinction you have articulated (with the 'learning to swim' vs. 'applying scholarship to swimming' metaphor) which echoes Curt's Yogi Berra quote on theory vs. practice. In the current discussion, to avoid the 'category mistake' it strikes me as useful to delineate (not to mutual exclusion) roughly: (a) intellectual inquiry which aims for and impacts one's own liberation; (b) intellectual inquiry which doesn't aim for or impact one's own liberation; It is possible to engage in (b) passionately as a scholar (or speculative philosopher) and not practice the dharma. It is possible to engage in (a) as a seeker and not practice scholarship. The fact that we can use terms like "observing" and "analyzing" to describe activities in both (a) and (b) does not make (a) and (b) the same -- or even the named activities the same. ==== In my bumbling way, I was trying to express the same thing. Thanks. Jack **************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest products. (http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001) From jkirk at spro.net Wed Nov 21 09:24:51 2007 From: jkirk at spro.net (jkirk) Date: Wed Nov 21 09:25:12 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Loving your object of study In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <004d01c82c5b$0b2db4d0$0400a8c0@OPTIPLEX> " It is possible to engage in (a) as a seeker and not practice scholarship. The fact that we can use terms like "observing" and "analyzing" to describe activities in both (a) and (b) does not make (a) and (b) the same -- or even the named activities the same." Well, yes--but you left out "interpretation". I didn't claim they were the same. However, I do consider that "It is possible to engage in (a) 'as a seeker'" and also/still engage in scholarship. Later when you said "In terms of (a), we might also want to delineate: - speculative theoretical reflection; - application of cognitive insights and meditations; - deconstructive meditations; - other applications of the intellect. Thus even within (a), not all "intellectual" approaches to liberation are of the same method or caliber or produce the same (typical) results." "...I remain tentatively cautious about an "intellect only" path." Makes sense to me, but chacun a son gout........we only know that some of the ancients were "enlightened," however they became so, because that is what the ancient reports claim. Some texts even claimed that just by copying the text (say, Lotus S.) or reading it subject would experience enlightenment. Cheers, Joanna K. ================== Hello Denizens, Regarding this jhana/intellect/service reference cited by Richard: (1) I'm not sure the sutta has been identified yet. Richard, will you provide the quote with a book/page# reference? (2) I stumbled into another sutta entitled "Scholars and Meditators" (AN VI, 46) in which Mahacunda tells monks who are meditators and scholars to stop judging each other. Excerpt: "Therefore, friends, you should train yourselves thus: 'Though we are Dhamma-experts, we will praise also those monks who are meditators.' And why? Such outstanding men are rare in the world who have personal experience of the deathless element (Nibbana). "And the other monks, too, should train themselves thus: 'Though we ourselves are meditators, we will praise also those monks who are Dhamma-experts.' And why? Such outstanding persons are rare in the world who can by their wisdom clearly understand a difficult subject." (Thera & Bodhi, _Numerical Discourses of the Buddha_, BPS 1999, p.164) Of note here: this appears to suggest that it is the meditators and not the scholars/dhamma-experts who access Nibbana. (3) Jack, I agree with the distinction you have articulated (with the 'learning to swim' vs. 'applying scholarship to swimming' metaphor) which echoes Curt's Yogi Berra quote on theory vs. practice. In the current discussion, to avoid the 'category mistake' it strikes me as useful to delineate (not to mutual exclusion) roughly: (a) intellectual inquiry which aims for and impacts one's own liberation; (b) intellectual inquiry which doesn't aim for or impact one's own liberation; It is possible to engage in (b) passionately as a scholar (or speculative philosopher) and not practice the dharma. It is possible to engage in (a) as a seeker and not practice scholarship. The fact that we can use terms like "observing" and "analyzing" to describe activities in both (a) and (b) does not make (a) and (b) the same -- or even the named activities the same. ............... and because all major advances in my own practice have come through practices which included essential non-intellectual components -- I remain tentatively cautious about an "intellect only" path. Two Rupees, -Hans Gruenig. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.1/1141 - Release Date: 11/20/2007 11:34 AM From jkirk at spro.net Wed Nov 21 09:32:15 2007 From: jkirk at spro.net (jkirk) Date: Wed Nov 21 09:32:41 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] (the recycling of) Western Buddhists In-Reply-To: References: <003c01c82b87$3a4f1620$0400a8c0@OPTIPLEX> Message-ID: <004e01c82c5c$13ea8890$0400a8c0@OPTIPLEX> -----Original Message----- From: buddha-l-bounces@mailman.swcp.com [mailto:buddha-l-bounces@mailman.swcp.com] On Behalf Of Joy Vriens ....Forgive me for not knowing all the denominations of Protestantism and what they stand for, but initially it seems to have been more along the lines of non-transmission. Luther fascinates me (although I was raised a catholic myself), but I have not much time for Lutheranism and other protestant transmissions. Like many mystics, the only thing Luther in his better moments seemed to have wanted to "transmit" is to have a direct relation with God. He says himself he doesn't want to bind anybody to his words or thoughts, but simply wants to be an exemple for others to follow or not, to amend or not. That sort of freedom of thought and speech and non-intererence with another's relationship to God seems to have been transmitted at least in your family. Joy ================================== No--we were sent to Sunday school to learn the Anglian Catholic way (dubbed Episcopalian in the USA) and were eventually confirmed in the faith by the Bishop with a bunch of other twelve-year-old faithfuls. This is formal transmission supported by parents. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.1/1141 - Release Date: 11/20/2007 11:34 AM From rhayes at unm.edu Wed Nov 21 15:24:59 2007 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Wed Nov 21 15:25:05 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Loving your object of study In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1195683899.7099.6.camel@localhost> On Tue, 2007-11-20 at 11:38 -0500, Jackhat1@aol.com wrote: > ==== > I see it as describing the 3 stages of the 'progress of the disciple'.1. > Understanding the doctrine (pariyatti). 2. Practicing it > (patipatti) and 3. Penetrating it (pativedha) and realising it. Scholarship > only deals with 1 and not necessarily 2 and 3. I think the terms of the discussion have shifted somewhat, perhaps because I was not paying attention. It has never been my contention that scholarship is equivalent to striving for nirvana. It is my claim that if one is striving for nirvana, one of the ways of doing it is through an intellectual grasping of the nature of suffering and understanding of its root causes. If one also makes efforts to follow the path that leads to an end of suffering, one can end suffering. As I understand it, that path is pluralistic, and ONE of the ways of following it is entirely intellectual, by which I mean without an devotional component and without the attainment of any jhaana beyond the first. -- Richard Hayes From rhayes at unm.edu Wed Nov 21 15:33:15 2007 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Wed Nov 21 15:33:23 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Loving your object of study In-Reply-To: <47433415.2070306@cola.iges.org> References: <47433415.2070306@cola.iges.org> Message-ID: <1195684395.7099.14.camel@localhost> On Tue, 2007-11-20 at 14:23 -0500, curt wrote: > The quickest way to liberation is almost certainly to focus (but not > exclusively) on whatever one is *least* inclined to. Cripes, now I see why my progress has been so slow. I have been doing the things I am *most* inclined to, which is a combination of sutra study, study of abhidharma, lots of devotional practices, the practice of metta-bhavana and dipping frequently into the jhaanas. What I personally am *least* inclined to do is to drink lots of alcohol, chase women, go to casinos and watch sporting events on TV. Damn it all, Curt, I wish you had told me sooner that I could make the quickest progress to liberation by guzzling beer while watching NASCAR on high-definition TV in Las Vegas. -- Richard Hayes University of New Mexico From rhayes at unm.edu Wed Nov 21 15:39:18 2007 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Wed Nov 21 15:39:24 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Loving your object of study In-Reply-To: <760079.68789.qm@web44807.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <760079.68789.qm@web44807.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1195684758.7099.19.camel@localhost> On Wed, 2007-11-21 at 03:23 -0800, Ngawang Dorje wrote: > Dear Moderator, > > The email I sent just now was a personal email. Could you reject it, please? Alas, all of you who behave yourselves by consistently posting sensible things are placed on "no moderation" mode. This is the equivalent to doing a high trapeze act with no safety net. This is because the moderators are an interesting combination of very trusting and extremely lazy. -- Richard Hayes From rhayes at unm.edu Wed Nov 21 15:48:52 2007 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Wed Nov 21 15:48:58 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Loving your object of study In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1195685332.7099.27.camel@localhost> On Wed, 2007-11-21 at 09:01 -0500, Jackhat1@aol.com wrote: > I'm not into quibbling but do want to learn. Can you please say more about > category mistakes? Pretty please. I don't have a position that I have to > defend. Making a category mistake involves assigning a predicate to a subject of a type that the subject cannot possibly have. So, for example, if I were to ask how much the number thirteen weighs, you might reply "Numbers are not the sort of things that have weight. I'm afraid, dear sir, that you have made a category mistake in asking that question." Notice that a category mistake is not the same thing as assigning a predicate to a subject that the subject cannot possibly have. For example, the term "compassionate Republican" is simply a contradiction in terms, not a category mistake. Republicans are, after all, human beings, and human beings can be compassionate---just not while being Republicans. I have not detected any category mistakes in anything you have written so far. I haven't even detected anything with which I disagree very much. Perhaps Joanna has a keener sense of categoricity than I. -- Richard Hayes Department of Philosophy University of New Mexico From jvriens at free.fr Thu Nov 22 01:21:13 2007 From: jvriens at free.fr (Joy Vriens) Date: Thu Nov 22 01:21:32 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] (the recycling of) Western Buddhists References: <004e01c82c5c$13ea8890$0400a8c0@OPTIPLEX> Message-ID: Joanna, >No--we were sent to Sunday school to learn the Anglian Catholic way (dubbed >Episcopalian in the USA) and were eventually confirmed in the faith by the >Bishop with a bunch of other twelve-year-old faithfuls. This is formal >transmission supported by parents. I will try and clarify further. My youngest brother lives in a small village. He was raised a catholic like me, but, also like me, doesn't feel any affinity at all. It's no big deal for him one way or the other. The village he lives in is a small catholic village, with one catholic church and a catholic school. The village life requires that all the traditional main events of a person's life come with a little ceremony in the village church. His children were baptisd in the village church and go to the village school with the other children. They have gone through holy communion, confirmation and the whole full package. If he had refused for them to participate, his children would have been the only ones in the village increasing the risk of exclusion. So his children had a formal transmission, but there was no adhesion from my brother's part. It is as if the "transmission" took place without his participation. Yet the success of this transmission would be considered complete. Our "Western Buddhists" do have an adhesion to what they want to transmit to their children and yet often (probably) they "fail". For me the most important part of a religion is in the adhesion, the involvement. Joy From jvriens at free.fr Thu Nov 22 02:41:20 2007 From: jvriens at free.fr (Joy Vriens) Date: Thu Nov 22 02:41:40 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Loving your object of study References: Message-ID: Jack, >Thanks for posting this. I read the above excerpt not to refer to >intellectual knowledge or scholarship but to insight which may have been gained by aid >of conceptual knowledge or gained without any conceptual knowledge at all. >How do you read it? The main message is the equivalence of testifying with the body (non conceptual, or at least the "truth" isn't reached through concepts) , faith and view. So knowing this, when I read the sutta, I tend to read it in that light. If the Buddha wanted to talk explicitly about a difference between intellectual knowledge and insight, I expect he would have somehow stated that or would have spoken a separate sutta on that topic. I don't see much difference between intellectual knowledge, (impartial/objective) scholarship and insight, which I basically see as analysis, or the knowledge gained through intellectual analysis. The Buddhist Insight (in meditation) tends to be more guided towards soteriological topics that need to be analysed in order to remove error (i.e. which causes pain) and with more or less the objective to not take sides/to chose/to judge (disturbs peace, is conducive to pain). The analysing mechanism is the same, the objective is different. Personally, "scholarship", or my dilettant practise of it,has been extremely useful for me to give attention to problems and nuances. Problems and nuances is what gets in the way of one's general pet theories. ;-) Joy From Margaret.Gouin at bristol.ac.uk Thu Nov 22 06:11:39 2007 From: Margaret.Gouin at bristol.ac.uk (Margaret Gouin) Date: Thu Nov 22 06:12:17 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] (no subject) Message-ID: <60402.88.203.66.85.1195737099.squirrel@webmail.bris.ac.uk> Just thought people might be interested to know about this. It's not a new situation, so I'm not sure why it's taken me so long to find out even that there are Buddhists in Bangladesh... just slow, I guess. http://www.achrweb.org/Review/2007/182-07.htm -- Margaret Gouin PhD Candidate Centre for Buddhist Studies Department of Theology and Religious Studies University of Bristol (UK) From jkirk at spro.net Thu Nov 22 09:33:23 2007 From: jkirk at spro.net (jkirk) Date: Thu Nov 22 09:33:51 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] (no subject) In-Reply-To: <60402.88.203.66.85.1195737099.squirrel@webmail.bris.ac.uk> References: <60402.88.203.66.85.1195737099.squirrel@webmail.bris.ac.uk> Message-ID: <004c01c82d25$66d9d190$0400a8c0@OPTIPLEX> Just thought people might be interested to know about this. It's not a new situation, so I'm not sure why it's taken me so long to find out even that there are Buddhists in Bangladesh... just slow, I guess. http://www.achrweb.org/Review/2007/182-07.htm -- Margaret Gouin PhD Candidate Centre for Buddhist Studies Department of Theology and Religious Studies University of Bristol (UK) =============================================================== From: Kirkpatrick [jkirk@spro.net] Oppression of the hill peoples of Bangladesh has been going on even since before Bangladesh independence from Pakistan, in 1971. It just gets worse with every passing year, and the hill people areas have never been able to escape control by the Bangladesh army. The Buddhists among the hill peoples are not the same ethnically as the Bengali Buddhists, or baruas, mostly in eastern Bangladesh. For more on Buddhism in the area of Bangladesh, see Banglapedia for a start: http://tinyurl.com/2z8yog Best, Joanna K. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.2/1143 - Release Date: 11/21/2007 10:01 AM From Nik.Macleod at proquest.co.uk Thu Nov 22 10:42:54 2007 From: Nik.Macleod at proquest.co.uk (Macleod, Nik) Date: Thu Nov 22 10:43:00 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] (no subject) In-Reply-To: <004c01c82d25$66d9d190$0400a8c0@OPTIPLEX> References: <60402.88.203.66.85.1195737099.squirrel@webmail.bris.ac.uk> <004c01c82d25$66d9d190$0400a8c0@OPTIPLEX> Message-ID: <81F2CB877E563643BDAEF118EBED0CCA0ACE8A0B@INTLEXCHANGE.pqilintl.net> > -----Original Message----- > From: Kirkpatrick [jkirk@spro.net] > For more on Buddhism in the area of Bangladesh, see > Banglapedia for a start: http://tinyurl.com/2z8yog > The article on the Chakmas is a good place to start ... http://banglapedia.search.com.bd/HT/C_0090.htm Best, Nik Macleod From curt at cola.iges.org Thu Nov 22 12:04:48 2007 From: curt at cola.iges.org (curt) Date: Thu Nov 22 12:05:18 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Loving your object of study In-Reply-To: <1195684395.7099.14.camel@localhost> References: <47433415.2070306@cola.iges.org> <1195684395.7099.14.camel@localhost> Message-ID: <4745D2D0.6060506@cola.iges.org> Richard Hayes wrote: > What I personally am *least* inclined to do is to drink lots of alcohol, > chase women, go to casinos and watch sporting events on TV. Damn it all, > Curt, I wish you had told me sooner that I could make the quickest > progress to liberation by guzzling beer while watching NASCAR on > high-definition TV in Las Vegas. > Better late than never. I look forward to reading shocking exposes of your exploits in future issues of Tricycle! Curt From curt at cola.iges.org Thu Nov 22 12:10:33 2007 From: curt at cola.iges.org (curt) Date: Thu Nov 22 12:11:06 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Loving your object of study In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4745D429.8040606@cola.iges.org> Jackhat1@aol.com wrote: > > (a) intellectual inquiry which aims for and impacts one's own liberation; > (b) intellectual inquiry which doesn't aim for or impact one's own > liberation; > > It is possible to engage in (b) passionately as a scholar (or speculative > philosopher) and not practice the dharma. It is possible to engage in (a) as a > seeker and not practice scholarship. I think it's good to have positive examples/role-models. I would suggest the Korean scholar/sage Chinul as one in this regard. According to the traditional version of his bio (which is of course highly hagiographical) he had three "Great Awakenings" during his life - all of which occurred while deeply absorbed in Sutra study. Robert Buswell's excellent book "Tracing Back the Radiance" has a lot of biographical info on Chinul. Curt From ellwbj at nus.edu.sg Thu Nov 22 16:51:42 2007 From: ellwbj at nus.edu.sg (John Whalen-Bridge) Date: Thu Nov 22 16:51:50 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Bangladesh, Hill People, Chakmas, Buddhism References: <200711221743.lAMHhJ2q006645@ns1.swcp.com> Message-ID: When I visited Chittagong in 2000, I had the opportunity to visit an area where some hill tribe people lived. The dam that created a beautiful lake for sake of hydroelectric power had displaced most of them and the Raja--only king I've had the pleasure to meet--was at a loss about what to do. Hoping for ecotourism. I also visited a Buddhist temple in the city of Chittagong and saw a lovely "sky-offering" ceremony in which those tissue kite-bags with candles in them were set aloft. "Yes, one or two houses burn down each year." One of the gentlemen mentioned the strong urine smell at the wall around te temple. He said cab drivers liked to stop and piss on temple grounds. Tough row to hoe. Whalen-Bridge @ English Language and Literature National University of Singapore 7 Arts Link, Blk AS5 Singapore 117570 (Also @ http://courses.nus.edu.sg/course/ellwbj/jwb/ ) From rhayes at unm.edu Thu Nov 22 19:26:29 2007 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Thu Nov 22 19:26:35 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Loving your object of study In-Reply-To: <4745D429.8040606@cola.iges.org> References: <4745D429.8040606@cola.iges.org> Message-ID: <1195784789.5445.7.camel@localhost> On Thu, 2007-11-22 at 14:10 -0500, curt wrote: > I think it's good to have positive examples/role-models. I would suggest > the Korean scholar/sage Chinul as one in this regard. If I had to pick just one teacher from the past who inspires me and serves as a personal role model, it would be Chinul. (He is also one of Stephen Batchelor's heroes.) > Robert Buswell's excellent book "Tracing Back the Radiance" has a lot of > biographical info on Chinul. Now that I think more about it, I'm not so sure Chinul is my hero. Perhaps Buswell is. After all, everything I know about Chinul I've learned from listening to Buswell talk and reading his translations. He ranks right up there with Batchelor as one of the most gentle and thoughtful people I have had the pleasure of listening to. In any case, Buswell's "Tracing Back the Radiance" is consistently on the list of required readings in my Buddhist philosophy classes. -- Richard Hayes From slachs at worldnet.att.net Thu Nov 22 21:09:11 2007 From: slachs at worldnet.att.net (Stuart Lachs) Date: Thu Nov 22 21:09:18 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Loving your object of study References: <4745D429.8040606@cola.iges.org> <1195784789.5445.7.camel@localhost> Message-ID: <000d01c82d86$9bcf2290$6701a8c0@Stuki> Richard wrote: " In any case, Buswell's "Tracing Back the Radiance" is consistently on the list of required readings in my Buddhist philosophy classes." "Tracing Back the Radiance" is an abridged version of "The Collected Works of Chinul." It is my favorite Buddhist book. It may be much for most undergrads. Amazon has no new copies and only one used copy for $299.95. > > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From rhayes at unm.edu Thu Nov 22 22:52:17 2007 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Thu Nov 22 22:52:24 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Loving your object of study In-Reply-To: <000d01c82d86$9bcf2290$6701a8c0@Stuki> References: <4745D429.8040606@cola.iges.org> <1195784789.5445.7.camel@localhost> <000d01c82d86$9bcf2290$6701a8c0@Stuki> Message-ID: <1195797138.6644.18.camel@localhost> On Thu, 2007-11-22 at 23:09 -0500, Stuart Lachs wrote: > "Tracing Back the Radiance" is an abridged version of "The Collected Works > of Chinul." It is my > favorite Buddhist book. It may be much for most undergrads. Amazon has no > new copies and > only one used copy for $299.95. Fortunately, I bought a copy of The Collected Works when it first came it. It has a lot of very good material in it that I use for my own preparation. The Zen course I teach is an upper level undergraduate course with a prerequisite of at least one previous course in Buddhism, and the students always love Chinul. Speaking of book prices, I find myself astonished on many levels. My library has outgrown my bookshelves, so I have been trying to sell books I no longer use. The last few boxes I have taken to used book stores have contained some excellent books, but no one is interested in buying them. I sold one fairly uninteresting book for $5, but the dealer wouldn't even take the others as a gift. He said there were hundreds of copies of most of my books for sale on the Internet, often with the first two dozen or so selling for less than $1. In an Internet-driven market, he said, many books sell for less than the cost of the postage to mail them, while others become collector's items worth hundreds of dollars, and none of the pricing has any bearing on the literary or scholarly value of the book. This used book dealer is first rate, a real bibliophile and great fun to talk to. He has been in business for decades, but he fears the Internet may put him out of business in another couple of years. This must be going on everywhere. What an impoverishment of the world it will be when all these wonderfully eccentric book dealers have all gone out of business. -- Richard Hayes University of New Mexico From slachs at worldnet.att.net Thu Nov 22 23:51:43 2007 From: slachs at worldnet.att.net (Stuart Lachs) Date: Thu Nov 22 23:51:48 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Loving your object of study References: <4745D429.8040606@cola.iges.org><1195784789.5445.7.camel@localhost><000d01c82d86$9bcf2290$6701a8c0@Stuki> <1195797138.6644.18.camel@localhost> Message-ID: <009401c82d9d$4f1d1300$6701a8c0@Stuki> I was not clear in my earlier post, "The Collected Works of Chinul" is my favorite Buddhist book. Fortunately for me, like Richard I bought the book many years ago. It has gotten a workout. I had to tape the binding to keep it together, even though it is hard bound. Richard Hayes wrote: "What an > impoverishment of the world it will be when all these wonderfully > eccentric book dealers have all gone out of business. " The same here in NYC. Fourth Avenue in the teens was loaded with eccentric used book stores in days gone by. Weiser's basement carried used "spiritual" books, upstairs was everything else. Desending the stairs with the poster of a young Meher Baba with his long black beard and his saying, "I was Rama, I was Krishna, now I am Meher Baba" looking down at you was like entering a magical kingdom. Even Flatbush Avenue in Brooklyn had a number of the eccentric used bookstores Richard mentioned. I remember now being so excited when buying Oswald Spengler's "Decline of the West" back in the 1960's. Those used book stores are pretty much all gone today. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Hayes" To: "Buddhist discussion forum" Sent: Friday, November 23, 2007 12:52 AM Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] Loving your object of study > On Thu, 2007-11-22 at 23:09 -0500, Stuart Lachs wrote: > >> "Tracing Back the Radiance" is an abridged version of "The Collected >> Works >> of Chinul." It is my >> favorite Buddhist book. It may be much for most undergrads. Amazon has >> no >> new copies and >> only one used copy for $299.95. > > Fortunately, I bought a copy of The Collected Works when it first came > it. It has a lot of very good material in it that I use for my own > preparation. The Zen course I teach is an upper level undergraduate > course with a prerequisite of at least one previous course in Buddhism, > and the students always love Chinul. > > Speaking of book prices, I find myself astonished on many levels. My > library has outgrown my bookshelves, so I have been trying to sell books > I no longer use. The last few boxes I have taken to used book stores > have contained some excellent books, but no one is interested in buying > them. I sold one fairly uninteresting book for $5, but the dealer > wouldn't even take the others as a gift. He said there were hundreds of > copies of most of my books for sale on the Internet, often with the > first two dozen or so selling for less than $1. In an Internet-driven > market, he said, many books sell for less than the cost of the postage > to mail them, while others become collector's items worth hundreds of > dollars, and none of the pricing has any bearing on the literary or > scholarly value of the book. This used book dealer is first rate, a real > bibliophile and great fun to talk to. He has been in business for > decades, but he fears the Internet may put him out of business in > another couple of years. This must be going on everywhere. What an > impoverishment of the world it will be when all these wonderfully > eccentric book dealers have all gone out of business. > > -- > Richard Hayes > University of New Mexico > > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l@mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From david.r.webster at blueyonder.co.uk Fri Nov 23 12:19:47 2007 From: david.r.webster at blueyonder.co.uk (David Webster) Date: Fri Nov 23 14:41:28 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Philosophy and Popular Culture Message-ID: As the phenomena of ?Philosophy and Popular Culture? books continues apace ? I have wondered (while reading some of them) ? is this a good thing for philosophy? I have set up a post on the blog for our course HYPERLINK "http://www.r-p-e.blogspot.com/"http://www.r-p-e.blogspot.com for our students ? those with a vested interest, in a sense, in philosophy, to comment on this ? but also welcome comments from other interested parties ? at the same address Cheers, Dave ---------------------------------------- Dr David Webster Course Leader: Religion, Philosophy & Ethics University of Gloucestershire 01242 71 4778 e-mail: HYPERLINK "mailto:dwebster@glos.ac.uk"dwebster@glos.ac.uk University Site: HYPERLINK "http://www.glos.ac.uk/"http://www.glos.ac.uk Course blog: HYPERLINK "http://www.r-p-e.blogspot.com/"http://www.r-p-e.blogspot.com ---------------------------------------- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.4/1147 - Release Date: 23/11/2007 09:19 From rhayes at unm.edu Fri Nov 23 14:56:04 2007 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Fri Nov 23 14:56:13 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Philosophy and Popular Culture In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1195854964.29685.10.camel@localhost> On Fri, 2007-11-23 at 19:19 +0000, David Webster wrote: > As the phenomena of ?Philosophy and Popular Culture? books continues apace ? > I have wondered (while reading some of them) ? is this a good thing for > philosophy? I suppose we would fist have to try to figure out what 'good for philosophy' means. (Sorry, but my analytic prejudice is showing.) Perhaps one thing that the phrases means is good for philosophers. I have heard ugly rumours (perhaps only urban legends) that philosophers who have contributed to such books as Philosophy and Steely Dan, Philosophy and the Matrix and so forth have met with severe disapproval from their colleagues. (I have no idea whether books with those titles actually exist, but I wouldn't be surprised if they did.) The limiting case of disapproval, of course, would be the loss of employment. It could be argued that being unemployed is very good for a philosopher, since it get him or her out of the prostitution business and dissolves at least some ties to that form of big corporate business known as the education industry. Being unemployed puts a person one step closer to being a monk, which is surely good for one's well-being. Moreover, if one takes being a monk very seriously, then one will stop writing books altogether, and that would be VERY good for philosophy. Are all the popular books on Buddhism doing Buddhism any good? If we use the same reasoning I have just used for popular books on philosophy, I think the answer is obvious. So let us all pray for more popular books on Buddhism. -- Richard Hayes Department of Philosophy University of New Mexico From cfynn at gmx.net Sun Nov 25 23:47:02 2007 From: cfynn at gmx.net (Christopher Fynn) Date: Sun Nov 25 23:47:28 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Destruction of another Buddhist image by Chinese In-Reply-To: <47433415.2070306@cola.iges.org> References: <47433415.2070306@cola.iges.org> Message-ID: <474A6BE6.2050006@gmx.net> Seems both the Chinese government & Taliban have a similar dislike for Buddhist images.... from =========== New eyewitness accounts have revealed that local Tibetans attempted to prevent the demolition of a statue of Guru Rinpoche (Padmasambhava) near Mt Kailash in the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR) on September 28. Approximately 20 Tibetans were seen forming a human shield around the two meter high statue before they were dispersed and the statue demolished by armed security personnel. The risk taken by the Tibetans in trying to protect the statue indicates the distress and resentment among Tibetans at the demolition of a significant representation of their religious culture. There has been a trend towards the tightening of control over religion in Tibet, and the destruction of the statue at Darchen, at the beginning of the pilgrimage route around one of Asia?s most sacred mountains, Kailash, is a further example of the aggressive enforcement of wide-ranging new regulatory measures introduced in the TAR in January 2007. A tourist who witnessed this rare attempt by Tibetans to protect the statue told ICT: "We heard a rumor that the army was going to destroy a large Buddha at the edge of town. From our vantage point it was clear that a group of perhaps 20 people were in fact in place around the Buddha [the Guru Rinpoche statue] forming a human shield. The mood was tense. [Later] a Tibetan woman pulled me aside. In broken English and with tears running down her face she said that the Chinese were no good - that they were going to destroy the Buddha - and that I should take pictures and get them to the Dalai Lama." The same Western tourist said that security police later stopped his tour group and accused them of taking pictures of the protest around the statue, and demanded to check the group?s cameras. The tour group did not have images of the protest or the destruction of the statue, but before and after images of the statue show that only the statue?s base now remains on the hillside (see: ). The destruction of this statue in Darchen, in Ngari (Chinese: Ali) prefecture of the TAR, follows the demolition of another statue of Guru Rinpoche in mid-May at Samye, Tibet?s oldest monastery. Guru Rinpoche, or ?precious master?, who is revered by both Tibetan and Chinese Buddhists, is accredited with establishing Buddhism in Tibet in the eighth century. Worship of Padmasambhava is of particular historical and spiritual significance to Tibetans, who believe that worshipping him can remove obstacles to the practice of Tibetan Buddhism, as well as preservation of Tibet?s unique Buddhist culture. After they saw the human shield of Tibetans forming around the statue, the group of tourists left the town for the day. One said: "The idea that such a thing [as destroying the statue] could happen seemed absurd." When they returned, at around 4 pm, the Tibetans had either left or been removed from the area and military or security personnel had taken up positions around the statue, which was over six feet high. One tourist estimated the number of security personnel in the area at that time as between 80 and 100. A second tourist said: "The army was lined up from the Buddha [Guru Rinpoche statue]....across a stream and up the incline to two chortens which looked as though they were part of a monastery or other religious building." She added that three plain clothes officials who spoke good English had then approached the tourist group nearby and accused them of taking pictures of the protest. At around 5 pm, the tourist group could see that the head and part of the shoulder of the Padmasambhava statue was missing. Later, the entire statue was demolished. One of the tourists said: "Tibetans were very distressed and the mood was tense." The destruction of the Darchen statue followed an incident in mid-May 2007, when the authorities ordered the destruction of a 30-feet high gold and copper plated statue of Guru Rinpoche (Padmasambhava) donated by Chinese Buddhists to Samye monastery. There is an increased interest in Tibetan Buddhism throughout China, with many Chinese now following Tibetan Buddhist teachers and going on pilgrimage in Tibet. The demolitions follow new regulatory measures passed in China in 2005 and in the TAR in January this year including new limitations on the construction of "large-size outdoor religious statues" (see ICT?s report: Demolition of giant Buddha statue at Tibetan monastery confirmed by China, at ). In a rare statement, the Democratic Management Committee of Samye monastery acknowledged the removal of the statue in May, saying that its construction "disobeyed the Law of the People?s Republic of China on Protection of Cultural Relics and the Notice of Illegally Building Open Statue of Buddha....Samye Monastery then self moved the open-air statue forwardly [sic]". (The full statement is at: http://info.tibet.cn/en/news/tin/t20070609_250524.htm). For information on the new regulatory measures and religious repression in Tibet today, see ICT?s report: The Communist Party as Living Buddha: The crisis facing Tibetan religion under Chinese control (April 2007), available for downloading at: . ============ From rahula_80 at yahoo.com Wed Nov 28 07:50:46 2007 From: rahula_80 at yahoo.com (Ngawang Dorje) Date: Wed Nov 28 07:50:53 2007 Subject: [Buddha-l] Aggregates and Clinging Aggregates In-Reply-To: <474A6BE6.2050006@gmx.net> Message-ID: <919209.3741.qm@web44808.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Hi, I am looking for this article, "Aggregates and Clinging Aggregates" by Bhikkhu Bodhi, Pali Buddhist Review (1976) I would appreciate if anybody could tell me how t obtained it. better, if anyone has it in the computer, would you be kind enough to send it to me. Thanks, Rahula --------------------------------- Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.