[Buddha-l] All is one

[Richard Hayes]

On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 12:33 AM, Jayarava <jayarava at yahoo.com> wrote:

I confess myself to be suspicious of the "all is one, god is good"  
branch of religion.

Rightly so. Given that there are many Ones for all things to be, and  
that there are no criteria for deciding which of the many Ones is The  
One, I think pluralism is the only sensible stance. (Fortunately,  
there are many kinds of pluralism, and no compelling need to choose  
from among them. I say embrace them all.)

Not being a floater myself I don't have much personal experience -  
although I do take seriously Richard's engagement with Quakerism and  
some of the anecdotal evidence that has been presented by him and  
others. But I wonder if it means that we westerners are simply  
redefining religion to suit our *individualistic* selves?

Is there an alternative? I suppose we could redefine religion to suit  
our collective identities? National religions, tribal religions and  
various invitations to ignore one's individual physical and  
psychological needs to the demands of a collective identity can be  
found in abundance. But surely no sensible person would accept such  
invitations.

Or maybe that's what we've always done, maybe that's what religion is?

Pretty much. Religion is the willful submission of an individual to  
collective, socially sanctioned delusion. (This is not to say that  
there may not also be submission to socially sanctioned greed and  
hatred, for they are manifestations of delusion.)

Personally I don't think I have the religious genius required to  
(re)define a religion. I'm daily (hourly even) reminded that so far my  
will has not been a reliable guide to life.

The individual will is undeniably fallible and therefore capable of  
leading one astray. But what is the collective will but a multitude of  
fallible and misleading individual wills? In the final analysis, there  
us no escaping the individual will and its potentials for leading one  
deep into the heart of trouble. It is the only game in town.

And while I see value in aspects of other traditions I don't think  
they are all saying the same thing.

I have never found a tradition in which I couldn't find a great of  
useful material, nor have I ever found one that I could endorse fully.  
I surely have never found one that I could embrace to the exclusion of  
all others.

William James has probably stated my prevalent attitudes better than  
anyone else. His lectures on Pragmatism have provided me with a  
serviceable framework in which to fit a good many things that are of  
human utility. He also provides a perspective on things that makes it  
possible to avoid a great deal of logomachy. (Of course, logomachy is  
a jolly good form of harmless recreation, so there is no point in  
avoiding it entirely, so long as one never takes oneself, or one's  
beliefs, seriously.)

It may be a moot point, but the west generally strikes me as being in  
a crisis of faith, confused about values, and ambivalent about virtues  
to the point of lauding vice.

Faith itself is the root cause of the moral crisis of modernity. It is  
difficult to find anything more pernicious among the many vices of  
humanity than faith.

The crisis seems to be fostering fundamentalism on the one hand, and  
anything goes on the other.

The crisis also fosters a robust pluralism and a pragmatism that can  
be an antidote to both doctrinal rigidity and behavioral recklessness  
and irresponsibility.

I would say that anyone who thinks of themselves of both a Buddhist  
and a Christian (or whatever) has simply failed to understand either  
tradition.

This is much too narrow a perspective, I think, based on a reduction  
of both Christianity and Buddhism to a set of propositions to which  
one gives assent. But if one sees propositions are instruments useful  
to achieve practical goals, they can be something to which one gives  
provisional and temporary assent. So if one's personal goal is to be  
thoughtful and considerate of others, to operate according to  
principles of justice, to have the courage to be of service to others  
even when it is inconvenient to oneself, to cultivate love and  
benevolence and good will to all, then one can make very good use of  
Christianity and Buddhism, Confucianism and Daoism, Judaism and Islam,  
atheism and agnosticism, rationalism and empiricism. The utility of  
those traditions comes in taking them all as instrumental means rather  
than as absolutes or ends in themselves.

Call me cynical, but the only way I can imagine this coming about is  
through superficiality and confusion.

Very well, then, you are being cynical. I hereby revoke your warrant  
to be cynical. There is nothing superficial or confused about active  
mettā or love, or about kindness and compassion. There is  
superficiality only if one reduces a tradition to a set of  
propositions agreed upon by a gang of desiccated celibate men who have  
nothing better to do than to decide for others what it is acceptable  
to affirm.

At the level of ethics there is much overlap, but beyond that I just  
don't see it.

Ethics---the cultivation of good character---is really the only thing  
that matters. Everything else is a distraction.

Some one's bound to take this personally - sorry, put it down to lack  
of imagination on my part.

Don't let idiots who take your observations personally off the hook so  
easily. If people are offended, it's their own damn fault for being  
fools. But that is no excuse for not treating them with love and  
compassion. Indeed, their folly is an invitation to cultivate mettā.  
They need it. As Philo of Alexandria said, "Be kind, for every you  
meet is fighting a great battle." (Maybe it wasn't Philo, but someone  
said that, or something like it. Some tweeter on Twitter said it was  
Philo. Let's leave it to the bureaucrats to discover who gets the  
credit.)

The discussion so far smacks of "baby boomer". My generation didn't  
have peace and love, we had the 1980's with all that that implies. Sigh.

Every generation has a sea of ugly toxicity to swim through. No  
generation yet has had peace and love as anything more than a fantasy  
to strive for. But if a generation ever comes along that sees no point  
in striving for peace and love, then it's time to assume a comfortable  
fetal position in which you can kiss your ass goodbye.  (Be careful,  
though. Kissing donkeys can lead to bestiality if you're not watchful.)

Richard Hayes