From Kdorje at aol.com Sun Jul 3 21:07:14 2011 From: Kdorje at aol.com (Kdorje at aol.com) Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2011 23:07:14 EDT Subject: [Buddha-l] (no subject) Message-ID: <195f1.29e4f7ce.3b428862@aol.com> I bring this from Huffington Post to the list's attention: _http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/29/an-israeli-algorithm-shed_n_886996 .html?icid=main%7Chtmlws-main-n%7Cdl12%7Csec1_lnk3%7C217473_ (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/29/an-israeli-algorithm-shed_n_886996.html?icid=main |htmlws-main-n|dl12|sec1_lnk3|217473) Software has been developed that can determine from internal evidence different authors of a text or texts attributed to one. It was used on the Bible, and confirmed 90% of what had taken linguists decades to do. It can be used with other languages, and might be interesting to see how many Nagarjunas it shows, how many emanations of Maitreya gave teachings, etc. I would guess that the results could also be helpful in dating texts. Best wishes, Konchog Dorje From rhayes at unm.edu Sun Jul 3 21:33:13 2011 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2011 21:33:13 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] (no subject) In-Reply-To: <195f1.29e4f7ce.3b428862@aol.com> References: <195f1.29e4f7ce.3b428862@aol.com> Message-ID: <6446625E-974C-443A-91EF-99BEADCF3FE0@unm.edu> On Jul 3, 2011, at 21:07, Kdorje at aol.com wrote: > Software has been developed that can determine from internal evidence > different authors of a text or texts attributed to one. Software has been developed that can calculate various metrics based on highly questionable assumptions. It is a pretty good application of GIGO. > It was used on the > Bible, and confirmed 90% of what had taken linguists decades to do. Coming to a conclusion based on questionable assumptions that agrees with another conclusion based on the same questionable assumptions hardly counts as confirmation. > It can be > used with other languages, and might be interesting to see how many > Nagarjunas it shows, how many emanations of Maitreya gave teachings, etc. And in what way would knowing how many N?g?rjunas there were help us understand what any of the writings attributed to N?g?rjuna mean? Richard From bankei at gmail.com Mon Jul 4 07:14:05 2011 From: bankei at gmail.com (Bankei) Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2011 23:14:05 +1000 Subject: [Buddha-l] New Book: Michael Jerryson "Buddhist Fury: Religion and Violence in Southern Thailand" Message-ID: New book out, FYI Bankei Dear colleagues, I am pleased to announce the publication of my new book: Michael Jerryson: "Buddhist Fury: Religion and Violence in Southern Thailand" (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), 272 p. - ISBN13: 978-0199793242 "Buddhist violence is not a well-known concept. In fact, it is generally considered an oxymoron. An image of a Buddhist monk holding a handgun or the idea of a militarized Buddhist monastery tends to stretch the imagination; yet these sights exist throughout southern Thailand. Michael Jerryson offers an extensive examination of one of the least known but longest-running conflicts of Southeast Asia. Part of this conflict, based primarily in Thailand's southernmost provinces, is fueled by religious divisions. Thailand's total population is over 92 percent Buddhist, but over 85 percent of the people in the southernmost provinces are Muslim. Since 2004, the Thai government has imposed martial law over the territory and combatted a grass-roots militant Malay Muslim insurgency. Buddhist Fury reveals the Buddhist parameters of the conflict within a global context. Through fieldwork in the conflict area, Jerryson chronicles the habits of Buddhist monks in the militarized zone. Many Buddhist practices remain unchanged. Buddhist monks continue to chant, counsel the laity, and accrue merit. Yet at the same time, monks zealously advocate Buddhist nationalism, act as covert military officers, and equip themselves with guns. Buddhist Fury displays the methods by which religion alters the nature of the conflict and shows the dangers of this transformation." For more information, see: http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/**general/subject/Politics/** ComparativePolitics/Asia/?**view=usa&ci=9780199793242 http://www.amazon.com/**Buddhist-Fury-Religion-**Violence-Southern/dp/** 0199793247/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&**ie=UTF8&qid=1309681063&sr=1-3 Thanks, Michael ______________________________**_________________ Rels-tlc mailing list Rels-tlc at groups.sas.upenn.edu https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/**mailman/listinfo/rels-tlc From jkirk at spro.net Mon Jul 4 12:48:45 2011 From: jkirk at spro.net (JKirkpatrick) Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2011 12:48:45 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] New Book: Michael Jerryson "Buddhist Fury: Religion and Violence in Southern Thailand" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A81FD8D0DE04537BA3A4708C6095A52@OPTIPLEX> Hi Michael Congrats. I'd like to read what's in the comparative politics link; one can always get the amazon link using their webpage. Maybe the same with OUP--so why append messed up too long links? I also recall, just for the record, accounts in international as well as Thai newspapers of deliberate, targeted assassinations/murders of monks in the area--whenever or wherever they were unarmed and vulnerable. Cheers, Joanna -----Original Message----- From: buddha-l-bounces at mailman.swcp.com [mailto:buddha-l-bounces at mailman.swcp.com] On Behalf Of Bankei Sent: Monday, July 04, 2011 7:14 AM To: Buddhist discussion forum; buddha-l Subject: [Buddha-l] New Book: Michael Jerryson "Buddhist Fury: Religion and Violence in Southern Thailand" New book out, FYI Bankei Dear colleagues, I am pleased to announce the publication of my new book: Michael Jerryson: "Buddhist Fury: Religion and Violence in Southern Thailand" (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), 272 p. - ISBN13: 978-0199793242 "Buddhist violence is not a well-known concept. In fact, it is generally considered an oxymoron. An image of a Buddhist monk holding a handgun or the idea of a militarized Buddhist monastery tends to stretch the imagination; yet these sights exist throughout southern Thailand. Michael Jerryson offers an extensive examination of one of the least known but longest-running conflicts of Southeast Asia. Part of this conflict, based primarily in Thailand's southernmost provinces, is fueled by religious divisions. Thailand's total population is over 92 percent Buddhist, but over 85 percent of the people in the southernmost provinces are Muslim. Since 2004, the Thai government has imposed martial law over the territory and combatted a grass-roots militant Malay Muslim insurgency. Buddhist Fury reveals the Buddhist parameters of the conflict within a global context. Through fieldwork in the conflict area, Jerryson chronicles the habits of Buddhist monks in the militarized zone. Many Buddhist practices remain unchanged. Buddhist monks continue to chant, counsel the laity, and accrue merit. Yet at the same time, monks zealously advocate Buddhist nationalism, act as covert military officers, and equip themselves with guns. Buddhist Fury displays the methods by which religion alters the nature of the conflict and shows the dangers of this transformation." For more information, see: http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/**general/subject/Politics/** ComparativePolitics/Asia/?**view=usa&ci=9780199793242 http://www.amazon.com/**Buddhist-Fury-Religion-**Violence-Souther n/dp/** 0199793247/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&**ie=UTF8&qid=1309681063&sr=1-3 Thanks, Michael ______________________________**_________________ Rels-tlc mailing list Rels-tlc at groups.sas.upenn.edu https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/**mailman/listinfo/rels-tlc _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From rhayes at unm.edu Mon Jul 4 13:42:48 2011 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2011 13:42:48 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] New Book: Michael Jerryson "Buddhist Fury: Religion and Violence in Southern Thailand" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0DC3E281-2916-49BD-89D2-914531890FB3@unm.edu> On Jul 4, 2011, at 7:14, Bankei wrote: > "Buddhist violence is not a well-known concept. In fact, it is generally > considered an oxymoron. It has been my own experience that if you want to show a Buddhist the exit from equanimity, all you need to do is show him a Muslim. > Michael Jerryson offers > an extensive examination of one of the least known but longest-running > conflicts of Southeast Asia. Sounds interesting. I'll get my local library to buy it?using threats of violence if necessary. Richard From bshmr at aol.com Mon Jul 4 14:51:27 2011 From: bshmr at aol.com (Richard Basham) Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2011 14:51:27 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] (no subject) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1309812687.5060.5.camel@aims110> (Kdorje at aol.com), Where have you and Huffington's Religious editor been? I recall identical claims back in the 1960's and repeats at least once a decade since. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/29/an-israeli-algorithm-shed_n_886996.html And 'ditto' the younger and esteemed Richard's comments. Richard Basham From jkirk at spro.net Tue Jul 5 10:25:43 2011 From: jkirk at spro.net (JKirkpatrick) Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2011 10:25:43 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] New Book: Michael Jerryson "Buddhist Fury: Religionand Violence in Southern Thailand" In-Reply-To: <0DC3E281-2916-49BD-89D2-914531890FB3@unm.edu> References: <0DC3E281-2916-49BD-89D2-914531890FB3@unm.edu> Message-ID: <94C2F4CD75944FA291E23FE4CB75D49D@OPTIPLEX> "It has been my own experience that if you want to show a Buddhist the exit from equanimity, all you need to do is show him a Muslim." And vice versa. Joanna ----------------------- On Jul 4, 2011, at 7:14, Bankei wrote: > "Buddhist violence is not a well-known concept. In fact, it is > generally considered an oxymoron. It has been my own experience that if you want to show a Buddhist the exit from equanimity, all you need to do is show him a Muslim. > Michael Jerryson offers > an extensive examination of one of the least known but longest-running > conflicts of Southeast Asia. Sounds interesting. I'll get my local library to buy it?\using threats of violence if necessary. Richard _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From sfeite at roadrunner.com Tue Jul 5 12:42:58 2011 From: sfeite at roadrunner.com (S. A. Feite) Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2011 14:42:58 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddha's Meditation Message-ID: From a recent mass mailing: Dear all, I recently wrote an article titled Buddha's Meditation that was just published in a widely read on-line Journal and I wanted to share it with you. Here's the link to the article: http://www.elephantjournal.com/? p=185163 I hope you enjoy it! If you do, please pass this link on to friends and family-thanks! And, please feel free to write your comments at the end of article. All the best always, Evan -------------------------------- Evan Finkelstein, Ph.D. Maharishi Vedic Science Dept., Maharishi University of Management National Director of Religion and Culture efin at mum.edu Phone: 641-472-1832 From rahula_80 at yahoo.com Tue Jul 5 22:58:35 2011 From: rahula_80 at yahoo.com (Ngawang Dorje) Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2011 21:58:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddha's Meditation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1309928315.98701.YahooMailNeo@web45414.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Hi, Being an Assistant Professor of Maharishi Vedic Science, I find it strange that Evan published an article in a Journal without giving footnotes or references. For example, I am looking for the reference of this passage attributed to Majjhima Nikaya: "There?s no need for you to give up?, said the Buddha. ?You should not abandon your search for liberation just because you seem to yourself to be thick witted. You can drop all philosophy you?ve been given and repeat a mantra instead?one that I will now give you." I would be grateful if anyone could help me locate this passage in the Majjhima Nikaya. The only reference that I, myself could find so far is this: The Buddha Speaks: A Book of Guidance from the Buddhist Scriptures? Anne Bancroft? Shambhala 2010, p.46-48 Thanks, Rahula? ________________________________ From: S. A. Feite To: Buddhist discussion forum Sent: Wednesday, July 6, 2011 2:42 AM Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddha's Meditation From a recent mass mailing: Dear all, I recently wrote an article titled Buddha's Meditation that was just? published in a widely read on-line Journal and I wanted to share it? with you. Here's the link to the article: http://www.elephantjournal.com/? p=185163? I hope you enjoy it! If you do, please pass this link on to? friends and family-thanks! And, please feel free to write your comments at the end of article. All the best always, Evan -------------------------------- Evan Finkelstein, Ph.D. Maharishi Vedic Science Dept., Maharishi University of Management National Director of Religion and Culture efin at mum.edu Phone: 641-472-1832 _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Wed Jul 6 04:27:57 2011 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 06:27:57 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] HHDL in DC References: Message-ID: <006501cc3bc7$6057f6d0$6600a8c0@Dan> With the Dalai Lama visiting Washington, DC, to do a 10-day kalacakra, the Washington Post is running three pieces today, one a slideshow, on HHDL. Additional links to further stories and pictures can be found alongside the articles. http://tinyurl.com/3jacabg http://tinyurl.com/3fjfz29 http://tinyurl.com/4xfx33o Dan From sfeite at roadrunner.com Wed Jul 6 05:37:51 2011 From: sfeite at roadrunner.com (S. A. Feite) Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 07:37:51 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddha's Meditation In-Reply-To: <1309928315.98701.YahooMailNeo@web45414.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <1309928315.98701.YahooMailNeo@web45414.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <891506CB-4C5B-4F0F-B5D4-7DE17800ACC0@roadrunner.com> On Jul 6, 2011, at 12:58 AM, Ngawang Dorje wrote: > Hi, > > Being an Assistant Professor of Maharishi Vedic Science, I find it > strange that Evan published an article in a Journal without giving > footnotes or references. For example, I am looking for the > reference of this passage attributed to Majjhima Nikaya: There's been a large push by the TM Org over the last several years, to go into areas where their English-speaking critics words aren't easily found or heard, and to proselytize for their brand of meditation. Buddhist countries that have received particular attention are Nepal, Cambodia, Thailand and Mongolia. Using unattributed sources certainly helps promotion in under-educated areas. It would all seem very convincing. Given that a recent TM scientific study last week was pulled literally minutes before publication when the authors were found to be massaging the data in their favor certainly doesn't bode well for the TM "researchers" who DO use footnotes. All the footnotes in the world probably will not hide that a Hindu form of basic manasika-japa is not Buddhist meditation by any means. But you apparently can fool a lot of people, a lot of the time --for fun and profit. Steve From jkirk at spro.net Wed Jul 6 09:53:16 2011 From: jkirk at spro.net (JKirkpatrick) Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 09:53:16 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddha's Meditation In-Reply-To: <891506CB-4C5B-4F0F-B5D4-7DE17800ACC0@roadrunner.com> References: <1309928315.98701.YahooMailNeo@web45414.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <891506CB-4C5B-4F0F-B5D4-7DE17800ACC0@roadrunner.com> Message-ID: <3B3018531749432C91DC907DB75EB0A4@OPTIPLEX> On Jul 6, 2011, at 12:58 AM, Ngawang Dorje wrote: > Hi, > > Being an Assistant Professor of Maharishi Vedic Science, I find it > strange that Evan published an article in a Journal without giving > footnotes or references. For example, I am looking for the reference > of this passage attributed to Majjhima Nikaya: There's been a large push by the TM Org over the last several years, to go into areas where their English-speaking critics words aren't easily found or heard, and to proselytize for their brand of meditation. Buddhist countries that have received particular attention are Nepal, Cambodia, Thailand and Mongolia. Using unattributed sources certainly helps promotion in under-educated areas. It would all seem very convincing. Given that a recent TM scientific study last week was pulled literally minutes before publication when the authors were found to be massaging the data in their favor certainly doesn't bode well for the TM "researchers" who DO use footnotes. All the footnotes in the world probably will not hide that a Hindu form of basic manasika-japa is not Buddhist meditation by any means. But you apparently can fool a lot of people, a lot of the time --for fun and profit. Steve --------------- What I'm confused about is how did your email address get Evan's message to this list? Did he swipe it, or was your address book hacked? Joanna _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From rhayes at unm.edu Wed Jul 6 10:19:46 2011 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 10:19:46 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddha's Meditation In-Reply-To: <891506CB-4C5B-4F0F-B5D4-7DE17800ACC0@roadrunner.com> References: <1309928315.98701.YahooMailNeo@web45414.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <891506CB-4C5B-4F0F-B5D4-7DE17800ACC0@roadrunner.com> Message-ID: On Jul 6, 2011, at 05:37 , S. A. Feite wrote: > All the footnotes in the world probably will not hide that a Hindu form of basic manasika-japa > is not Buddhist meditation by any means. This morning I was listening to a two-hour Canadian radio program entitled something like Being Muslim in the West. It was excellent. Toward the end of the second hour, a Muslim who was being interviewed quoted something that was attributed to the Buddha. The quotation was: "If you dig a six-foot hole, you'll find water. If you dig six one-foot holes, you'll find nothing." The quoter went on to say that it really doesn't matter which deep hole one digs, but he had personally chosen to go deeply into Isl?m. I have never encountered anything like that in any Buddhist text, but then I've probably read only about 0.00000001% of the corpus of Buddhist texts. Does it ring a bell, or at least clunk a wooden fish? Mind you, I have heard the quotation dozens of times, but I've always heard it attributed to ?r? R?mak???a or Sv?m?vivek?nanda, both of whom were, of course, quite capable of quoting Buddhist texts. The pluralistic sorts that they were, the meaning they extracted from the well analogy was exactly what the Muslim extracted from it. My guess is that if the saying does turn out to have a Buddhist provenience, it is not used to promote religious pluralism of the sort that R?mak???a and Vivek?nanda advocated. Like the story of the blind men and the elephant, as used by Buddhists, I'd guess the well analogy would have a triumphalist purport. The point of the story of the blind men and the elephant as cited by the Buddha in the Ud?na was that all other religious teachers are blind and therefore offer distorted narratives about reality, but he alone can see and give a true and accurate narrative, so if you don't want to be led around by blind men, you'd better follow the Buddha. I'd guess a similar meaning would attend to the well analogy. Other religious teachers dig shallow wells, but the Buddha alone dug deep enough to find water. > But you apparently can fool a lot of people, a lot of the time --for > fun and profit. If you couldn't fool most of the people most of the time, organized religion wouldn't last a minute. Besides, the economy would wither up a blow away. Unfortunately, both the economy and organized religion remain healthy by most question-beggingly conventional measures of health, which means that the planet as a whole is facing a sickness unto death. But so what? Planets are impermanent anyway, right? Richard Hayes Department of Philosophy University of New Mexico Albuquerque, NM From sfeite at roadrunner.com Wed Jul 6 10:21:18 2011 From: sfeite at roadrunner.com (S. A. Feite) Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 12:21:18 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddha's Meditation In-Reply-To: <3B3018531749432C91DC907DB75EB0A4@OPTIPLEX> References: <1309928315.98701.YahooMailNeo@web45414.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <891506CB-4C5B-4F0F-B5D4-7DE17800ACC0@roadrunner.com> <3B3018531749432C91DC907DB75EB0A4@OPTIPLEX> Message-ID: On Jul 6, 2011, at 11:53 AM, JKirkpatrick wrote: > What I'm confused about is how did your email address get Evan's > message to this list? Did he swipe it, or was your address book > hacked? The email was forwarded to me be one of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi's old personal secretaries who I know personally. From rhayes at unm.edu Wed Jul 6 10:23:35 2011 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 10:23:35 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddha's Meditation In-Reply-To: <3B3018531749432C91DC907DB75EB0A4@OPTIPLEX> References: <1309928315.98701.YahooMailNeo@web45414.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <891506CB-4C5B-4F0F-B5D4-7DE17800ACC0@roadrunner.com> <3B3018531749432C91DC907DB75EB0A4@OPTIPLEX> Message-ID: On Jul 6, 2011, at 09:53 , JKirkpatrick wrote: > What I'm confused about is how did your email address get Evan's > message to this list? Did he swipe it, or was your address book > hacked? I wondered the same thing, but being the Pollyanna that I am, I assumed that either the message was simply forwarded or that one person goes by two names, a secular name and a religious name. So what's the real story? Are we dealing here with something harmless and innocent or something dark and dangerous? Shall we call in the Google police? Richard From rhayes at unm.edu Wed Jul 6 10:24:57 2011 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 10:24:57 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddha's Meditation In-Reply-To: References: <1309928315.98701.YahooMailNeo@web45414.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <891506CB-4C5B-4F0F-B5D4-7DE17800ACC0@roadrunner.com> <3B3018531749432C91DC907DB75EB0A4@OPTIPLEX> Message-ID: On Jul 6, 2011, at 10:21 , S. A. Feite wrote: > > On Jul 6, 2011, at 11:53 AM, JKirkpatrick wrote: > >> What I'm confused about is how did your email address get Evan's >> message to this list? Did he swipe it, or was your address book >> hacked? > > > The email was forwarded to me be one of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi's old > personal secretaries who I know personally. Thank heavens! I was afraid we might have to revoke somebody's Facebook privileges for doing something naughty. Richard From pvera at health.usf.edu Wed Jul 6 10:25:53 2011 From: pvera at health.usf.edu (Vera, Pedro L.) Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 16:25:53 +0000 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddha's Meditation In-Reply-To: References: <1309928315.98701.YahooMailNeo@web45414.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <891506CB-4C5B-4F0F-B5D4-7DE17800ACC0@roadrunner.com>, Message-ID: <0C46EC02553CC14FBBA345FB73EFA05914F86554@EXCH03.hscnet.hsc.usf.edu> Richard Hayes wrote: >But so what? Planets are impermanent anyway, right? Yes, look what happened to Pluto! From smith at wheelwrightassoc.com Wed Jul 6 10:48:52 2011 From: smith at wheelwrightassoc.com (Timothy Smith) Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 09:48:52 -0700 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddha's Meditation In-Reply-To: <0C46EC02553CC14FBBA345FB73EFA05914F86554@EXCH03.hscnet.hsc.usf.edu> References: <1309928315.98701.YahooMailNeo@web45414.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <891506CB-4C5B-4F0F-B5D4-7DE17800ACC0@roadrunner.com>, <0C46EC02553CC14FBBA345FB73EFA05914F86554@EXCH03.hscnet.hsc.usf.edu> Message-ID: <88594BBF-B4B8-4DDC-BC65-7C469675C879@wheelwrightassoc.com> Once, on a deck at Green Gulch farm, I heard one of the senior monks tell a group of folks who were fretting over the redwood's destruction, "Don't get too worked up about it, after all, the sun will burn out in few billion years." Timothy Smith Office/Mobile 831.624.8138 Fax 831.659-5112 www.wheelwrightassoc.com On Jul 6, 2011, at 9:25 AM, Vera, Pedro L. wrote: > Richard Hayes wrote: > >> But so what? Planets are impermanent anyway, right? > > Yes, look what happened to Pluto! > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l > From franz at mind2mind.net Wed Jul 6 11:37:44 2011 From: franz at mind2mind.net (Franz Metcalf) Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 10:37:44 -0700 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddha's Meditation In-Reply-To: References: <1309928315.98701.YahooMailNeo@web45414.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <891506CB-4C5B-4F0F-B5D4-7DE17800ACC0@roadrunner.com> Message-ID: <186FE2F8-2535-4198-8212-0F2AF98C6AFF@mind2mind.net> Gang, I'm not answering Richard's question. But will that stop me from replying? Don't answer that question. Richard opined, > My guess is that if the saying does turn out to have a > Buddhist provenience, it is not used to promote religious > pluralism of the sort that R?mak???a and Vivek?nanda > advocated. Like the story of the blind men and the > elephant, as used by Buddhists, I'd guess the well > analogy would have a triumphalist purport. I agree. And, to the list of Buddhist triumphalist texts hidden in plain sight, I would add the locus classicus for supposed Buddhist scientific openness: the "Kalama Sutta." (For the text see .) In it, as we all remember, the Buddha does indeed call on people not to believe or follow religions (or anything paths) for reasons of myth, logic, respect, tradition, and so on. But he does not do this because he is open in some modern, scientific way to all evidence. Quite the opposite (in my reading, at least). He does this because he is entirely convinced of his own unfalsifiable experience! That, fellow beings, makes for a lovely religion, but it does not make for science. So, like the elephant story and the well story, we again see Buddhist triumphalism reaching right back to its founder. As if we should have expected something different? Good wishes nevertheless, Franz Metcalf From jkirk at spro.net Wed Jul 6 11:41:28 2011 From: jkirk at spro.net (JKirkpatrick) Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 11:41:28 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddha's Meditation In-Reply-To: References: <1309928315.98701.YahooMailNeo@web45414.mail.sp1.yahoo.com><891506CB-4C5B-4F0F-B5D4-7DE17800ACC0@roadrunner.com><3B3018531749432C91DC907DB75EB0A4@OPTIPLEX> Message-ID: I thought it is Fecesbook? JK -----Original Message----- From: buddha-l-bounces at mailman.swcp.com [mailto:buddha-l-bounces at mailman.swcp.com] On Behalf Of Richard Hayes Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 10:25 AM To: Buddhist discussion forum Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] Buddha's Meditation On Jul 6, 2011, at 10:21 , S. A. Feite wrote: > > On Jul 6, 2011, at 11:53 AM, JKirkpatrick wrote: > >> What I'm confused about is how did your email address get Evan's >> message to this list? Did he swipe it, or was your address book >> hacked? > > > The email was forwarded to me be one of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi's old > personal secretaries who I know personally. Thank heavens! I was afraid we might have to revoke somebody's Facebook privileges for doing something naughty. Richard _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From jkirk at spro.net Wed Jul 6 11:46:10 2011 From: jkirk at spro.net (JKirkpatrick) Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 11:46:10 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddha's Meditation In-Reply-To: References: <1309928315.98701.YahooMailNeo@web45414.mail.sp1.yahoo.com><891506CB-4C5B-4F0F-B5D4-7DE17800ACC0@roadrunner.com><3B3018531749432C91DC907DB75EB0A4@OPTIPLEX> Message-ID: <1911141A093C4216BEDBDBDD3086D59A@OPTIPLEX> Having had my website hacked last Sept, and it's not getting cured until end of Dec., with some outstanding code issues still around, I'm sensitive to the vagaries of the web. That being said, my Google (police) analytics indicated the job was done by some fanatic in a country formerly known as East Bengal. Buddhists are distinctly not the only fanatics around. Joanna On Jul 6, 2011, at 09:53 , JKirkpatrick wrote: > What I'm confused about is how did your email address get Evan's > message to this list? Did he swipe it, or was your address book > hacked? I wondered the same thing, but being the Pollyanna that I am, I assumed that either the message was simply forwarded or that one person goes by two names, a secular name and a religious name. So what's the real story? Are we dealing here with something harmless and innocent or something dark and dangerous? Shall we call in the Google police? Richard _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Wed Jul 6 11:51:14 2011 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 13:51:14 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddha's Meditation References: <1309928315.98701.YahooMailNeo@web45414.mail.sp1.yahoo.com><891506CB-4C5B-4F0F-B5D4-7DE17800ACC0@roadrunner.com>, <0C46EC02553CC14FBBA345FB73EFA05914F86554@EXCH03.hscnet.hsc.usf.edu> <88594BBF-B4B8-4DDC-BC65-7C469675C879@wheelwrightassoc.com> Message-ID: <010c01cc3c05$4d2adee0$6600a8c0@Dan> >redwood's destruction, "Don't get too worked up about it, after all, the >sun will > burn out in few billion years." >>> But so what? Planets are impermanent anyway, right? The Buddhist version of "kill them all, let god sort them out." Carefree Carnage alibi. Dan From franz at mind2mind.net Wed Jul 6 11:51:33 2011 From: franz at mind2mind.net (Franz Metcalf) Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 10:51:33 -0700 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddhist Name Generator Message-ID: Hi all, Just found this almost utterly useless and yet chock-full-o'-Buddhist- content link: It comes courtesy of the great blog, . Cheers, Franz Metcalf aka Prince Vast Pure or, randomly, the much funnier The Boy Moon Brightness From jkirk at spro.net Wed Jul 6 11:53:09 2011 From: jkirk at spro.net (JKirkpatrick) Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 11:53:09 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddha's Meditation In-Reply-To: <1911141A093C4216BEDBDBDD3086D59A@OPTIPLEX> References: <1309928315.98701.YahooMailNeo@web45414.mail.sp1.yahoo.com><891506CB-4C5B-4F0F-B5D4-7DE17800ACC0@roadrunner.com><3B3018531749432C91DC907DB75EB0A4@OPTIPLEX> <1911141A093C4216BEDBDBDD3086D59A@OPTIPLEX> Message-ID: <0AF5B413207D43078DE3EED3F2D76591@OPTIPLEX> Oh, and I hasten to add, not the only triumphalists around, either. In fact, name one religion that has not been triumphalist at one time or another, or continuously. JK -------------------- On Behalf Of JKirkpatrick Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 11:46 AM Having had my website hacked last Sept, and it's not getting cured until end of Dec., with some outstanding code issues still around, I'm sensitive to the vagaries of the web. That being said, my Google (police) analytics indicated the job was done by some fanatic in a country formerly known as East Bengal. Buddhists are distinctly not the only fanatics around. Joanna On Jul 6, 2011, at 09:53 , JKirkpatrick wrote: > What I'm confused about is how did your email address get Evan's > message to this list? Did he swipe it, or was your address book > hacked? I wondered the same thing, but being the Pollyanna that I am, I assumed that either the message was simply forwarded or that one person goes by two names, a secular name and a religious name. So what's the real story? Are we dealing here with something harmless and innocent or something dark and dangerous? Shall we call in the Google police? Richard From rhayes at unm.edu Wed Jul 6 12:10:46 2011 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 12:10:46 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddha's Meditation In-Reply-To: <88594BBF-B4B8-4DDC-BC65-7C469675C879@wheelwrightassoc.com> References: <1309928315.98701.YahooMailNeo@web45414.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <891506CB-4C5B-4F0F-B5D4-7DE17800ACC0@roadrunner.com>, <0C46EC02553CC14FBBA345FB73EFA05914F86554@EXCH03.hscnet.hsc.usf.edu> <88594BBF-B4B8-4DDC-BC65-7C469675C879@wheelwrightassoc.com> Message-ID: <3BD02D8A-EFCD-4A38-9346-A1E9FCC2824E@unm.edu> On Jul 6, 2011, at 10:48 , Timothy Smith wrote: > Once, on a deck at Green Gulch farm, I heard one of the senior monks tell a group of folks > who were fretting over the redwood's destruction, "Don't get too worked up about it, after all, the sun will > burn out in few billion years." I can see now that growing up with a geological father was a helpful preparation for becoming a Buddhist. He had a habit of putting every human concern into the context of what a flash in the pan the cenozoic era is, and what a minor event the formation of the planet earth is in the history of the Milky Way, and what a puny event the Milky Way is....well, you get the idea. It always worked to help me get over the inconvenience of my latest stubbed toe or failed romance. Richard From jkirk at spro.net Wed Jul 6 12:33:37 2011 From: jkirk at spro.net (JKirkpatrick) Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 12:33:37 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddhist Name Generator In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This great blog got me onto a lovely vimeo of skateboarders in Burma. Obligatroy Buddhist content: Burma is a Buddhist country. Not as how one would know it what with the rulers there......... http://vimeo.com/19780095 Joanna ------------------------ On Behalf Of Franz Metcalf Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 11:52 AM Hi all, Just found this almost utterly useless and yet chock-full-o'-Buddhist- content link: It comes courtesy of the great blog, . Cheers, Franz Metcalf aka Prince Vast Pure or, randomly, the much funnier The Boy Moon Brightness _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From franz at mind2mind.net Wed Jul 6 12:36:30 2011 From: franz at mind2mind.net (Franz Metcalf) Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 11:36:30 -0700 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddha's Meditation In-Reply-To: <3BD02D8A-EFCD-4A38-9346-A1E9FCC2824E@unm.edu> References: <1309928315.98701.YahooMailNeo@web45414.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <891506CB-4C5B-4F0F-B5D4-7DE17800ACC0@roadrunner.com>, <0C46EC02553CC14FBBA345FB73EFA05914F86554@EXCH03.hscnet.hsc.usf.edu> <88594BBF-B4B8-4DDC-BC65-7C469675C879@wheelwrightassoc.com> <3BD02D8A-EFCD-4A38-9346-A1E9FCC2824E@unm.edu> Message-ID: Gang, Richard's mention of the stars and his pain reminded me of the (mandatory Buddhist content) wisdom and compassion laden poem "The More Loving One" by W.H. Auden. I read the poem as an expression of a deep awareness of emptiness, and, in the face of this, a humble and yet potentially infinitely expanding compassion. Of course Auden was famously (or infamously, for some) a Christian convert, not at all a Buddhist. Still, would that more Christians--and Buddhists--were as humane as he! Boy ----- Looking up at the stars, I know quite well That, for all they care, I can go to hell, But on earth indifference is the least We have to dread from man or beast. How should we like it were stars to burn With a passion for us we could not return? If equal affection cannot be, Let the more loving one be me. Admirer as I think I am Of stars that do not give a damn, I cannot, now I see them, say I missed one terribly all day. Were all stars to disappear or die, I should learn to look at an empty sky And feel its total darkness sublime, Though this might take me a little time. From drbob at comcast.net Wed Jul 6 13:27:04 2011 From: drbob at comcast.net (bob Woolery) Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 12:27:04 -0700 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddha's Meditation In-Reply-To: <186FE2F8-2535-4198-8212-0F2AF98C6AFF@mind2mind.net> References: <1309928315.98701.YahooMailNeo@web45414.mail.sp1.yahoo.com><891506CB-4C5B-4F0F-B5D4-7DE17800ACC0@roadrunner.com> <186FE2F8-2535-4198-8212-0F2AF98C6AFF@mind2mind.net> Message-ID: I would expect that triumphalists would attribute their bias to the Founder. My very spotty reading of the Canon suggests that the Buddha considered what he taught to be a "see for yourself" thing, not dependent on God, Reincarnation, or Vegetarianism. Bob Woolery, DC stateoftheartchiro.com miraclechiro.com 326 deAnza dr. Vallejo, CA 94589 707 557 5471 -----Original Message----- From: buddha-l-bounces at mailman.swcp.com [mailto:buddha-l-bounces at mailman.swcp.com] On Behalf Of Franz Metcalf Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 10:38 AM To: Buddhist discussion forum Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] Buddha's Meditation Gang, I'm not answering Richard's question. But will that stop me from replying? Don't answer that question. Richard opined, > My guess is that if the saying does turn out to have a > Buddhist provenience, it is not used to promote religious > pluralism of the sort that R?mak???a and Vivek?nanda > advocated. Like the story of the blind men and the > elephant, as used by Buddhists, I'd guess the well > analogy would have a triumphalist purport. I agree. And, to the list of Buddhist triumphalist texts hidden in plain sight, I would add the locus classicus for supposed Buddhist scientific openness: the "Kalama Sutta." (For the text see .) In it, as we all remember, the Buddha does indeed call on people not to believe or follow religions (or anything paths) for reasons of myth, logic, respect, tradition, and so on. But he does not do this because he is open in some modern, scientific way to all evidence. Quite the opposite (in my reading, at least). He does this because he is entirely convinced of his own unfalsifiable experience! That, fellow beings, makes for a lovely religion, but it does not make for science. So, like the elephant story and the well story, we again see Buddhist triumphalism reaching right back to its founder. As if we should have expected something different? Good wishes nevertheless, Franz Metcalf _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1388 / Virus Database: 1516/3747 - Release Date: 07/06/11 From rhayes at unm.edu Wed Jul 6 13:51:21 2011 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 13:51:21 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddha's Meditation In-Reply-To: References: <1309928315.98701.YahooMailNeo@web45414.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <891506CB-4C5B-4F0F-B5D4-7DE17800ACC0@roadrunner.com> <186FE2F8-2535-4198-8212-0F2AF98C6AFF@mind2mind.net> Message-ID: On Jul 6, 2011, at 13:27, "bob Woolery" wrote: > My very spotty reading of the Canon suggests that the Buddha considered what he taught to be a "see for yourself" thing, not dependent on God, Reincarnation, or Vegetarianism. True enough, but if you didn't see for yourself exactly what the Buddha said you should see, you would be sent immediately to an optometrist to cure your faulty vision. As Franz has already pointed out, the science-friendly empiricist non-dogmatic pluralistic Pragmatist Buddhism that has taken the West by storm was a storm brewed in the West, not an Asian tempest. If Buddhism is a mirror, Westerners have seen their own faces in it and fallen in love with what they saw. RH From franz at mind2mind.net Wed Jul 6 14:38:00 2011 From: franz at mind2mind.net (Franz Metcalf) Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 13:38:00 -0700 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddha's Meditation In-Reply-To: References: <1309928315.98701.YahooMailNeo@web45414.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <891506CB-4C5B-4F0F-B5D4-7DE17800ACC0@roadrunner.com> <186FE2F8-2535-4198-8212-0F2AF98C6AFF@mind2mind.net> Message-ID: Gang, Since Richard brings up the metaphor, > If Buddhism is a mirror, Westerners have seen their > own faces in it and fallen in love with what they saw. (and since I seem to be going for a personal record for most buddha-l posts in a day), I quote Robert Sharf's conclusion to an important article he wrote now almost 20 years ago: ?Like Narcissus, [Western Buddhist] enthusiasts failed to recognize their own reflection in the [supposedly Buddhist] mirror being held out to them.? ----Robert H. Sharf, 1993. ?The Zen of Japanese Nationalism,? _History of Religions_, 33/1 (1993): 39. Luckily, as Huineng knew, there is no mirror. Timothy, a poem on this? Here, I'll be Shenxiu, you can be Huineng. Western civilization is the bodhi tree Our self-image is pure and perfect. At all times we must strive to export these, Always denying our own projections. Franz Metcalf From rhayes at unm.edu Wed Jul 6 15:03:21 2011 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 15:03:21 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddha's Meditation In-Reply-To: References: <1309928315.98701.YahooMailNeo@web45414.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <891506CB-4C5B-4F0F-B5D4-7DE17800ACC0@roadrunner.com> <186FE2F8-2535-4198-8212-0F2AF98C6AFF@mind2mind.net> Message-ID: On Jul 6, 2011, at 14:38 , Franz Metcalf wrote: > ?Like Narcissus, [Western Buddhist] enthusiasts failed to recognize > their own reflection in the [supposedly Buddhist] mirror being held > out to them.? > ----Robert H. Sharf, 1993. ?The Zen of Japanese Nationalism,? > _History of Religions_, 33/1 (1993): 39. This idea has occurred to many a Western scholar of Buddhism. In his lectures at the summer seminar in Buddhism at Bodhi Manda Zen Center in 1988, Bill Powell told about driving across Arizona from California to New Mexico. He saw a Navajo ceremony off in the distance and began speculating about what it was probably all about. As he was thinking, his focus suddenly shifted, and he saw his own reflection in the car window, superimposed upon the Navajo ceremony. That visual fluke reportedly jolted him into realizing that mostly what scholars of exotic cultures do is to see themselves and imagine they are seeing something from the outside that just happens to confirm most of their own cherished prejudices. But so what? Why would anyone expect things to be otherwise? Richard Hayes From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Wed Jul 6 15:35:47 2011 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 17:35:47 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddha's Meditation References: <1309928315.98701.YahooMailNeo@web45414.mail.sp1.yahoo.com><891506CB-4C5B-4F0F-B5D4-7DE17800ACC0@roadrunner.com><186FE2F8-2535-4198-8212-0F2AF98C6AFF@mind2mind.net> Message-ID: <014301cc3c24$ab9946a0$6600a8c0@Dan> Will someone distribute de-confusion-de-conflation pills to the fevered throng here? That Buddhists should think Buddhism is best is normal, not triumphalism. Please use words properly. An all too common strategy -- labeled viparyasa (literally -- turning something upside down) by Buddhism -- is to misidentify something by something else, and then condemn it for being that. One would think that Buddhists triumphally drove muslims from the Kush, central asia and India, rather than the other way around -- and wrote long epics and reports of how they did it. Oh, wait... that too was by muslims. Let's blame the victims. The eminent but thoroughly confused Dr. Hayes needs to explain why Buddhists include in the list of triyanas, pratyekabuddhas, viz. people who find enlightenment without exposure to or interaction with Buddhism. Sravakas, Pratyekabuddhas and Bodhisattvas. If I had a nickel for everytime that triad is mentioned in a Buddhist text I could retire today. No Buddhist should be proud of being Buddhist instead of being a relativist? But relativists should feel superior to Buddhists by making a virtue of being noncommital. Very healthy. That one almost inevitable byproduct of such viparyasa is to condone actual violence in the name of condemning violence is also evident. We can sleep better tonight knowing that redwoods, rhinoceroses < http://tinyurl.com/3retpjs >, Buddhists, and all other living things can be exterminated since planets and stars too don't last forever. What silly, fallacious reasoning. And how immoral. Maybe it is time to let this group die its death. There's been precious little Buddhism here for many years. Dan From sfeite at roadrunner.com Wed Jul 6 15:43:50 2011 From: sfeite at roadrunner.com (S.A. Feite) Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 17:43:50 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddha's Meditation In-Reply-To: <3BD02D8A-EFCD-4A38-9346-A1E9FCC2824E@unm.edu> References: <1309928315.98701.YahooMailNeo@web45414.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <891506CB-4C5B-4F0F-B5D4-7DE17800ACC0@roadrunner.com>, <0C46EC02553CC14FBBA345FB73EFA05914F86554@EXCH03.hscnet.hsc.usf.edu> <88594BBF-B4B8-4DDC-BC65-7C469675C879@wheelwrightassoc.com> <3BD02D8A-EFCD-4A38-9346-A1E9FCC2824E@unm.edu> Message-ID: <00F7100A-663D-44E5-88A0-6CC40C8C8408@roadrunner.com> On Jul 6, 2011, at 2:10 PM, Richard Hayes wrote: > I can see now that growing up with a geological father was a helpful preparation for becoming a Buddhist. He had a habit of putting every human concern into the context of what a flash in the pan the cenozoic era is, and what a minor event the formation of the planet earth is in the history of the Milky Way, and what a puny event the Milky Way is....well, you get the idea. It always worked to help me get over the inconvenience of my latest stubbed toe or failed romance. As a trained geologist I appreciate this POV. Of course, for you, it probably meant each family vacation was both a field trip and a appreciation of the ley of the land. It's a great way to grow up. From sfeite at roadrunner.com Wed Jul 6 18:02:45 2011 From: sfeite at roadrunner.com (S.A. Feite) Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 20:02:45 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddha's Meditation In-Reply-To: <014301cc3c24$ab9946a0$6600a8c0@Dan> References: <1309928315.98701.YahooMailNeo@web45414.mail.sp1.yahoo.com><891506CB-4C5B-4F0F-B5D4-7DE17800ACC0@roadrunner.com><186FE2F8-2535-4198-8212-0F2AF98C6AFF@mind2mind.net> <014301cc3c24$ab9946a0$6600a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: On Jul 6, 2011, at 5:35 PM, Dan Lusthaus wrote: > Will someone distribute de-confusion-de-conflation pills to the fevered > throng here? That Buddhists should think Buddhism is best is normal, not > triumphalism. Please use words properly. I do have to say, I associate the word "triumphalism" with bombastic Christianity off-shoots or post-Yiddish speaking Ashkenazim religious trends in America. Does it actually have *other* uses? From brburl at charter.net Wed Jul 6 20:06:38 2011 From: brburl at charter.net (Bruce Burrill) Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2011 21:06:38 -0500 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddha's Meditation In-Reply-To: References: <1309928315.98701.YahooMailNeo@web45414.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <891506CB-4C5B-4F0F-B5D4-7DE17800ACC0@roadrunner.com> <186FE2F8-2535-4198-8212-0F2AF98C6AFF@mind2mind.net> <014301cc3c24$ab9946a0$6600a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20110706210618.0602bbc8@charter.net> At 07:02 PM 7/6/2011, you wrote: >On Jul 6, 2011, at 5:35 PM, Dan Lusthaus wrote: > > > Will someone distribute de-confusion-de-conflation pills to the fevered > > throng here? That Buddhists should think Buddhism is best is normal, not > > triumphalism. Please use words properly. > > >I do have to say, I associate the word "triumphalism" with bombastic >Christianity off-shoots or post-Yiddish speaking Ashkenazim >religious trends in America. > >Does it actually have *other* uses? The Lotus Sutra. From franz at mind2mind.net Wed Jul 6 20:27:13 2011 From: franz at mind2mind.net (Franz Metcalf) Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 19:27:13 -0700 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddha's Meditation In-Reply-To: <014301cc3c24$ab9946a0$6600a8c0@Dan> References: <1309928315.98701.YahooMailNeo@web45414.mail.sp1.yahoo.com><891506CB-4C5B-4F0F-B5D4-7DE17800ACC0@roadrunner.com><186FE2F8-2535-4198-8212-0F2AF98C6AFF@mind2mind.net> <014301cc3c24$ab9946a0$6600a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: <998F5935-5217-4820-BF3E-52A831AACC14@mind2mind.net> Dan et al., (Now I really *have* set my personal record. Thanks, Dan, for the final push.) You know that scene in "Finding Nemo" where Dorrie calls Marlin a "Gloomy Gus"? (But also note which I was not aware of until just this minute.) That's what I thought of when I read your post. Still, you raise vital questions. I think that, as Bruce Burrill points out, The Lotus Sutra is triumphalist. But is the early layer of the suttas? Perhaps not in the sense that the Abrahamic scriptures demand followers to be. So should employ a different word for Buddhist self-pride? In the face of real relativist/universalist views, I don't think we can simply say such pride is "normal." Can we find a middle word here? Or, with a bit more nuance, wouldn't you agree that the point of the repeated mentions of "Sravakas, Pratyekabuddhas and Bodhisattvas" is to praise those beings (and Buddhas) who have *got it* when one else does? So perhaps we're talking about a kind of triumphalism not of Buddhism, but of awakening. That distinction might help. Oh, and I don't know about others, but, Dan, I promise that though I am aware that stars don't give a damn about me, and that the planet is doomed, I shall still try to be the more loving one. And that is, I hope, moral. So cheer up, Gloomy Gus! Franz From jkirk at spro.net Wed Jul 6 22:03:25 2011 From: jkirk at spro.net (JKirkpatrick) Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 22:03:25 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddha's Meditation In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20110706210618.0602bbc8@charter.net> References: <1309928315.98701.YahooMailNeo@web45414.mail.sp1.yahoo.com><891506CB-4C5B-4F0F-B5D4-7DE17800ACC0@roadrunner.com><186FE2F8-2535-4198-8212-0F2AF98C6AFF@mind2mind.net><014301cc3c24$ab9946a0$6600a8c0@Dan> <7.0.1.0.2.20110706210618.0602bbc8@charter.net> Message-ID: <0BC5BE82635B4FEEA22792D4F57D9340@OPTIPLEX> On Behalf Of Bruce Burrill Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 8:07 PM At 07:02 PM 7/6/2011, you wrote: >On Jul 6, 2011, at 5:35 PM, Dan Lusthaus wrote: > > > Will someone distribute de-confusion-de-conflation pills to the > > fevered throng here? That Buddhists should think Buddhism is best is > > normal, not triumphalism. Please use words properly. > > >Does it actually have *other* uses? The Lotus Sutra. --------------------- Amen to that, Bruce. Joanna _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From rhayes at unm.edu Wed Jul 6 23:07:55 2011 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 23:07:55 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddha's Meditation In-Reply-To: <998F5935-5217-4820-BF3E-52A831AACC14@mind2mind.net> References: <1309928315.98701.YahooMailNeo@web45414.mail.sp1.yahoo.com><891506CB-4C5B-4F0F-B5D4-7DE17800ACC0@roadrunner.com><186FE2F8-2535-4198-8212-0F2AF98C6AFF@mind2mind.net> <014301cc3c24$ab9946a0$6600a8c0@Dan> <998F5935-5217-4820-BF3E-52A831AACC14@mind2mind.net> Message-ID: <7005E956-D5EF-4C06-804C-29B6053AB9F8@unm.edu> On Jul 6, 2011, at 20:27 , Franz Metcalf wrote: > I think that, as Bruce Burrill points out, The Lotus Sutra > is triumphalist. But is the early layer of the suttas? Perhaps not in > the sense that the Abrahamic scriptures demand followers to be. So > should employ a different word for Buddhist self-pride? As far as I know, the term "triumphalism" gained currency during the time of the Second Vatican Council, where it was used as part of an apology that the Catholic church issued for its past behaviors. The term was defined rather carefully as the mistaken assumption that one's worldly triumphs were a reflection of spiritual superiority. In other words, Christians were indulging in triumphalism when they believed that their religion had prevailed in Europe and the Americas because of the spiritual superiority of Christians over pagans, while failing to realize that the victory of the conquistadores over the Apaches may have had something to do with gunpowder, horses, steel helmets and other technological advances that made it easier for them to satisfy their greedy desires than it was for the Apaches to satisfy theirs. Sangharakshita borrowed the term directly from the Second Vatican Council (or so he says) and applied it to some of the attitudes one finds in Buddhist literature, and he warns Buddhists to be careful not to take worldly achievements as signs of spiritual prowess. With that warning, he notes that Buddhists have historically exhibited triumphalism in various ways. Terms like "mah?y?na" are expressions of it. Even such words as "vipary?sa" (inverted view) exhibit an assumption that one is in a privileged position of superior insight from which one can deem everyone who sees things differently as delusional. I began using the term "triumphalism" after reading Sansgharakshita's writings on the subject, and I have used it in ways that he would probably not approve. The difference between me and Sangharakshita (aside from the fact that he has more hair and less belly fat) is that he is convinced that Buddhism IS superior in most important ways to Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and Christianity. So when he warns against triumphalism, he seems to be warning against making spurious and fatuous claims to superiority, as opposed to accurate and well-grounded claims. I disagree with him on that score, because I tend to see ANY claim to any kind of superiority as ipso facto spurious and fatuous. I think Buddhist teachings are pretty good much of the time, and I think that one can find ways of looking at almost any religion as being pretty good much of the time. This is a decidedly modern (or perhaps post-modern) way of being Buddhist, although I would claim that one can find adumbrations of this way of being Buddhist in the writings of some M?dhyamikas. Needless to say, I don't much care whether anyone agrees with me. Eschewing the version of triumphalism that I eschew has not hindered me in any ways that I can recognize. What I mean by that is that I am pretty much exactly the sort of person I hoped I would be when I began developing a taste for a particular approach to life. If I am not the sort of person that others wish I were, then I invite them to make modest adjustments in their expectations. > Oh, and I don't know about others, but, Dan, I promise that though I > am aware that stars don't give a damn about me, and that the planet is > doomed, I shall still try to be the more loving one. And that is, I > hope, moral. The device that my father taught me, which involved learning to see my own misfortunes as trivial in the greater scheme of things, has perhaps been a factor in my cheerful outlook on life (although credit may go to something else, such as my DNA). To teach one's child how not to feel sorry for himself is, I would say, profoundly moral, especially when it is accompanied by an insistence that one leave one's campsite cleaner than one found it and that one always listen to other people's stories with a sympathetic ear and refrain from being too quick to call them fools and scoundrels. I might add I also appreciate his advice to eat lots of raisins and other foods rich in irony. Richard Hayes Department of Philosophy University of New Mexico Albuquerque, NM From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Thu Jul 7 07:06:31 2011 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2011 09:06:31 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddha's Meditation References: <1309928315.98701.YahooMailNeo@web45414.mail.sp1.yahoo.com><891506CB-4C5B-4F0F-B5D4-7DE17800ACC0@roadrunner.com><186FE2F8-2535-4198-8212-0F2AF98C6AFF@mind2mind.net><014301cc3c24$ab9946a0$6600a8c0@Dan><998F5935-5217-4820-BF3E-52A831AACC14@mind2mind.net> <7005E956-D5EF-4C06-804C-29B6053AB9F8@unm.edu> Message-ID: <02df01cc3ca6$b17c8ff0$6600a8c0@Dan> Richard writes: >Even such words as "vipary?sa" (inverted view) exhibit an assumption that >one is in a privileged position of superior insight from which one can deem >everyone who sees things differently as delusional. On the contrary, vipary?sa points to taking something as the opposite of what it is, perpetrating a "reversal" (another way to translate vipary?sa). It is an evident quality of the reversal itself, not a byproduct of the ego of an onlooker. To claim that duhkha is sukha, what is impermanent is permanent, etc. (the classical vipary?sas), or that one has to die to get eternal life (to move westward), and so on, are self-evident viparyasas. No self-privileging is necessary, unless Prof. Hayes is claiming that it takes "superior insight" to notice the obvious. That gives short shrift to basic human intelligence. Most of us can tell when someone is standing on their feet, and when they are upside-down (vipary?sa) having turned things on their head. It's an observation, not a verdict. The word triumphalism -- formed by taking the adjectival form "triumphal" of the noun/verb "triumph" and making it an -ism -- has an interesting history. The -ism suffix probably was annexed during Vatican II (it apparently enters the language in the early '60s), but the *Roman* Catholic Church selected that word with a full cognizance of its history, connotations and implications: The Triumphal was a Roman ritual, parading the spoils of one's victories over those the Roman legions beat down and conquered. It could be held on the return of the victorious troops, or enacted periodically, with parades, etc., to celebrate the basic Roman ?lan of conquering and subjugating the rest of the world to Roman rule and hegemony. Triumph has distinct military denotations, as did the ritual of the Triumphal (when it was still a noun). It is not just a substitute term for hubris, chauvenism, snobbery, nor simply a feeling of superiority, etc., though the triumphalist may very well also exhibit those qualities (they probably also have toes and fingers, but we wouldn't confuse that with their triumphalism). "Triumph" has figuratively been extended to non-military uses, but without losing that dimension entirely. The Wikipedia definition is better than some dictionaries, since it is the second half of the definition there that is essential for something to be triumphalist, rather than mere chauvenism: "The attitude or belief that a particular doctrine, culture, or social system, particularly a religious or political one, is superior and that it will or should triumph over all others." To wit: "...AND that it will or should triumph over all others." Religions that put emphasis on conversion (ergo missionaries, conquest, hegemony, etc.) run the risk of triumphalism (Christians and Muslims competing for the "souls" of Africans, for instance), since they are competing for body/soul count. Triumphalism has a secondary meaning: "excessive celebration of the defeat of one's enemies or opponents" (Collins English Dictionary) Key word: "celebration" -- which harks back to the Roman Triumphal. "Defeat" retains the military connotations. Buddhism, as the third of the three global "missionary" religions displays remarkably little of such triumphalistic elements, though they are not absent entirely (an occasional fist-pump is good for the endocrine system). And while it too retains some militaristic vocabulary, albeit sublimated (e.g., calling Buddha the Jina, "Conqueror" -- though he conquers Mara and the asavas, and doesn't put heathens or infidels to death), it never sent out Buddhist armies to conquer the world by the sword. Since Franz found my previous message gloomy, here's an old joke taking a poke at triumphalism. Person X dies, is greeted at the Pearly Gates by St. Peter, who gives him a guided tour of heaven. "And here are the music clouds" (people in white robes stroking their harps), "and here are..." [and so on] Eventually they come to a high brick wall, and Peter puts his fingers to his lips and signals X to shhhh. They tiptoe along the wall, and once they are distance from it, X asks Peter: "What was that all about? Why did we have to be so quiet?" Peter replies: "That's where the Catholics are. They think they're the only ones here." You can substitute whichever triumphalists you wish for Catholics. The Triumphalist is one who thinks, when armageddon comes, his side alone will be victorious, his group alone will remain standing. Some of the criticism within the evangelical Christian community of "triumphalism" is not a rejection of that apocalyptic scenario -- that's taken for granted -- but rather of celebrating it prematurely. http://www.enjoyinggodministries.com/article/the-dangers-of-triumphalism-2-cor-214/ Or even that its current manifestation is not sufficiently substantial: http://nearemmaus.wordpress.com/2011/01/28/timothy-g-gombis-against-triumphalism/ It is not only intolerant or nonaccepting on some level of the Other, it actively seeks to eliminate all Others, so that a day comes when there are no Others. A teleological monism of sorts, with a violent underbelly, and often overt violence, violence done in the name of eliminating the other simply because they are Other (e.g., Sunnis killing Shiites, and vice versa). The "Triumphalism" Vatican II was trying to distance itself from goes back at least to Augustine, who famously said of certain groups that wouldn't convert ("see the light") they should be killed. That, dear friends, is triumphalism. That is not a mainstream Buddhist attitude. The version Richard cited -- material success as a sign of divine favor, etc. -- is Calvinist (double predestination, etc.), not Catholic, and Protestants are not without their militaristic, repressive triumphalisms as well. > learning to see my own misfortunes as trivial in the greater scheme of > things That's nice. Another way to do it is to see that there is greater misfortune suffered by others that requires attention and correction, rather than becoming sanguine about extinctions, pollutions, mass killing of civilians, or blinding oneself as to the important difference between decimator and decimated. In the larger scheme of things (assuming a very wide frame of reference) it makes no difference at all whether any murderers are ever brought to justice (though society will be a mess to live in), since the planet will be gone one day, without a meaningful trace. But it does make a vital and crucial difference if you or your descendents happen to live in one of those unruly societies. Of course, rather than worry about any of that, you can always chop down a redwood, reminding yourself it was just living on borrowed time, geologically speaking. Universalism and relativism are intrinsically immoral, while justifying themselves to themselves as adopting those positions in the name of morality. Ergo vipary?sa. Dan From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Thu Jul 7 07:57:36 2011 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2011 09:57:36 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddha's Meditation References: <1309928315.98701.YahooMailNeo@web45414.mail.sp1.yahoo.com><891506CB-4C5B-4F0F-B5D4-7DE17800ACC0@roadrunner.com><186FE2F8-2535-4198-8212-0F2AF98C6AFF@mind2mind.net><014301cc3c24$ab9946a0$6600a8c0@Dan> <998F5935-5217-4820-BF3E-52A831AACC14@mind2mind.net> Message-ID: <02e401cc3cad$d3ee7290$6600a8c0@Dan> Franz, > You know that scene in "Finding Nemo" where 'fraid not. Never seen it. Sorry. >I think that, as Bruce Burrill points out, The Lotus Sutra > is triumphalist. I enjoy the first half of the Lotus (the upaya stuff). The second half makes my skin crawl and strikes me as about as unbuddhist as a text can be. Says something about Mahayana that this text gets so much attention. Note that in China it is one school alone which gives it preeminence -- Tiantai. In Korea the Lotus never received that preeminence -- they've heaped that esteem on the Awakening of Faith. It is Japan -- which has its own issues, historically and currently, with militancy and triumphalism -- that made it the premier Mahayana scripture. Nichiren clearly was a triumphalist of sorts. >But is the early layer of the suttas? Perhaps not in > the sense that the Abrahamic scriptures demand followers to be. So > should employ a different word for Buddhist self-pride? In the face of > real relativist/universalist views, I don't think we can simply say > such pride is "normal." You are assuming that relativism/universalism is the preferred default position which supplies the criterion by which everything else is to be evaluated. I don't. Both are insidious and dangerous. >Can we find a middle word here? Call "pride" pride. A Buddhist who doesn't think Buddhism is providing something not found elsewhere has no reason to be a Buddhist, and should stop being one immediately. Hence it is "normal" for a Buddhist to value Buddhism more highly than other traditions. What attitude a Buddhist (or anyone else) takes toward OTHER religions is a separate question. Don't conflate them. Some religions want to actively exterminate the competition. That smacks of triumphalism. Others are more tolerant. There are degrees of tolerance. Muslims accept "people of the Book" as legitimate, and have extended honorary status of "people of the Book" to Plato and Aristotle, and Hindus (Jews and Christians were its original referent). But that "tolerance" has an uneasy and some may think unseemly history and reality, e.g., dhimmi status. These days it is not dangerous to be a non-Muslim in certain places, it is dangerous to be the wrong kind of Muslim. Vatican II was an expression of the realization that the age of imperial conquest, and thus missionaries backed by military force, was over. The strategy shifted to "interreligious dialogue", a less compulsive form of persuasion to conversion (beginning with the denial that that is its telos). As Christian militant conversion declines, Islamic militant hegemony-seeking increases to fill the international void. These are obviously simplistic, broad-stroke sketches -- the reality is more nuanced, varied, and complex, but there are generalizable attitudes toward the Other that one can easily discover in the history of each, and tracking that against the varying degrees of prominence of triumphalism in both would illuminate some of the nuances -- a task for a different e-list. > Or, with a bit more nuance, wouldn't you agree that the point of the > repeated mentions of "Sravakas, Pratyekabuddhas and Bodhisattvas" is > to praise those beings (and Buddhas) who have *got it* when one else > does? I think you are missing the absolutely extraordinary implications of including Pratyekabuddhas on that list. It is a Mahayana list (though Pali texts have a good deal to say about paccekabuddhas as well), so it consequent discussions the bodhisattva -- representing the mahayana ideal -- is assigned the higher, preferred status. But the pratyekas are NON-Buddhists. They are an OTHER. And while there are legendary stories in the classical literature of this or that pratyekabuddha, this is not a category indicating some contemporary individuals or groups who need to be acknowledged in accepting terms for sociological or cultural reasons. The category means that one does not have to be a Buddhist to figure out what causes duhkha and how to eliminate it, nor to overcome ignorance and samsara. What is to be "gotten", to use your term, is not something "buddhist", but something that is the case for any sentient being. No "Jesus is the only way", or even revelation from something/someone else. Simply figuring it out. One derivation of the word associates it with pratyaya, "conditions", so it is simply figuring out the "causes and conditions" by oneself (eka, "one," alone). Which other religion has a comparable category? Muslims have people of the book, but as mentioned, that is a problematic status. Jews have the Noahide laws (google it), so that righteous gentiles are just fine -- unlike Christians and Muslims, Jews are not intent on converting anyone, much less the whole world, to Judaism, and don't consider non-Jews condemned or damned or any other such silliness. Other can go about believing and doing whatever they want, although ethical behavior -- since that impacts others -- is important; the only thing that really concerns Jews about non-Jews, the only request they make, is to not kill or persecute Jews. As 2000 years of history clearly shows up to the present day, despite all the self-proclaimed moralisms of other religions, that humble request is always asking too much. Universalist/relativists can accept all other religions, as long as they acknowledge that the best of their tradition is the universalist/relativism of some sort of perennial philosophy that transcends their particularity. Only the particularity of universalism (and it is a particular among others) is superior enough in vision to recognize that. >So perhaps we're talking about a kind of triumphalism not of > Buddhism, but of awakening. That distinction might help. No, it continues the misconstrual. Triumphalism is not simply the idea that I or my group is right about something -- Heaven forbid anyone should realize they are right about something! -- but the expectation, actively pursued, or earnestly anticipated, that my group will vanquish all opposition, kill off the foes. > I shall still try to be the more loving one. And that is, I > hope, moral. yes, but self-contradictory. If it doesn't ultimately matter whether a redwood or rhinoceros lives or dies, then one can love it as one extinguishes it. When the Cistern monk Arnaud (or Arnau) Amalric advised a soldier who wondered how to distinguish Catholics (the good guys) from the Cathars (bad guys) to "Kill them all. For the Lord knows them that are His," [otherwise rendered: Kill them all, let God sort them out (Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius)] he too thought his advice was moral with the sanction of the highest moral authority. And an expresion of God's divine love. Dan From joy.vriens at gmail.com Thu Jul 7 08:26:40 2011 From: joy.vriens at gmail.com (Joy Vriens) Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2011 16:26:40 +0200 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddha's Meditation In-Reply-To: <186FE2F8-2535-4198-8212-0F2AF98C6AFF@mind2mind.net> References: <1309928315.98701.YahooMailNeo@web45414.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <891506CB-4C5B-4F0F-B5D4-7DE17800ACC0@roadrunner.com> <186FE2F8-2535-4198-8212-0F2AF98C6AFF@mind2mind.net> Message-ID: <150501cc3cb1$e44a3c10$acdeb430$@gmail.com> Hi Franz and "gang", I agree. And, to the list of Buddhist triumphalist texts hidden in plain sight, I would add the locus classicus for supposed Buddhist scientific openness: the "Kalama Sutta." (For the text see .) In it, as we all remember, the Buddha does indeed call on people not to believe or follow religions (or anything paths) for reasons of myth, logic, respect, tradition, and so on. But he does not do this because he is open in some modern, scientific way to all evidence. Quite the opposite (in my reading, at least). He does this because he is entirely convinced of his own unfalsifiable experience! That, fellow beings, makes for a lovely religion, but it does not make for science. So, like the elephant story and the well story, we again see Buddhist triumphalism reaching right back to its founder. As if we should have expected something different? "Of course you are uncertain, Kalamas. Of course you are in doubt. When there are reasons for doubt, uncertainty is born. So in this case, Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.' When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering' ? then you should abandon them." "He keeps pervading the first direction ? as well as the second direction, the third, & the fourth ? with an awareness imbued with [the four bramavihaaras]. Thus he keeps pervading above, below, & all around, everywhere & in every respect the all-encompassing cosmos with an awareness imbued with [the four bramavihaaras]: abundant, expansive, immeasurable, free from hostility, free from ill will." "One who is a disciple of the noble ones ? his mind thus free from hostility, free from ill will, undefiled, & pure ? acquires these four assurances in the here-&-now." My reading of the Kalama sutta is different. What I believe the Buddha is saying here is "not through the so-called valid cognitions (pramaa.na)...". All the four most common paramaa.nas are included in his list of "don't go by...". The Buddha also said about pramaa.na : ?One who has reached the end has no criterion (pamaa.na) by which anyone would say that ? for him it doesn't exist. When all phenomena are done away with, all means of speaking are done away with as well.? Snp 5.6 "Go by" in order to go where? In the here-&-now, which is a mind free from hostility, free from ill will, undefiled, & pure. A mind that doesn't need to be validated through anything else. Self evident and unfalsifiable. Does it need to be proved, can it be proved through science or other valid cognitions? Who cares? Probably not the noble one with his mind free from hostility, free from ill will, undefiled, & pure. Joy From bshmr at aol.com Thu Jul 7 08:48:38 2011 From: bshmr at aol.com (Richard Basham) Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2011 08:48:38 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddha's Meditation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1310050118.18242.42.camel@aims110> RH & Not-RH, Seems to me the following bears repeating as it seems an admirable aspiration and practice: > Needless to say, I don't much care whether anyone agrees with me. > Eschewing the version of triumphalism that I eschew has not hindered > me in any ways that I can recognize. What I mean by that is that I am > pretty much exactly the sort of person I hoped I would be when I began > developing a taste for a particular approach to life. If I am not the > sort of person that others wish I were, then I invite them to make > modest adjustments in their expectations. Certainly living by that creed is less conflict-prone and less suffering than those grasping at bodhisattva-hood by insisting others perform. As for myself, I struggle almost daily (too often) it seems, even screaming at objects that fall to the floor and scurry to hide among 'dust bunnies' beyond my unaided reach. So many ignore my self-pleasing fantasies of them. All I can do is remind myself to be aware and be responsive as required, a challenging and humbling task at times. Sometimes the suffering is more, sometimes less, with persons or peoples . Buddhist introspection and perspective does seem to help. Doesn't it ? Richard Basham PS to Dan: I sent, to you, my entire supply of those 'de-confusion-de-conflation' pills , including the placebos last time. Did you donate them to charity to gain merit instead ? From Jackhat1 at aol.com Thu Jul 7 09:12:42 2011 From: Jackhat1 at aol.com (Jackhat1 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2011 11:12:42 EDT Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddha's Meditation Message-ID: <5fe5.7b144a90.3b4726ea@aol.com> My view is that Buddhism is not dogma, rites or rituals but a collection of techniques to alleviate suffering. These techniques are practiced by some people and are successful. They are not practiced by other people and/or are not successful. Arguing about them is like arguing about the best way to hold a putter in golf. If it works, it works. If not, it doesn't. jack From rhayes at unm.edu Thu Jul 7 10:51:09 2011 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2011 10:51:09 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Universalism? Message-ID: <4CB3DB39-5091-458B-9441-E4D03C12E782@unm.edu> I'm not sure how universalism got into this discussion. There has been some talk of pluralism, but I don't recall anyone advocating universalism recently on this forum. Despite that, it has come to be designated as dangerous and intrinsically immoral. That, of course, has been the position of the Roman Catholic Church and most Protestant denominations for years. Universalism, also known as apokatastasis, is the theological doctrine that all beings are destined to be saved. As a Christian doctrine, it has emerged at various times as the logical conclusion to be drawn from the premisses that God is fully benevolent and omnipotent and that ultimately no one anywhere will be able to resist God's unconditional love, and so everyone, including Satan and all the demons of hell, will ultimately be reconciled with God. Some have claimed that the doctrine was widely held in the patristic era, but this claim has been disputed. Perhaps it is best to leave it to experts in the literature of the early church fathers to settle that dispute. It is well out of my area of expertise. Universalism made its presence felt in the 17th century in England and had a following in New England in the 17th and 18th centuries. There was a Universalist denomination, which attracted mostly farmers and uneducated artisans. It was widely criticized by Unitarians (at the center of whose universe was Harvard University), by Presbyterians, and by Roman Catholics. The principal complaint against the doctrine has been that it undermines morality, because if the doctrine is true, then miscreants and non-believers (such as Jews and Buddhists) won't be condemned to eternal punishment for their stiff-necked folly. The reasoning seems to be that if evil-doers are not punished, then they'll have no reason not to do evil, and if wrong-thinkers are not punished, they'll never have any reason to learn to think aright. In response to this criticism, some Universalists held the view that some people would be punished in the afterlife for a period of time commensurate with the gravity of their evil deeds and folly, and then would be fully reconciled with God. Others stuck to the view that with the second coming of Christ, all sinners would immediately be reconciled with God without an intervening period of punishment. As everyone knows, in the 1960s the Unitarians and Universalists joined together to form a single denomination, the Unitarian-Universalists. That made it easier for trinitarian Christians, who hated Unitarians, and Presbyterians, who feared that all hell would break loose if reprobates were not guaranteed an eternity of damnation, to focus all their attention on a single dangerously evil target and to blame all the world's problems on Harvard University and to become feverishly enthusiastic about Michele Bachmann as a presidential candidate. Not only members of the Universalist denomination were universalists, of course. One finds some Quakers, some Congregationalists, some Pentecostals and some evangelicals who also subscribe to doctrine of apokatastasis. (In the interest of full disclosure, I come from a long line of apokatastatic Congregationalist ministers, so be warned that my genetic and cultural heritage might undermine your morality if you agree with anything I say.) Given that universalism is a doctrine having to do with the problematic of being alienated from God and is an attempt to respond to some of the criticisms leveled by Hume and others against the notion that an omnipotent and omniscient God whose essence is love would never allow anyone to face eternal damnation, I am not sure how the doctrine would have to be modified to suit an essentially atheistic religion such as Buddhism. What on earth would a Buddhist universalist look like? Any ideas? I guess perhaps the Lank?vat?ra S?tra could be seen as advocating something akin to universalism. In that text we learn of icchantikas, beings so depraved that they cannot even form the aspiration to follow the dharma, and we also learn that for every icchantika there is an icchantika-bodhisattva, who will never give up in her efforts to bring the icchantika back to his senses. And some passages in the Saddharmapu??ar?ka might offer a Buddhist version of some kind of inevitable reconciliation of all sentient beings with the True Dharma. After all, all those beings who will surely to to hell according to the Lotus Sutra will stay in hell only for a few incalculable aeons, but eventually ??kyamuni will win them all over to the True Dharma. Perhaps that is what Buddhist apokatastasis might look like. At least one fellow who contributes regularly to the Unitarian-Universalist Buddhist Fellowship discussion group is a Nichiren Buddhist who reads the Lotus Sutra in this way. Richard Hayes Department of Philosophy University of New Mexico Albuquerque, NM From jkirk at spro.net Thu Jul 7 11:32:09 2011 From: jkirk at spro.net (JKirkpatrick) Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2011 11:32:09 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddha's Meditation In-Reply-To: <02df01cc3ca6$b17c8ff0$6600a8c0@Dan> References: <1309928315.98701.YahooMailNeo@web45414.mail.sp1.yahoo.com><891506CB-4C5B-4F0F-B5D4-7DE17800ACC0@roadrunner.com><186FE2F8-2535-4198-8212-0F2AF98C6AFF@mind2mind.net><014301cc3c24$ab9946a0$6600a8c0@Dan><998F5935-5217-4820-BF3E-52A831AACC14@mind2mind.net><7005E956-D5EF-4C06-804C-29B6053AB9F8@unm.edu> <02df01cc3ca6$b17c8ff0$6600a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: <8073D868A84E46729FEAAD42328652E5@OPTIPLEX> "Of course, rather than worry about any of that, you can always chop down a redwood, reminding yourself it was just living on borrowed time, geologically speaking." Or, as Ronald Reagan once said, as a move to allow clear-cutting of the west coast redwoods, "You've seen one, you've seen 'em all." He, like most of the pols we've been inflicted with -- except maybe for Dennis Kucinich -- was a typical military-industrial triumphalist. And a Protestant version, married to an astro-aficionada who ran the government when he became senile. Obligatory content: Dennis K. probably is a Buddhist or at least he acts like one. Because of that, both parties are working hard to get rid of him. Joanna From smith at wheelwrightassoc.com Thu Jul 7 11:53:47 2011 From: smith at wheelwrightassoc.com (Timothy Smith) Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2011 10:53:47 -0700 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddha's Meditation In-Reply-To: <014301cc3c24$ab9946a0$6600a8c0@Dan> References: <1309928315.98701.YahooMailNeo@web45414.mail.sp1.yahoo.com><891506CB-4C5B-4F0F-B5D4-7DE17800ACC0@roadrunner.com><186FE2F8-2535-4198-8212-0F2AF98C6AFF@mind2mind.net> <014301cc3c24$ab9946a0$6600a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: I didn't, even for a cosmological minute, think he was saying it was ok for things to be exterminated. Rather, it seemed clear enough to me that he was admonishing the assembly to act as they saw fit concerning the redwoods, but to act with non-attachment, thus lessening their suffering as Pacific Lumber's dozers lumbered by. Timothy Smith Office/Mobile 831.624.8138 Fax 831.659-5112 www.wheelwrightassoc.com On Jul 6, 2011, at 2:35 PM, Dan Lusthaus wrote: > > We can sleep better tonight knowing that redwoods, rhinoceroses > < http://tinyurl.com/3retpjs >, Buddhists, and all other living things can > be exterminated since planets and stars too don't last forever. What silly, > fallacious reasoning. And how immoral. > > From jkirk at spro.net Thu Jul 7 11:55:25 2011 From: jkirk at spro.net (JKirkpatrick) Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2011 11:55:25 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddha's Meditation In-Reply-To: <02e401cc3cad$d3ee7290$6600a8c0@Dan> References: <1309928315.98701.YahooMailNeo@web45414.mail.sp1.yahoo.com><891506CB-4C5B-4F0F-B5D4-7DE17800ACC0@roadrunner.com><186FE2F8-2535-4198-8212-0F2AF98C6AFF@mind2mind.net><014301cc3c24$ab9946a0$6600a8c0@Dan><998F5935-5217-4820-BF3E-52A831AACC14@mind2mind.net> <02e401cc3cad$d3ee7290$6600a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: <95C6C0C971474015A001C3B9DFB64EDC@OPTIPLEX> " If it doesn't ultimately matter whether a redwood or rhinoceros lives or dies, then one can love it as one extinguishes it." This doesn't work. Restated as, "If it proximately matters whether a redwood etc lives or dies, then (because we live within proximate rather than in ultimate conditions within the span of our and other contemporaries' lives) one has a moral choice to love it and try to preserve it. As usual, I object to the application of ultimacy to any conundrum. Joanna -----Original Message----- From: buddha-l-bounces at mailman.swcp.com [mailto:buddha-l-bounces at mailman.swcp.com] On Behalf Of Dan Lusthaus Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 7:58 AM To: Buddhist discussion forum Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] Buddha's Meditation Franz, > You know that scene in "Finding Nemo" where 'fraid not. Never seen it. Sorry. >I think that, as Bruce Burrill points out, The Lotus Sutra is >triumphalist. I enjoy the first half of the Lotus (the upaya stuff). The second half makes my skin crawl and strikes me as about as unbuddhist as a text can be. Says something about Mahayana that this text gets so much attention. Note that in China it is one school alone which gives it preeminence -- Tiantai. In Korea the Lotus never received that preeminence -- they've heaped that esteem on the Awakening of Faith. It is Japan -- which has its own issues, historically and currently, with militancy and triumphalism -- that made it the premier Mahayana scripture. Nichiren clearly was a triumphalist of sorts. >But is the early layer of the suttas? Perhaps not in the sense that >the Abrahamic scriptures demand followers to be. So should employ a >different word for Buddhist self-pride? In the face of real >relativist/universalist views, I don't think we can simply say such >pride is "normal." You are assuming that relativism/universalism is the preferred default position which supplies the criterion by which everything else is to be evaluated. I don't. Both are insidious and dangerous. >Can we find a middle word here? Call "pride" pride. A Buddhist who doesn't think Buddhism is providing something not found elsewhere has no reason to be a Buddhist, and should stop being one immediately. Hence it is "normal" for a Buddhist to value Buddhism more highly than other traditions. What attitude a Buddhist (or anyone else) takes toward OTHER religions is a separate question. Don't conflate them. Some religions want to actively exterminate the competition. That smacks of triumphalism. Others are more tolerant. There are degrees of tolerance. Muslims accept "people of the Book" as legitimate, and have extended honorary status of "people of the Book" to Plato and Aristotle, and Hindus (Jews and Christians were its original referent). But that "tolerance" has an uneasy and some may think unseemly history and reality, e.g., dhimmi status. These days it is not dangerous to be a non-Muslim in certain places, it is dangerous to be the wrong kind of Muslim. Vatican II was an expression of the realization that the age of imperial conquest, and thus missionaries backed by military force, was over. The strategy shifted to "interreligious dialogue", a less compulsive form of persuasion to conversion (beginning with the denial that that is its telos). As Christian militant conversion declines, Islamic militant hegemony-seeking increases to fill the international void. These are obviously simplistic, broad-stroke sketches -- the reality is more nuanced, varied, and complex, but there are generalizable attitudes toward the Other that one can easily discover in the history of each, and tracking that against the varying degrees of prominence of triumphalism in both would illuminate some of the nuances -- a task for a different e-list. > Or, with a bit more nuance, wouldn't you agree that the point of the > repeated mentions of "Sravakas, Pratyekabuddhas and Bodhisattvas" is > to praise those beings (and Buddhas) who have *got it* when one else > does? I think you are missing the absolutely extraordinary implications of including Pratyekabuddhas on that list. It is a Mahayana list (though Pali texts have a good deal to say about paccekabuddhas as well), so it consequent discussions the bodhisattva -- representing the mahayana ideal -- is assigned the higher, preferred status. But the pratyekas are NON-Buddhists. They are an OTHER. And while there are legendary stories in the classical literature of this or that pratyekabuddha, this is not a category indicating some contemporary individuals or groups who need to be acknowledged in accepting terms for sociological or cultural reasons. The category means that one does not have to be a Buddhist to figure out what causes duhkha and how to eliminate it, nor to overcome ignorance and samsara. What is to be "gotten", to use your term, is not something "buddhist", but something that is the case for any sentient being. No "Jesus is the only way", or even revelation from something/someone else. Simply figuring it out. One derivation of the word associates it with pratyaya, "conditions", so it is simply figuring out the "causes and conditions" by oneself (eka, "one," alone). Which other religion has a comparable category? Muslims have people of the book, but as mentioned, that is a problematic status. Jews have the Noahide laws (google it), so that righteous gentiles are just fine -- unlike Christians and Muslims, Jews are not intent on converting anyone, much less the whole world, to Judaism, and don't consider non-Jews condemned or damned or any other such silliness. Other can go about believing and doing whatever they want, although ethical behavior -- since that impacts others -- is important; the only thing that really concerns Jews about non-Jews, the only request they make, is to not kill or persecute Jews. As 2000 years of history clearly shows up to the present day, despite all the self-proclaimed moralisms of other religions, that humble request is always asking too much. Universalist/relativists can accept all other religions, as long as they acknowledge that the best of their tradition is the universalist/relativism of some sort of perennial philosophy that transcends their particularity. Only the particularity of universalism (and it is a particular among others) is superior enough in vision to recognize that. >So perhaps we're talking about a kind of triumphalism not of Buddhism, >but of awakening. That distinction might help. No, it continues the misconstrual. Triumphalism is not simply the idea that I or my group is right about something -- Heaven forbid anyone should realize they are right about something! -- but the expectation, actively pursued, or earnestly anticipated, that my group will vanquish all opposition, kill off the foes. > I shall still try to be the more loving one. And that is, I hope, > moral. yes, but self-contradictory. If it doesn't ultimately matter whether a redwood or rhinoceros lives or dies, then one can love it as one extinguishes it. When the Cistern monk Arnaud (or Arnau) Amalric advised a soldier who wondered how to distinguish Catholics (the good guys) from the Cathars (bad guys) to "Kill them all. For the Lord knows them that are His," [otherwise rendered: Kill them all, let God sort them out (Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius)] he too thought his advice was moral with the sanction of the highest moral authority. And an expresion of God's divine love. Dan _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From jkirk at spro.net Thu Jul 7 12:07:59 2011 From: jkirk at spro.net (JKirkpatrick) Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2011 12:07:59 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddha's Meditation In-Reply-To: <5fe5.7b144a90.3b4726ea@aol.com> References: <5fe5.7b144a90.3b4726ea@aol.com> Message-ID: This is the way I deal, too. Buddhism for me is also a topic, a study of historical importance and value, it has historiographies, critiques, arts, etc. Since destiny put me into academic shoes and occupations, I love reading and discovering what this field has to offer in many different ways. Joanna ------------------------ My view is that Buddhism is not dogma, rites or rituals but a collection of techniques to alleviate suffering. These techniques are practiced by some people and are successful. They are not practiced by other people and/or are not successful. Arguing about them is like arguing about the best way to hold a putter in golf. If it works, it works. If not, it doesn't. jack _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Thu Jul 7 12:56:47 2011 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2011 14:56:47 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Universalism? References: <4CB3DB39-5091-458B-9441-E4D03C12E782@unm.edu> Message-ID: <039a01cc3cd7$9fd98650$6600a8c0@Dan> > I'm not sure how universalism got into this discussion. It started with the example of digging holes, some only shallow, but one deep, with the pluralistic implication that any of those holes, if dug deep enough, would hit the same or comparable paydirt. That "same or comparable" paydirt is universalism. The term "universalism" has been used for a long time to refer to a much broader spectrum of ideas than the Universalist Church (which attends dances with the Unitarians from time to time). Universalism holds that universals are true and real, and that a universal is more valuable, truer, more real, etc., than particulars and particularity (and would be quick to point out that the idea of "particularity" is itself a universal). When generally and broadly applied to religions, it is the idea that there is a universal truth at the heart / core / bottom / top / wherever of each religion, and, since there is only one ultimate universal (call it God, Allah, Buddha-nature, Dao, Brahman, whatever) it must be the same universal in each of them, though most of the dummies in each religion are too dense to recognize it as such beyond superficial concessions. Hence the need for Guru Nanaks, Madame Blavatsys, Edward Conzes and sundry other perennialists (the true and ultimate universal is also eternal, don't you know?). It is from that assumption that ideas of universal salvation can be derived. These universalists congratulate themselves of being generous to all other religions, granting them possession of the most important thing, whether the other religions are aware of it themselves or not. It is, of course, a very patronizing -- and ultimately distortive -- generosity. It subsumes all others, whether they wish to be subsumed on those terms or not. Dan From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Thu Jul 7 13:04:42 2011 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2011 15:04:42 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddha's Meditation References: <1309928315.98701.YahooMailNeo@web45414.mail.sp1.yahoo.com><891506CB-4C5B-4F0F-B5D4-7DE17800ACC0@roadrunner.com><186FE2F8-2535-4198-8212-0F2AF98C6AFF@mind2mind.net><014301cc3c24$ab9946a0$6600a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: <03a101cc3cd8$ba8d80e0$6600a8c0@Dan> >I didn't, even for a cosmological minute, think he was saying it was ok for >things to be exterminated. Timothy Smith Timothy, I never said he did. I indicated that it was unavoidable consequence of that line of thinking, and can only be contravened by bringing in a different line of thinking, which I presume Richard and most folks would do in most cases -- though when I've asked the vegetarians among us to raise their hands, there are lots of cutsey alibis for why chewing on the flesh of exterminated beings is not a practice to be given up. > Rather, it seemed clear enough to me that he was admonishing the assembly > to act as they saw fit > concerning the redwoods, but to act with non-attachment, thus lessening > their suffering ... Who is the "their" in that last phrase? The redwood's suffering, or the "assembly's"? Kill with non-attachment. You've made my point. In an earlier thread some while back, Richard said as much about vegetarianism, up to the point of saying that eating meat with non-attachment is preferable to being attached to vegetarianism... showing a good deal of self-centered concern for one's own narcissistic attitudes for which flesh-and-blood animals -- or redwoods -- are only conceptual props... Sorry, Timothy, that's immoral and dishonest in my book, especially when trussed up as a superior moral stance. Dan From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Thu Jul 7 13:06:15 2011 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2011 15:06:15 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddha's Meditation References: <1309928315.98701.YahooMailNeo@web45414.mail.sp1.yahoo.com><891506CB-4C5B-4F0F-B5D4-7DE17800ACC0@roadrunner.com><186FE2F8-2535-4198-8212-0F2AF98C6AFF@mind2mind.net><014301cc3c24$ab9946a0$6600a8c0@Dan><998F5935-5217-4820-BF3E-52A831AACC14@mind2mind.net><02e401cc3cad$d3ee7290$6600a8c0@Dan> <95C6C0C971474015A001C3B9DFB64EDC@OPTIPLEX> Message-ID: <03a801cc3cd8$f2081440$6600a8c0@Dan> Joanna comments: >" If it doesn't ultimately matter whether a redwood or rhinoceros > lives or dies, then one can love it as one extinguishes it." > > This doesn't work. That was exactly my point. I explicitly said it was self-contradictory. Dan From smith at wheelwrightassoc.com Thu Jul 7 13:48:01 2011 From: smith at wheelwrightassoc.com (Timothy Smith) Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2011 15:48:01 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddha's Meditation In-Reply-To: <03a101cc3cd8$ba8d80e0$6600a8c0@Dan> References: <1309928315.98701.YahooMailNeo@web45414.mail.sp1.yahoo.com><891506CB-4C5B-4F0F-B5D4-7DE17800ACC0@roadrunner.com><186FE2F8-2535-4198-8212-0F2AF98C6AFF@mind2mind.net><014301cc3c24$ab9946a0$6600a8c0@Dan> <03a101cc3cd8$ba8d80e0$6600a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: <67FD7872-E1D5-4AE9-80B5-32E7A7C45E7A@wheelwrightassoc.com> I'm lost here Dan. I think were talking about different things. Office/Mobile 831.624.8138 Fax 831.659-5112 www.wheelwrightassoc.com On Jul 7, 2011, at 3:04 PM, Dan Lusthaus wrote: >> I didn't, even for a cosmological minute, think he was saying it was ok for >> things to be exterminated. > Timothy Smith > > > Timothy, I never said he did. I indicated that it was unavoidable > consequence of that line of thinking, and can only be contravened by > bringing in a different line of thinking, which I presume Richard and most > folks would do in most cases -- though when I've asked the vegetarians among > us to raise their hands, there are lots of cutsey alibis for why chewing on > the flesh of exterminated beings is not a practice to be given up. > >> Rather, it seemed clear enough to me that he was admonishing the assembly >> to act as they saw fit >> concerning the redwoods, but to act with non-attachment, thus lessening >> their suffering ... > > Who is the "their" in that last phrase? The redwood's suffering, or the > "assembly's"? > > Kill with non-attachment. You've made my point. > > In an earlier thread some while back, Richard said as much about > vegetarianism, up to the point of saying that eating meat with > non-attachment is preferable to being attached to vegetarianism... showing a > good deal of self-centered concern for one's own narcissistic attitudes for > which flesh-and-blood animals -- or redwoods -- are only conceptual props... > Sorry, Timothy, that's immoral and dishonest in my book, especially when > trussed up as a superior moral stance. > > Dan > > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l > From rhayes at unm.edu Thu Jul 7 15:08:30 2011 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2011 15:08:30 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddha's Meditation In-Reply-To: <67FD7872-E1D5-4AE9-80B5-32E7A7C45E7A@wheelwrightassoc.com> References: <1309928315.98701.YahooMailNeo@web45414.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <891506CB-4C5B-4F0F-B5D4-7DE17800ACC0@roadrunner.com> <186FE2F8-2535-4198-8212-0F2AF98C6AFF@mind2mind.net> <014301cc3c24$ab9946a0$6600a8c0@Dan> <03a101cc3cd8$ba8d80e0$6600a8c0@Dan> <67FD7872-E1D5-4AE9-80B5-32E7A7C45E7A@wheelwrightassoc.com> Message-ID: On Jul 7, 2011, at 13:48, Timothy Smith wrote: > I'm lost here Dan. I think were talking about different things. Dan is fighting the demons of his fertile imagination and a priori assumptions. If you were talking about realities, then you were talking about different things. From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Thu Jul 7 15:22:23 2011 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2011 17:22:23 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddha's Meditation References: <1309928315.98701.YahooMailNeo@web45414.mail.sp1.yahoo.com><891506CB-4C5B-4F0F-B5D4-7DE17800ACC0@roadrunner.com><186FE2F8-2535-4198-8212-0F2AF98C6AFF@mind2mind.net><014301cc3c24$ab9946a0$6600a8c0@Dan><03a101cc3cd8$ba8d80e0$6600a8c0@Dan> <67FD7872-E1D5-4AE9-80B5-32E7A7C45E7A@wheelwrightassoc.com> Message-ID: <03fd01cc3ceb$f66643a0$6600a8c0@Dan> > I'm lost here Dan. I think were talking about different things. Then, let's clear it up. You wrote: >>> Rather, it seemed clear enough to me that he was admonishing the >>> assembly >>> to act as they saw fit >>> concerning the redwoods, but to act with non-attachment, thus lessening >>> their suffering ... I asked: >> Who is the "their" in that last phrase? The redwood's suffering, or the >> "assembly's"? Let's start with that. Can you clarify? Dan From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Thu Jul 7 15:24:43 2011 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2011 17:24:43 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddha's Meditation References: <1309928315.98701.YahooMailNeo@web45414.mail.sp1.yahoo.com><891506CB-4C5B-4F0F-B5D4-7DE17800ACC0@roadrunner.com><186FE2F8-2535-4198-8212-0F2AF98C6AFF@mind2mind.net><014301cc3c24$ab9946a0$6600a8c0@Dan><03a101cc3cd8$ba8d80e0$6600a8c0@Dan><67FD7872-E1D5-4AE9-80B5-32E7A7C45E7A@wheelwrightassoc.com> Message-ID: <040a01cc3cec$4a30c3c0$6600a8c0@Dan> > Dan is fighting the demons of his fertile imagination and a priori > assumptions. If you were talking about realities, then you were talking > about different things. Another sterling example of Richard demonstrating how he learned to "refrain from being too quick to call them fools and scoundrels." Nice going, ace! Dan From smith at wheelwrightassoc.com Thu Jul 7 15:34:24 2011 From: smith at wheelwrightassoc.com (Timothy Smith) Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2011 17:34:24 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddha's Meditation In-Reply-To: <03fd01cc3ceb$f66643a0$6600a8c0@Dan> References: <1309928315.98701.YahooMailNeo@web45414.mail.sp1.yahoo.com><891506CB-4C5B-4F0F-B5D4-7DE17800ACC0@roadrunner.com><186FE2F8-2535-4198-8212-0F2AF98C6AFF@mind2mind.net><014301cc3c24$ab9946a0$6600a8c0@Dan><03a101cc3cd8$ba8d80e0$6600a8c0@Dan> <67FD7872-E1D5-4AE9-80B5-32E7A7C45E7A@wheelwrightassoc.com> <03fd01cc3ceb$f66643a0$6600a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: <22034CF2-4318-4CC2-A2C2-271FAE809300@wheelwrightassoc.com> You really having a problem with that, or just itching to argue? Timothy Smith Office/Mobile 831.624.8138 Fax 831.659-5112 www.wheelwrightassoc.com On Jul 7, 2011, at 5:22 PM, Dan Lusthaus wrote: > > >> I'm lost here Dan. I think were talking about different things. > > Then, let's clear it up. > > You wrote: > >>>> Rather, it seemed clear enough to me that he was admonishing the >>>> assembly >>>> to act as they saw fit >>>> concerning the redwoods, but to act with non-attachment, thus lessening >>>> their suffering ... > > I asked: > >>> Who is the "their" in that last phrase? The redwood's suffering, or the >>> "assembly's"? > > Let's start with that. Can you clarify? > > Dan > > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l > From rhayes at unm.edu Thu Jul 7 15:51:44 2011 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2011 15:51:44 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddha's Meditation In-Reply-To: <040a01cc3cec$4a30c3c0$6600a8c0@Dan> References: <1309928315.98701.YahooMailNeo@web45414.mail.sp1.yahoo.com><891506CB-4C5B-4F0F-B5D4-7DE17800ACC0@roadrunner.com><186FE2F8-2535-4198-8212-0F2AF98C6AFF@mind2mind.net><014301cc3c24$ab9946a0$6600a8c0@Dan><03a101cc3cd8$ba8d80e0$6600a8c0@Dan><67FD7872-E1D5-4AE9-80B5-32E7A7C45E7A@wheelwrightassoc.com> <040a01cc3cec$4a30c3c0$6600a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: <0C4C6B92-0032-46D3-AE6F-AC9F8F2ECBC6@unm.edu> On Jul 7, 2011, at 15:24 , Dan Lusthaus wrote: >> Dan is fighting the demons of his fertile imagination and a priori >> assumptions. If you were talking about realities, then you were talking >> about different things. > > Another sterling example of Richard demonstrating how he learned to "refrain > from being too quick to call them fools and scoundrels." Thank you for noticing that no one was called a fool or a scoundrel, nor was it even implied that anyone was either one of those things. You see, discussion can be civil if one makes an effort in that direction. The a priori assumption I was referring to was the claim that universalism (as you called it, thereby introducing a topic quite different from the one I was explicitly talking about, which was pluralism) and relativism are intrinsically immoral. That claim is empirically false. The only way one could sincerely make such a claim would be to make it on an a priori level and to define universalism, relativism and morality in a question-begging way such that your claim becomes true by your idiosyncratic definitions. I clearly made an erroneous assumption in the way I phrased the second sentence in my observation. Being a Buddhist, and therefore a nominalist and an empiricist, I recognize no other realities than empirical ones, so I thought it would be redundant in a Buddhist context to speak of empirical realities. That was an unwarranted assumption on my part, I can now see, so let me emend my text to read more explicitly, "If you were talking about empirical realities, then you were talking about different things." I trust that averts the dispute. Richard From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Thu Jul 7 15:52:03 2011 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2011 17:52:03 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddha's Meditation References: <1309928315.98701.YahooMailNeo@web45414.mail.sp1.yahoo.com><891506CB-4C5B-4F0F-B5D4-7DE17800ACC0@roadrunner.com><186FE2F8-2535-4198-8212-0F2AF98C6AFF@mind2mind.net><014301cc3c24$ab9946a0$6600a8c0@Dan><03a101cc3cd8$ba8d80e0$6600a8c0@Dan><67FD7872-E1D5-4AE9-80B5-32E7A7C45E7A@wheelwrightassoc.com><03fd01cc3ceb$f66643a0$6600a8c0@Dan> <22034CF2-4318-4CC2-A2C2-271FAE809300@wheelwrightassoc.com> Message-ID: <041c01cc3cf0$1bc58990$6600a8c0@Dan> > You really having a problem with that, or just itching to argue? I really don't know which you mean, Timothy. If "their" applies to redwoods, then my comments are all moot, based on a misunderstanding. If it applies to the "assembly" than my comments are germane, and your lack of understanding why that is the case is very disconcerting. So, are you being coy, or can you tell us -- or me -- which of the two options (or another option, if you wish) the possessive pronoun "their" is attaching itself to? Dan >>> I'm lost here Dan. I think were talking about different things. >> >> Then, let's clear it up. >> >> You wrote: >> >>>>> Rather, it seemed clear enough to me that he was admonishing the >>>>> assembly >>>>> to act as they saw fit >>>>> concerning the redwoods, but to act with non-attachment, thus >>>>> lessening >>>>> their suffering ... >> >> I asked: >> >>>> Who is the "their" in that last phrase? The redwood's suffering, or the >>>> "assembly's"? >> >> Let's start with that. Can you clarify? >> >> Dan >> >> _______________________________________________ >> buddha-l mailing list >> buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com >> http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l >> > > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l > From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Thu Jul 7 16:07:00 2011 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2011 18:07:00 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddha's Meditation References: <1309928315.98701.YahooMailNeo@web45414.mail.sp1.yahoo.com><891506CB-4C5B-4F0F-B5D4-7DE17800ACC0@roadrunner.com><186FE2F8-2535-4198-8212-0F2AF98C6AFF@mind2mind.net><014301cc3c24$ab9946a0$6600a8c0@Dan><03a101cc3cd8$ba8d80e0$6600a8c0@Dan><67FD7872-E1D5-4AE9-80B5-32E7A7C45E7A@wheelwrightassoc.com><040a01cc3cec$4a30c3c0$6600a8c0@Dan> <0C4C6B92-0032-46D3-AE6F-AC9F8F2ECBC6@unm.edu> Message-ID: <043a01cc3cf2$327da8f0$6600a8c0@Dan> > The a priori assumption I was referring to was the claim that universalism > (as you called it, thereby introducing a topic quite different from the > one I was explicitly talking about, which was pluralism) and relativism > are intrinsically immoral. That claim is empirically false. Not at all. On the contrary if history and plain observation count as empirical evidence, then the evidence goes overwhelmingly in the other direction. From this point on you argue in a circle. >The only way one could sincerely make such a claim would be to make it on >an a priori level and to define universalism, relativism and morality in a >question-begging way such that your claim becomes true by your >idiosyncratic definitions. Empiricism requires evidence, not circular assertion. As I've already pointed out, the initial example of the shallow holes and deep hole assumes universalism in the sense I described. It becomes a meaningless analogy otherwise. Dan From rhayes at unm.edu Thu Jul 7 16:37:22 2011 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2011 16:37:22 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Universalism? In-Reply-To: <23824_1310057802_4E15E54A_23824_48_2_4CB3DB39-5091-458B-9441-E4D03C12E782@unm.edu> References: <23824_1310057802_4E15E54A_23824_48_2_4CB3DB39-5091-458B-9441-E4D03C12E782@unm.edu> Message-ID: <40ED400F-010A-41C9-810C-9699D9ADABC9@unm.edu> On Jul 7, 2011, at 10:51 , Richard Hayes wrote: > Not only members of the Universalist denomination were universalists, of course. One finds some Quakers, some Congregationalists, some Pentecostals and some evangelicals who also subscribe to doctrine of apokatastasis. There are indeed apokatastatic Quakers, but there is another sense in which some Quakers are called universalists, which has nothing to do with apokatastasis. Rufus Jones, another Harvard man who benefited from his exposure to William James and James's close friend and philosophical adversary, Josaiah Royce, became convinced that Quakers need not draw their inspiration only from the Bible or from any of the other teachings of Christianity. He became convinced that what Quakers had called the holy spirit was another name for a sense of moral conscience that is to be found in all people of all times and that when people worship in various ways they are striving to make contact with the best part of themselves, a part that finds an inexhaustible variety of ways of being expressed and put into action. So, in contrast to the Quakers who saw themselves as exclusively Christian, Jones started a movement of Quakers that welcomed Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, humanists, naturalists, Wiccans and followers of various native American traditions. Jonesite Quakers are sometimes called by some people universalist Quakers. Rufus Jones also founded the American Friends Service Committee, a humanitarian organization that responds to the sufferings of people wherever they may occur without regard to their religions, political views or other ideological commitments. Many people (among whom I count myself) find the AFSC to be profoundly moral in practice. And since most of the Quakers whom some call universalist support AFSC by donating both time and money to its projects, I suppose we could say that it is not inevitable that a universalist is immoral. I suppose we could say that there is no vy?pti relation between universalism and immorality; on the contrary, it is an anaik?ntika relationship. (Sorry for the momentary descent into the hell realm of Buddhist logic.) Again, in the interest of full disclosure, I am the clerk of the finance committee of a Jonesite Quaker meeting and therefore am quite familiar with the various environmental and social causes that this Quaker meeting collectively supports financially. I see no evidence of indifference to the suffering of the world or to injustices among these so-called universalist Quakers. Members of the meeting to which I belong are or have been active as individuals in humanitarian work in El Salvador, Mexico, India, post-war Japan, post-war Europe, Iran, Senegal and various other African countries, and in the environmental movement in the United States. Speaking of suffering, every Quaker meeting since 1650 or so has had a so-called Sufferings Fund, which is an amount of money set aside for those, and the families of those, who face prosecution for speaking truth to power. The phrase "speaking truth to power" has now become widespread and it used in a variety of ways, but for Quakers it has always referred to the policy of witnessing for an alternative to the violence often associated with the exercise of economic and political power. Not surprisingly, those who speak truth to power are frequently at the receiving end of the very violence they witness against. Quakers are no strangers to prisons, torture chambers and gallows; that is true of evangelical Christian Quakers, of Pentecostal Quakers, of Conservative Quakers, of Orthodox Quakers and of universalist Quakers. Theology seems to have no positive or negative correlation to having moral commitments and to having the courage of one's moral convictions. Richard Hayes Department of Philosophy University of New Mexico Albuquerque, NM From rhayes at unm.edu Thu Jul 7 17:02:26 2011 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2011 17:02:26 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddha's Meditation In-Reply-To: <043a01cc3cf2$327da8f0$6600a8c0@Dan> References: <1309928315.98701.YahooMailNeo@web45414.mail.sp1.yahoo.com><891506CB-4C5B-4F0F-B5D4-7DE17800ACC0@roadrunner.com><186FE2F8-2535-4198-8212-0F2AF98C6AFF@mind2mind.net><014301cc3c24$ab9946a0$6600a8c0@Dan><03a101cc3cd8$ba8d80e0$6600a8c0@Dan><67FD7872-E1D5-4AE9-80B5-32E7A7C45E7A@wheelwrightassoc.com><040a01cc3cec$4a30c3c0$6600a8c0@Dan> <0C4C6B92-0032-46D3-AE6F-AC9F8F2ECBC6@unm.edu> <043a01cc3cf2$327da8f0$6600a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: On Jul 7, 2011, at 16:07 , Dan Lusthaus wrote: > As I've already pointed out, the initial example of the shallow holes and > deep hole assumes universalism in the sense I described. It becomes a > meaningless analogy otherwise. I get meaning out of the analogy in quite a different way from the sort of universalism you describe. As you are surely aware from hundreds if not thousands of conversations with me, I have no use for the sort of hegemonic universalism you describe. In that, we are (I think) in full agreement. It is for that reason that I prefer not to use he term "universalism" and prefer instead the term "pluralism." A pluralist, I take it, acknowledges that there are many legitimate goals and that therefore not everyone need have the same ultimate goal in life, nor the same set of values, nor the same standards of morality, nor the same narratives, nor the same metaphysics, nor the same epistemology. Most pluralists also acknowledge that for every goal there are many methods of reaching it. The most robust pluralists of all admit that there are many kinds of pluralism. I think (perhaps incorrectly) that I may be among the more robust pluralists. My pluralistic reading of the well analogy is that it is suggesting that one is more likely to find some degree of satisfaction in life if one sticks to one goal and pursues it, rather than pursuing dozens of goals in short bursts of enthusiasm. That is a meaningful reading, I think, that is in no way hegemonic or universalistic in the ways that both you and I find disconcerting. Having said that, I do not agree with the well analogy at all in any of its readings. As I have said numerous times, right here on buddha-l, I think a person can get enough satisfaction in life by being a superficial dabbler. Such a person is often called a dilettante, a person who finds delight in pursuing things without much commitment or deep knowledge. So I reject the well analogy. My own experience shows me it is based on a false assumption, namely, the assumption that superficiality is never as satisfactory as profundity. (Hell's bells, if I believed that assumption were true, would I participate in buddha-l?) Now let's get back to my original question. Is it true that the well analogy comes from the Buddha (by which I mean some character with that name and/or description in any Buddhist work of fiction)? And if it is true that it comes from a Buddhist source, is it being used in a hegemonically universalist sense or as an expression of pluralism? My guess would be the former, but I would be a delighted dilettante if that guess turned out to be incorrect. Richard From Jackhat1 at aol.com Thu Jul 7 17:21:42 2011 From: Jackhat1 at aol.com (Jackhat1 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2011 19:21:42 EDT Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddha's Meditation Message-ID: In a message dated 7/7/2011 1:08:21 P.M. Central Daylight Time, jkirk at spro.net writes: This is the way I deal, too. Buddhism for me is also a topic, a study of historical importance and value, it has historiographies, critiques, arts, etc. Since destiny put me into academic shoes and occupations, I love reading and discovering what this field has to offer in many different ways. Joanna === I understand. I have been going in a different direction. Its all on the cushion and off cushion practice for me now. I'm not interested in the Buddhist things that interested me in the past. Different strokes for different folks. jack From jkirk at spro.net Thu Jul 7 17:27:25 2011 From: jkirk at spro.net (JKirkpatrick) Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2011 17:27:25 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddha's Meditation In-Reply-To: <03a801cc3cd8$f2081440$6600a8c0@Dan> References: <1309928315.98701.YahooMailNeo@web45414.mail.sp1.yahoo.com><891506CB-4C5B-4F0F-B5D4-7DE17800ACC0@roadrunner.com><186FE2F8-2535-4198-8212-0F2AF98C6AFF@mind2mind.net><014301cc3c24$ab9946a0$6600a8c0@Dan><998F5935-5217-4820-BF3E-52A831AACC14@mind2mind.net><02e401cc3cad$d3ee7290$6600a8c0@Dan><95C6C0C971474015A001C3B9DFB64EDC@OPTIPLEX> <03a801cc3cd8$f2081440$6600a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: Behalf Of Dan Lusthaus Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 1:06 PM Joanna comments: >" If it doesn't ultimately matter whether a redwood or rhinoceros >lives or dies, then one can love it as one extinguishes it." > > This doesn't work. That was exactly my point. I explicitly said it was self-contradictory. Dan -------------------------- No it wasn't clearly self-contradictory--it was paradoxical. Ancient Indian spiritual traditions just love paradox. JK _______________________________________________ From jkirk at spro.net Thu Jul 7 17:28:52 2011 From: jkirk at spro.net (JKirkpatrick) Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2011 17:28:52 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddhas Meditation Message-ID: Come on, you philosophes--------------kindly explain why this phrase makes no sense, or viprysasa-wise, how it does make sense(????) "eating meat with non-attachment is preferable to being attached to vegetarianism.." Precisely what is the point? IMO it's humbug. I ask for comment because this list is ever in the habit of ignoring anything I say in response to various posts. Now, typically, you are all doing it again--paying attention only to what the men among us say. I'm not any more idiotic than the rest of you. So either be inclusive in this discussion, or go to hina hell. Joanna From jkirk at spro.net Thu Jul 7 17:37:48 2011 From: jkirk at spro.net (JKirkpatrick) Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2011 17:37:48 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Universalism? In-Reply-To: <039a01cc3cd7$9fd98650$6600a8c0@Dan> References: <4CB3DB39-5091-458B-9441-E4D03C12E782@unm.edu> <039a01cc3cd7$9fd98650$6600a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: <870A0211B9A744E482D27E13F906C5F6@OPTIPLEX> Oh, come on. Universalism does not mean only Christian or religious universalism. It's application and ideological function has been a big trend in social sciences for decades already, counterpoised to relativism. The term can be applied to anything--not just religions. It can be applied to any sort of cultural belief system, or to use a more trendy term, any sort of cultural imaginary. (The Foucauldians would be annoyed by that remark.) It can also be applied in science, as in physiological biology. Boas insisted that the human brain was the same everywhere, despite cultural difference-- ergo, a human universal. The relativists criticised this idea as going too far by overlooking particularities. And on and on. Once things get to this point argumentatoinally, we are in the realm of metaphysics--or, as Kenneth Burke used to say, in the realm of god terms. Joanna From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Thu Jul 7 17:53:26 2011 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2011 19:53:26 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddhas Meditation References: Message-ID: <003501cc3d01$107d4ad0$6600a8c0@Dan> I haven't been ignoring you, Joanna. > Come on, you philosophes--------------kindly explain why this > phrase makes no sense, or viprysasa-wise, how it does make > sense(????) > > "eating meat with non-attachment is preferable to being attached > to vegetarianism.." > > Precisely what is the point? > IMO it's humbug. Yes it is, and if one rummages through the archives one will find that is the argument Richard bestowed upon us in one of his sermons (with much more detail). I called it humbug (or words to that effect) then, and raise it again because the current discussion has drifted into similar waters. The presumption many seem to labor under is that the suffering to be avoided is one's own discomfort and mental poise while going about eating dead animals and practicing "non-attachment" to disappearing species, etc., rather than the suffering that killing animals causes the animals. As Timothy said: Do with the redwoods as you please, just keep a non-attached attitude while doing it. Dan From Jackhat1 at aol.com Thu Jul 7 18:03:40 2011 From: Jackhat1 at aol.com (Jackhat1 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2011 20:03:40 EDT Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddhas Meditation Message-ID: <4885b.bd66436.3b47a35c@aol.com> In a message dated 7/7/2011 6:29:03 P.M. Central Daylight Time, jkirk at spro.net writes: Come on, you philosophes--------------kindly explain why this phrase makes no sense, or viprysasa-wise, how it does make sense(????) "eating meat with non-attachment is preferable to being attached to vegetarianism.." ============== I am not a philosopes but here is my thoughts. Many Tibetan Buddhists eat meat because otherwise they would starve. Facing each moment without attachment is being able to meet each situation appropriately. To me, these Tibetan Buddhists are acting appropriately when they eat meat. This reminds me of an argument I once had with someone who felt a cow was more noble than a tiger. jack From franz at mind2mind.net Thu Jul 7 18:07:24 2011 From: franz at mind2mind.net (Franz Metcalf) Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2011 17:07:24 -0700 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddha's Meditation In-Reply-To: <150501cc3cb1$e44a3c10$acdeb430$@gmail.com> References: <1309928315.98701.YahooMailNeo@web45414.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <891506CB-4C5B-4F0F-B5D4-7DE17800ACC0@roadrunner.com> <186FE2F8-2535-4198-8212-0F2AF98C6AFF@mind2mind.net> <150501cc3cb1$e44a3c10$acdeb430$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <985BBB5F-0962-489E-A4DC-A059442B951D@mind2mind.net> Joy et al., You described the Buddhist goal as > A mind that doesn't need to be validated through anything else. > Self evident and unfalsifiable. Does it need to be proved, can it > be proved through science or other valid cognitions? Who cares? > Probably not the noble one with his mind free from hostility, free > from ill will, undefiled, & pure. This is totally fine by me and is, I agree, the basis of the Buddhist religion. I only meant to argue that it is not science, nor really even in line with scientific method. But, as you say, who cares? Not the Buddha. And, in that case, from the perspective of salvation, it shouldn't be us, either! Franz From smith at wheelwrightassoc.com Thu Jul 7 18:25:27 2011 From: smith at wheelwrightassoc.com (Timothy Smith) Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2011 20:25:27 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddhas Meditation In-Reply-To: <003501cc3d01$107d4ad0$6600a8c0@Dan> References: <003501cc3d01$107d4ad0$6600a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: You're completely full of it, Dan. I said no such thing, nor did I imply it. I simply said the senior monk advocated an approach to any endeavor should be one of non attachment. There is no such implication present in my original nor any other post. Knock it off. Timothy Smith Office/Mobile 831.624.8138 Fax 831.659-5112 www.wheelwrightassoc.com > . As > Timothy said: Do with the redwoods as you please, just keep a non-attached > attitude while doing it. > > Dan > > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l > From franz at mind2mind.net Thu Jul 7 18:35:33 2011 From: franz at mind2mind.net (Franz Metcalf) Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2011 17:35:33 -0700 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddhas Meditation In-Reply-To: <003501cc3d01$107d4ad0$6600a8c0@Dan> References: <003501cc3d01$107d4ad0$6600a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: <5FF85604-EC3C-4628-ABE3-133FAADD0676@mind2mind.net> Dan et al., Regarding the (im)moral view "eating meat with non-attachment is preferable to being attached to vegetarianism," Dan wrote it was humbug. Pretty nearly, I'd say. But not completely. Dan, you yourself added that this view focuses on > the suffering to be avoided is one's own discomfort... > rather than the suffering that killing animals causes the > animals. Exactly. But I really *do* think that the state of mind of the person engaging in actions which cause harm and suffering matters. As you imply, there *can be* suffering there. Does this internal suffering matter as much as the gross external suffering to the animal? Absolutely not. To confuse the two is like confusing the moral roles of the SS and the Jews in the Vernichtungslagern. People *do* this and you are right to condemn this example of a like though vastly lesser practice. And Buddhists in the 20th century did a great deal of it, which, again, we must condemn--and you have. Still, one *can* strive to reduce the internal suffering while one strives to reduce the external suffering. I see these processes as potentially interdependent. Too little time to explain, and a dicey path, but what path worth walking isn't dicey? Franz From rhayes at unm.edu Thu Jul 7 18:40:12 2011 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2011 18:40:12 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Universalism? In-Reply-To: <870A0211B9A744E482D27E13F906C5F6@OPTIPLEX> References: <4CB3DB39-5091-458B-9441-E4D03C12E782@unm.edu> <039a01cc3cd7$9fd98650$6600a8c0@Dan> <870A0211B9A744E482D27E13F906C5F6@OPTIPLEX> Message-ID: <22CDBB2A-5D62-4F78-AA92-73A9C55C871D@unm.edu> On Jul 7, 2011, at 17:37, "JKirkpatrick" wrote: > Oh, come on. > Universalism does not mean only Christian or religious > universalism. It's application and ideological function has been > a big trend in social sciences for decades already, counterpoised > to relativism. I am unfamiliar with sociological literature. In philosophical literature, the usual counterpoint to relativism is absolutism or idealism. Like most terms "universalism" is polysemous. In religious contexts alone there are several senses. > Richard From franz at mind2mind.net Thu Jul 7 19:07:21 2011 From: franz at mind2mind.net (Franz Metcalf) Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2011 18:07:21 -0700 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddha's Meditation In-Reply-To: <02df01cc3ca6$b17c8ff0$6600a8c0@Dan> References: <1309928315.98701.YahooMailNeo@web45414.mail.sp1.yahoo.com><891506CB-4C5B-4F0F-B5D4-7DE17800ACC0@roadrunner.com><186FE2F8-2535-4198-8212-0F2AF98C6AFF@mind2mind.net><014301cc3c24$ab9946a0$6600a8c0@Dan><998F5935-5217-4820-BF3E-52A831AACC14@mind2mind.net> <7005E956-D5EF-4C06-804C-29B6053AB9F8@unm.edu> <02df01cc3ca6$b17c8ff0$6600a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: <19025D02-21AF-4C57-B080-696FFB29E0BC@mind2mind.net> Dan et al., You wrote to Richard H. thus: > Triumph has distinct military denotations, as did the ritual > of the Triumphal (when it was still a noun). It is not just a > substitute term for hubris, chauvenism, snobbery, nor > simply a feeling of superiority, etc. Well, heck, then no *wonder* you wrote to me thus: >> So perhaps we're talking about a kind of triumphalism >> not of Buddhism, but of awakening. That distinction >> might help. > > No, it continues the misconstrual. Okay, gotcha. You are clearly defining the word more narrowly (and more historically) than I am. I generally like that practice, so I am happy to concede that we should not call most forms of Buddhism triumphal or triumphalist. There *are* and have been such forms, but I agree with you in saying they are not in the mainstream (except perhaps in Japanese history). Perhaps this is a bit like the distinction sometimes made between "confidence" and "faith." In contrast to the Abrahamic, well, faiths, that emphasize (especially in Protestant Christianity) faith, many Buddhists claim they need only confidence in the efficacy of their doxis and praxis; they have no need for faith because they have evidence (non-falsifiable as it may be) that gives them confidence. Somehow this strikes me as parallel to the distinction between what we might again call Buddhist "confidence" and actual "triumphalism." In any case, time for me to get off this computer and do something useful for a change. Franz From rhayes at unm.edu Thu Jul 7 19:13:32 2011 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2011 19:13:32 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddhas Meditation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Jul 7, 2011, at 17:28, "JKirkpatrick" wrote: > Come on, you philosophes--------------kindly explain why this > phrase makes no sense, or viprysasa-wise, how it does make > sense(????) > > "eating meat with non-attachment is preferable to being attached > to vegetarianism.." It makes perfect sense as a statement of relative values. The word "preferable" is a value judgment. What the statement means is that the person making it values flexibility and latitude to moral absolutism. It means one prefers moral latitudinarianism to moral perfectionism (if I may be permitted to use the standard terminology from the field of religious ethics). The Buddha said in Suttanip?ta that holding any position so firmly that one denigrates others as inferior is a form of bondage. There is no doubt that being a vegetarian is commendable, but if one's attachment to the commendable practice leads one to condemn or denigrate people who have other dietary practices, then the attachment diminishes the otherwise commendable practice. I once wrote a paper on the fanatical vegetarian polemics in some Mah?y?na sutras and the unfortunate consequence they may have had in marginalizing non-vegetarian Buddhists as pseudo-Buddhists. I see that consequence as less preferable than the desideratum of saving animals from slaughter. Obviously, that is a matter of taste over which there is little room for rational dispute. You can take sides, but it's impossible to rationally defend the side you take. I read recently that in Nederlands a law was passed that no animals may be killed without first being stunned. I'm not sure what exactly that means. Perhaps Erik can amplify. What I read was that some Jews and some Muslims were unhappy with the new Dutch law, since it would render illegal the ritual killing required in kosher and halal (if that's the right word) meat preparation. I suppose the Dutch Mah?y?nins were also unhappy with the law, since it did not ban ALL killing of animals. Those Dutch people are so hard to please, eh? I trust this helps you to see that the claim about preferences that you asked about is not utter nonsense, even if you do still side with the moral absolutists and perfectionists in dismissing it as humbug. Richard Philosophe Hayes From rhayes at unm.edu Thu Jul 7 19:17:01 2011 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2011 19:17:01 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddha's Meditation In-Reply-To: <985BBB5F-0962-489E-A4DC-A059442B951D@mind2mind.net> References: <1309928315.98701.YahooMailNeo@web45414.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <891506CB-4C5B-4F0F-B5D4-7DE17800ACC0@roadrunner.com> <186FE2F8-2535-4198-8212-0F2AF98C6AFF@mind2mind.net> <150501cc3cb1$e44a3c10$acdeb430$@gmail.com> <985BBB5F-0962-489E-A4DC-A059442B951D@mind2mind.net> Message-ID: <2B58CF53-DEBD-4CBE-AC50-43F72FDE0F5B@unm.edu> On Jul 7, 2011, at 18:07, Franz Metcalf wrote: > I only meant to argue that it is not science, nor really > even in line with scientific method. But, as you say, who cares? Those of us who care about science care. Richard From rhayes at unm.edu Thu Jul 7 19:19:44 2011 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2011 19:19:44 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddhas Meditation In-Reply-To: References: <003501cc3d01$107d4ad0$6600a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: <7301D2E0-3CD3-463F-92F7-408F9EA26F02@unm.edu> On Jul 7, 2011, at 18:25, Timothy Smith wrote: > You're completely full of it, Dan. I said no such thing, nor did I imply it. I simply said the senior monk advocated an approach to any endeavor > should be one of non attachment. There is no such implication present in my original nor any other post. Knock it off. Easy does it. Dan's aim is to get goats. But he doesn't kill them or eat them. He just keeps them as trophies. Don't let him get yours. From smith at wheelwrightassoc.com Thu Jul 7 20:03:17 2011 From: smith at wheelwrightassoc.com (Timothy Smith) Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2011 22:03:17 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddhas Meditation In-Reply-To: <7301D2E0-3CD3-463F-92F7-408F9EA26F02@unm.edu> References: <003501cc3d01$107d4ad0$6600a8c0@Dan> <7301D2E0-3CD3-463F-92F7-408F9EA26F02@unm.edu> Message-ID: <93C85221-D2DC-47C3-B45C-0C53E485F91C@wheelwrightassoc.com> Doesn't. Won't. Tks. Timothy Smith Office/Mobile 831.624.8138 Fax 831.659-5112 www.wheelwrightassoc.com On Jul 7, 2011, at 9:19 PM, Richard Hayes wrote: > On Jul 7, 2011, at 18:25, Timothy Smith wrote: > >> You're completely full of it, Dan. I said no such thing, nor did I imply it. I simply said the senior monk advocated an approach to any endeavor >> should be one of non attachment. There is no such implication present in my original nor any other post. Knock it off. > > Easy does it. Dan's aim is to get goats. But he doesn't kill them or eat them. He just keeps them as trophies. Don't let him get yours. > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l > From stroble at hawaii.edu Thu Jul 7 21:03:58 2011 From: stroble at hawaii.edu (andy) Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2011 17:03:58 -1000 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddhas Meditation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <201107071704.01687.stroble@hawaii.edu> Joanna wrote: > Come on, you philosophes--------------kindly explain why this > phrase makes no sense, or viprysasa-wise, how it does make > sense(????) > > "eating meat with non-attachment is preferable to being attached > to vegetarianism.." > > Precisely what is the point? > IMO it's humbug. > > I ask for comment because this list is ever in the habit of > ignoring anything I say in response to various posts. Now, > typically, you are all doing it again--paying attention only to > what the men among us say. Men? What about the Redwoods? I have been hesitant to enter on this discussion, since I really don't know what is at issue. One point is that the Redwoods are doomed anyway, so we need not feel so bad about their being turned in to decking for the petit bourgouisie. On the other hand, the violence done to any sentient being is a bad thing, in itself. But more importantly, why are we on Buddha-L discussing the Gita? The idea that nothing has svabhava does not justify cutting Redwoods anymore than not cutting Redwoods. Depends on the intention of the arguer? And this is not particularly buddhist: St. Augustine argues that the evil of war is not that people die, since they would die anyway, but the emotions that attend the conflict, a lust for domination, rebellion, and so forth. So eating meat is wrong if it entails these emotions, but to stick to this as an absolute rule causes more suffering than not. I have seen vegetarians refuse to eat vegetarian food that was on the same table as non-vegetarian food, causing much suffering in the process. That is to say, when the rule becomes absolute, it forgets what its purpose was, and establishes a universalism which goes against its original purpose. This is why "correct" Buddhism is not absolutely vegetarian. Once upon a time, at one of the East-West Philosopher's Conferences we hold on occasion in Hawaii, Hilary Putnam made the remark that relativism is not a position, it is a strategy. I don't recall much else that he said, but the idea that we all agree to disagree is just to gain time to prove that our position is in fact correct. The question that remains is exactly how we do that. And I want my goat back from Dan. I promise not to eat it. Unless it gets hit by a truck, since road-kill is allowed under Buddhism. -- James Andy Stroble, PhD Lecturer in Philosophy Department of Arts & Humanities Leeward Community College University of Hawaii Adjunct Faculty Diplomatic and Military Studies Hawaii Pacific University _________________ "The cyber world has grown out of control. State and national law enforcement mechanisms are not equipped to deal with the rapidly evolving threat. The complexity of information systems has far exceeded the ability to secure them, while reliance on these systems has only increased. HBGary has an intimate understanding of this problem; We know that understanding the attacker and his methods is the only way to defeat him. This is the core strength of HBGary and why our technology and services outperform the competition. To us, it's personal. And we would have gotten away with it, if it wasn't for those meddling kids!!!" February, 2011 From jkirk at spro.net Thu Jul 7 22:39:44 2011 From: jkirk at spro.net (JKirkpatrick) Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2011 22:39:44 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Universalism? In-Reply-To: <22CDBB2A-5D62-4F78-AA92-73A9C55C871D@unm.edu> References: <4CB3DB39-5091-458B-9441-E4D03C12E782@unm.edu><039a01cc3cd7$9fd98650$6600a8c0@Dan><870A0211B9A744E482D27E13F906C5F6@OPTIPLEX> <22CDBB2A-5D62-4F78-AA92-73A9C55C871D@unm.edu> Message-ID: <86604EC42A294D319508EC364348A45D@OPTIPLEX> On Jul 7, 2011, at 17:37, "JKirkpatrick" wrote: > Oh, come on. > Universalism does not mean only Christian or religious universalism. > It's application and ideological function has been a big trend in > social sciences for decades already, counterpoised to relativism. I am unfamiliar with sociological literature. In philosophical literature, the usual counterpoint to relativism is absolutism or idealism. Like most terms "universalism" is polysemous. In religious contexts alone there are several senses. > Richard _______________________________________________ I agree that these terms are polysemic. But then, aren't most terms? That's why word gamers argue endlessly while trying to work connotation out of denotation. But the poly part of it all seems to linger. The argument about one of them vs. the other one happened more in the academic disciplines of history and literature, leading to the development of literary philosophy to the point that counting angels on pin heads became almost a self-fulfilling prophecy kind of thinking (I'm trying to avoid using the term "discourse."). Anthropology (and sociology too) escaped most of this entertainment, which began as I recall, in France in the fifties or sixties. I encountered it in the seventies among historians, some of whom accused me of being a relativist while they were universalists. I could not convince them that I was both, depending on the cirumstances, or the degree of abstraction involved. Eventually it has seemed, to me anyway, that aside from the few who are still infected with literary "theory" (so-called), most of us in the social sciences go with both/and, instead of either/or. Joanna From jkirk at spro.net Thu Jul 7 23:11:25 2011 From: jkirk at spro.net (JKirkpatrick) Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2011 23:11:25 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddhas Meditation In-Reply-To: <5FF85604-EC3C-4628-ABE3-133FAADD0676@mind2mind.net> References: <003501cc3d01$107d4ad0$6600a8c0@Dan> <5FF85604-EC3C-4628-ABE3-133FAADD0676@mind2mind.net> Message-ID: <38064D526CEC47D3B4DC5C9894EFABD2@OPTIPLEX> [......] Still, one *can* strive to reduce the internal suffering while one strives to reduce the external suffering. I see these processes as potentially interdependent. Too little time to explain, and a dicey path, but what path worth walking isn't dicey? Franz _______________________________________________ Good, Franz. You too are capable of both/and rather than either/or. Joanna From jkirk at spro.net Thu Jul 7 23:32:43 2011 From: jkirk at spro.net (JKirkpatrick) Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2011 23:32:43 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddhas Meditation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43785167418A462D80F6646223868C7C@OPTIPLEX> On Jul 7, 2011, at 17:28, "JKirkpatrick" wrote: > Come on, you philosophes--------------kindly explain why this phrase > makes no sense, or viprysasa-wise, how it does make > sense(????) > > "eating meat with non-attachment is preferable to being attached to > vegetarianism.." Richard wrote: It makes perfect sense as a statement of relative values. The word "preferable" is a value judgment. What the statement means is that the person making it values flexibility and latitude to moral absolutism. It means one prefers moral latitudinarianism to moral perfectionism (if I may be permitted to use the standard terminology from the field of religious ethics). ------------------- OK . But as a statement it elides the empirical fact that not all vegetarians are "attached" to being vegetarian, just as all meat eaters are "not non-attached" when they are eating it. Thus, I don't see it as a valid empirical statement, even if it is a relative statement value-wise. I considered the statement humbug from an empirical viewpoint. However, no person or practice was denigrated as inferior. Instead, a statement was characterised as nonsense. Nothing foolish or (name your negative descriptor) was attributed either to a person or to a practice. Seems that I switched from the universalist/relativist frame of the discussion to an empirical frame. But then, we do wander on occasion, don't we. Joanna From lidewij at gmail.com Fri Jul 8 04:30:23 2011 From: lidewij at gmail.com (Lidewij Niezink) Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2011 12:30:23 +0200 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddhas Meditation In-Reply-To: <43785167418A462D80F6646223868C7C@OPTIPLEX> References: <43785167418A462D80F6646223868C7C@OPTIPLEX> Message-ID: How nice to see Buddha-l up and running again! You people help me digest my daily life so much more comfortable. ;-) Richard wrote: I read recently that in Nederlands a law was passed that no animals may be killed without first being stunned. I'm not sure what exactly that means. Perhaps Erik can amplify. What I read was that some Jews and some Muslims were unhappy with the new Dutch law, since it would render illegal the ritual killing required in kosher and halal (if that's the right word) meat preparation. I suppose the Dutch Mah?y?nins were also unhappy with the law, since it did not ban ALL killing of animals. Those Dutch people are so hard to please, eh? It has been a hot topic here in the Netherlands over the past few weeks. Unfortunately, animal welfare was not so much the aim of the game... political scoring was. The dutch Party for the Animals tried to score some points before the summerrecess in getting ritual slaughter forbidden. it would cause more suffering to slice their throat unstunned than to shoot a pin through their head before slaughter. No conclusive research seems to be done and stunning goes wrong in (don't pin me on the exact numbers plse) 5% of the cases. Now our Halal and Jewish friends have to import their meat from elsewhere or pass the German border and kill the cows/sheep/goats there. Unless (we are in Holland after all, compromise is our way of life, nothing gets ever done) those who wish to slaughter their animals ritually can scientifically prove that this way of slaughter does not cause more harm than the usual way. In that case they'll get stamped governmental document that they can go about their business as usual. One by one. The discussion turned around animal rights and religious freedom. No mention was made of the suffering the animals would have to go through in the years before their 5 minutes lasting end of life. So far for compassion. cheers, Lidewij On 8 July 2011 07:32, JKirkpatrick wrote: > > > > On Jul 7, 2011, at 17:28, "JKirkpatrick" wrote: > > > Come on, you philosophes--------------kindly explain why this > phrase > > makes no sense, or viprysasa-wise, how it does make > > sense(????) > > > > "eating meat with non-attachment is preferable to being > attached to > > vegetarianism.." > > Richard wrote: > > It makes perfect sense as a statement of relative values. The > word "preferable" is a value judgment. > > What the statement means is that the person making it values > flexibility and latitude to moral absolutism. It means one > prefers moral latitudinarianism to moral perfectionism (if I may > be permitted to use the standard terminology from the field of > religious ethics). > ------------------- > > OK . But as a statement it elides the empirical fact that not all > vegetarians are "attached" to being vegetarian, just as all meat > eaters are "not non-attached" when they are eating it. Thus, I > don't see it as a valid empirical statement, even if it is a > relative statement value-wise. I considered the statement humbug > from an empirical viewpoint. > > However, no person or practice was denigrated as inferior. > Instead, a statement was characterised as nonsense. Nothing > foolish or (name your negative descriptor) was attributed either > to a person or to a practice. > > Seems that I switched from the universalist/relativist frame of > the discussion to an empirical frame. But then, we do wander on > occasion, don't we. > > Joanna > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l > -- Dr. Lidewij Niezink http://nl.linkedin.com/in/lniezink Charter for Compassion: http://tinyurl.com/24xxacb Empathy: http://tinyurl.com/2a8qbsz From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Fri Jul 8 06:29:56 2011 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2011 08:29:56 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddhas Meditation References: <003501cc3d01$107d4ad0$6600a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: <004c01cc3d6a$bf80d1a0$6600a8c0@Dan> Since zoning laws in Boston forbid me from keeping herds of goats at home, let's disperse some quickly: I paraphrased Timothy thus: >> Timothy said: Do with the redwoods as you please, just keep a >> non-attached >> attitude while doing it. The original quote, which I had reproduced several times in previous messages, so that everyone would have been familiar with it, read thus: >>>>> Rather, it seemed clear enough to me that he was admonishing the >>>>> assembly >>>>> to act as they saw fit >>>>> concerning the redwoods, but to act with non-attachment, thus >>>>> lessening >>>>> their suffering ... Timothy's disavowed goat then hollered: > You're completely full of it, Dan. I said no such thing, nor did I imply > it. I'll let others decide for themselves if the paraphrase was fair or not. I contend it is. I recommend Timothy listen to himself once in awhile before shouting at others about non-attachment. Dan From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Fri Jul 8 07:08:45 2011 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2011 09:08:45 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddhas Meditation References: <201107071704.01687.stroble@hawaii.edu> Message-ID: <005501cc3d70$2b8bde80$6600a8c0@Dan> Andy, > So eating meat is wrong if it entails these emotions, but to stick to > this as > an absolute rule causes more suffering than not. Same question as to Timothy: Is this "suffering" in the animal or in the persons abstaining or indulging? It is very disheartening to see so many supposed compassionate Buddhists (except Lidewij) eager to dismiss this issue as goat-herding when literally the issue is life and death, plain, simple and stark. One's mental attitude while killing trees, animals, fellow humans (branded enemy or friend) is of some consequence, but not necessarily to the one being killed or to those who care about the one(s) being killed. This is NOT an either/or equation. Which is preferable? (1) That a deranged, angry, greedy, "attached" individual refrains from killing your family? OR (2) Someone with cool, non-attached precision, wipes out your family and moves on... There are plenty of people who can commit homicide with no regret, with detachment, etc. Some of them we might label sociopaths or psychopaths (I can't keep up with the psychiatric jargon book, but believe the former term is "in," i.e., an acceptable 'official' diagnosis these days, while the latter is currently eschewed as pop-psych -- but I could be wrong). Let's stipulate that they can kill without feeling any personal discomfort. Satisfied? I hope not. Back to the redwood. One might attempt to argue that in general people do not chop down trees unless motivated by one or more of "greed, hatred (anger), or delusion", the three poisons. A lumber firm is motivated by greed; someone with a need to destructively lash out at a defenseless tree may be motivated by anger (not necessarily at the tree itself, but who knows?); Or some deluded being, imagining Redwoods are pods from another planet, imagines he is saving the earth by chopping down the invaders. In the absence of greed, hatred or delusion there would be no reason to chop down a redwood. Maybe. Nonetheless, the redwood itself cares nothing about that, and should someone come along and chop him down while non-attached and whistling his favorite dharani, the redwood would suffer just as much. In stark terms, the redwood (or cow, or human) could care less about the mental state of someone who kills (or ignores) it. The motivations of the killer are irrelevant to it, since it suffers (or doesn't) regardless. The cow doesn't care if the vegetarian is casual or high-strung. It prefers not to be slaughtered regardless. If messed-up emotions lead to its being spared, that's just fine with the cow. This psychologizing of acts of carnage is a thorough misapplication of Buddhist thoughts on the matter. Much as most current legal systems make distinctions between degrees of guilt for killing someone -- from types of negligence, to manslaughter, all the way up to first-degree murder -- Buddha in the Pali texts draws distinctions between the types of motivations producing an act and the attitude while performing it, the less negatively motivated the better. But there are nevertheless hard and fast "rules" -- encoded in the vinaya -- that are to be followed regardless of one's motivations or attitudes at the moment, such as no consuming or preparing human flesh for consumption, even for good reasons (e.g., medicine). Theravadins can eat meat that was not slaughtered esp. for them, but not lion meat, or elephant meat, etc. (the reason being it could be construed as a political act, since certain animals were associated with royalty). The psychological aspect is a factor, but never the only factor, nor does it invariably trump other concerns. Ask the cows and redwoods. Dan From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Fri Jul 8 07:11:06 2011 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2011 09:11:06 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddha's Meditation References: <1309928315.98701.YahooMailNeo@web45414.mail.sp1.yahoo.com><891506CB-4C5B-4F0F-B5D4-7DE17800ACC0@roadrunner.com><186FE2F8-2535-4198-8212-0F2AF98C6AFF@mind2mind.net><014301cc3c24$ab9946a0$6600a8c0@Dan><998F5935-5217-4820-BF3E-52A831AACC14@mind2mind.net><7005E956-D5EF-4C06-804C-29B6053AB9F8@unm.edu><02df01cc3ca6$b17c8ff0$6600a8c0@Dan> <19025D02-21AF-4C57-B080-696FFB29E0BC@mind2mind.net> Message-ID: <005c01cc3d70$7f34f3f0$6600a8c0@Dan> Hi Franz, Glad you agree that we should be careful with how use words. Now go do something productive. cheers, Dan From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Fri Jul 8 07:47:32 2011 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2011 09:47:32 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddha's Meditation References: <1309928315.98701.YahooMailNeo@web45414.mail.sp1.yahoo.com><891506CB-4C5B-4F0F-B5D4-7DE17800ACC0@roadrunner.com><186FE2F8-2535-4198-8212-0F2AF98C6AFF@mind2mind.net><014301cc3c24$ab9946a0$6600a8c0@Dan><998F5935-5217-4820-BF3E-52A831AACC14@mind2mind.net><7005E956-D5EF-4C06-804C-29B6053AB9F8@unm.edu><02df01cc3ca6$b17c8ff0$6600a8c0@Dan> <19025D02-21AF-4C57-B080-696FFB29E0BC@mind2mind.net> Message-ID: <006701cc3d75$969a3be0$6600a8c0@Dan> I have no intention or desire to challenge or undermine Quakers as a whole or in part, but as vital life-and-death issues are at stake, and the long testimonial was in response to my pointing out a lack of "empirical evidence" where such was being asserted, I will briefly comment on (1) why the testimonial does not meet the test for empirical evidence, and -- since this has been a topic on buddha-l before -- (2) why one should be cautious about the phrase "speak truth to power." It is not empirical evidence because it is indeed a testimonial by an advocate. That an advocate should see the actions of his group in a positive moral light is expected (one would be perverse to engage in such actions if one believed otherwise). Which is why empirical evidence requires 'outside observers,' reproduction of the results of experiments by other researchers, etc. Al Qaida no doubt believes that its actions are moral, following a divine plan. Evangelical Christians think they are saving the country from moral decay by "Christianizing" the country in their own image, i.e., what they are doing is not only moral, but crusading for morality. And so on. None of that rises to the level of empirical evidence. It is, as Richard might say, anaikantika (indeterminate), at best. "Speaking truth to power" is an empty slogan, or more acutely diagnosed, a passive-aggressive biased slogan. Since that honor is bestowed on people like Ahmadinejad (as the buddha-l archives will show) -- who kills and suppresses his own people, is leading the world in annual capital punishments http://tinyurl.com/3wub48p , and is pushing ahead a nuclear weapons program for the explicit and express purpose of wiping another country off the map (maybe he'll do so with non-attachment?) -- his only supposedly good quality being he trash-talks the US (and Israel) periodically; and not on people like Wim Wenders, who also back-talks to the people in power (enough to get arrested and undergo a trial for his opinions), one can only conclude the deciding factor on who is considered someone who "speaks truth to power" has nothing to do with the structure of vocally challenging an established order, but in the content of the statements, which, is to passive-aggressively cheer on anyone besmirching the US, an attitude we have seen much of on this list over the years. Note, I am NOT making value judgments about the content, and not suggesting that Wenders is a more worthy recipient of the honor than Ahmadinejad, but merely suggesting that the phrase 'speak truth to power' is a misnomer, since that 'truth' has an agenda; by concealing the agenda so as to be able to claim deniability makes it passive-aggressive (that is what passive-aggressive means, e.g., why the KKK wear hoods). So my original charge, that universalism and relativism lead to immoralism stands. As I said, while immoral acts are a logical outcome (or if you prefer, perhaps more accurately: amoral acts), actual immoral acts may be controvened by interference from other theories, but not as a logical outcome of the universalism and relativism itself. As for "pluralism" as a preferable term/concept, the only thorough-going pluralists would be anarchists and hermits. All the rest are compromising or delusionally imagining that the Other they tolerate shares on some important level something in common with them, in which case it is no longer pluralism but monadic monism -- an obvious contradiction in terms (or, as Joanna prefers, paradox). In the real world usually the "idea" of pluralism becomes quickly disenchanted when encountering real plurality and heterogeneity. Ergo banning ritual slaughter to discourage Muslims (so what if Jews are also inconvenienced!), no hijabs in France, no new minarets in Switzerland, etc. Or, in New York City, Puerto Ricans complain when Dominicans move into their neighborhood. And on and on... Dan From rhayes at unm.edu Fri Jul 8 08:06:59 2011 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2011 08:06:59 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddhas Meditation In-Reply-To: <43785167418A462D80F6646223868C7C@OPTIPLEX> References: <43785167418A462D80F6646223868C7C@OPTIPLEX> Message-ID: <93ADB70C-B19F-4DEE-B76E-EDE8E88BA2A2@unm.edu> On Jul 7, 2011, at 23:32, "JKirkpatrick" wrote: > OK . But as a statement it elides the empirical fact that not all > vegetarians are "attached" to being vegetarian, just as all meat > eaters are "not non-attached" when they are eating it. Thus, I > don't see it as a valid empirical statement, even if it is a > relative statement value-wise. I considered the statement humbug > from an empirical viewpoint. It's not meant to be an empirical statement. It can be seen as a hypothetical. IF one's preference for a vegetarian diet leads one to condemn others who have other dietary preferences, THEN it would be better to eat meat so that one can have empathy for those who do not prefer to be vegetarian. That statement in no way implies that vegetarians are bound to denigrate non-vegetarians; it simply states a possibility. Moral absolutists often avail themselves of the slippery slope fallacy. Americans have achieved excellence in employing that fallacy. The domino theory that drove the panic about the dangers of communism was based on it. The dread of same-sex marriage is based on it. Islamophobia is based on it. Arizona's laws against having courses in schools on ethnic diversity is based on it. Interstate 40 runs through Albuquerque. If I want to go visit Jim Peavler, I can get on I-40 and get to his house in ten minutes. If I had Michele Bachmann in the car, she'd say "Oh my God! Don't get on I-40, or you'll end up in Barstow, California." that's the form of thinking of most moral absolutists or perfectionists. Oh my God. I had better stop writing on Buddha-l or else I'll end up writing a Russian novel this morning. Richard From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Fri Jul 8 08:13:18 2011 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2011 10:13:18 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddhas Meditation References: <43785167418A462D80F6646223868C7C@OPTIPLEX> Message-ID: <008a01cc3d79$2f9ff110$6600a8c0@Dan> Well said, Joanna. Dan > OK . But as a statement it elides the empirical fact that not all > vegetarians are "attached" to being vegetarian, just as all meat > eaters are "not non-attached" when they are eating it. Thus, I > don't see it as a valid empirical statement, even if it is a > relative statement value-wise. I considered the statement humbug > from an empirical viewpoint. > > However, no person or practice was denigrated as inferior. > Instead, a statement was characterised as nonsense. Nothing > foolish or (name your negative descriptor) was attributed either > to a person or to a practice. [...] > Joanna From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Fri Jul 8 08:39:14 2011 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2011 10:39:14 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] review of Shiva exhibit at the Brooklyn Museum References: <43785167418A462D80F6646223868C7C@OPTIPLEX> <008a01cc3d79$2f9ff110$6600a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: <00b301cc3d7c$cf25c5e0$6600a8c0@Dan> A very nice review of an exhibition on Siva (ok, this is Hinduism, not Buddhism, but still of interest) in today's NYT. I reproduce the beginning below, followed by a link to the rest of the review -- pictures included there. Dan Basking in the Presence of an Ever-Changing God by HOLLAND COTTER Published: July 7, 2011 Hindu sculptures are no ordinary things. They're cosmic implosions, concentrations of spiritual energy so dense as to turn physics inside out. They funnel light from other universes into our mundane world. And they do so consciously, with intent. A consecrated image in a temple, or on a home altar, doesn't just depict a god; when you engage with it, it is the god, listening to you, looking at you, ready to serve and ready to be served. And as a resident V.I.P., it rates five-star treatment: gourmet meals, couture clothes, baths and foot-rubs on demand and, in the case of portable sculptures and paintings, regular fresh-air outings. How do we know what makes gods happy? Because they're like us. They're pleasure-pusses. They're moody. They're conflicted. They fall in and out of love. They act generous, then are withholding. They preach peace but are usually armed to the teeth. They embark on big feel-good social projects, like creating the world, then have doubts, regrets, urges to trash their work and start again. We have every reason to approach them with wariness, mixed with love. Love, ultimately, wins the day in the exhibition "Vishnu: Hinduism's Blue-Skinned Savior" at the Brooklyn Museum, though it takes a while to radiate its full devotional glow over a show that is gratifyingly large but also dauntingly crowded with ideas and information.... [the rest, including photos, at http://tinyurl.com/3hxubkx ] From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Fri Jul 8 08:41:51 2011 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2011 10:41:51 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Vishnu, not Shiva References: <43785167418A462D80F6646223868C7C@OPTIPLEX> <008a01cc3d79$2f9ff110$6600a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: <00b601cc3d7d$2ce73ce0$6600a8c0@Dan> Correction -- the exhibit is on Vishnu (of whom, some Hindus believe, Buddha is an avatar), not Shiva, though it includes "sexy" Shivas, according to the review. Dan From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Fri Jul 8 09:00:08 2011 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2011 11:00:08 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddhas Meditation References: <43785167418A462D80F6646223868C7C@OPTIPLEX> <93ADB70C-B19F-4DEE-B76E-EDE8E88BA2A2@unm.edu> Message-ID: <00e101cc3d7f$ba83ea10$6600a8c0@Dan> Oh, dear, I am having one of those mornings -- lots going on outside the computer to keep me distracted. In the earlier message, obviously I meant Geert Wilders, the right-wing loudmouth, not Wim Wenders the film maker. I need more coffee today... Dan From rhayes at unm.edu Fri Jul 8 09:27:49 2011 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2011 09:27:49 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddhas Meditation In-Reply-To: References: <43785167418A462D80F6646223868C7C@OPTIPLEX> Message-ID: On Jul 8, 2011, at 4:30, Lidewij Niezink wrote: > (we are in Holland after all, compromise is our way of life, > nothing gets ever done) Thank you for the lucid explanation, Lidewij. Your parenthetical remark puts a finger on why I felt so comfortable during my semester in the Netherlands. I, too, am a devotee of compromise and never get anything done. Mind you, the Dutch are better than I at getting things done. If things were left to me, most of Holland would be under the sea. Last night my indecisive compromising wife (she's Norwegian, you see) and I watched a movie on the life of Temple Grandin, a famous autistic woman who redesigned slaughterhouses so that cows would not be frightened in their last few minutes of life. She said something like this: "The cows are going to die and be eaten. That's why people raise them. If we didn't eat them, they'd just stand around and look stupid. But if they're going to die for us, we can at least treat them with respect." Although I would probably be among the disgruntled Dutch Buddhists who wanted a complete ban on all killing of animals, I quite applaud those who have listened to Temple Grandin and built more humane abattoirs. By the way, when I was living in Leiden, I learned that a Dutch friend of mine was in the habit of eating a sausage for breakfast every morning shortly after waking up. I tried to break him of the habit by saying, "Don't you realize that you are only going from bed to wurst?" Richard From horowitz at chass.utoronto.ca Fri Jul 8 09:46:12 2011 From: horowitz at chass.utoronto.ca (Gad Horowitz) Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2011 11:46:12 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddha's Meditation References: <1309928315.98701.YahooMailNeo@web45414.mail.sp1.yahoo.com><891506CB-4C5B-4F0F-B5D4-7DE17800ACC0@roadrunner.com><186FE2F8-2535-4198-8212-0F2AF98C6AFF@mind2mind.net><014301cc3c24$ab9946a0$6600a8c0@Dan><03a101cc3cd8$ba8d80e0$6600a8c0@Dan><67FD7872-E1D5-4AE9-80B5-32E7A7C45E7A@wheelwrightassoc.com><040a01cc3cec$4a30c3c0$6600a8c0@Dan><0C4C6B92-0032-46D3-AE6F-AC9F8F2ECBC6@unm.edu><043a01cc3cf2$327da8f0$6600a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: <838FE9FCEC5C4466B752106CC5F21FDB@utor34931c0aec> Are you, Richard, not PREsupposing that getting satisfaction in life is the ultimate goal? For everyone? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Hayes" To: "Buddhist discussion forum" Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 7:02 PM Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] Buddha's Meditation > On Jul 7, 2011, at 16:07 , Dan Lusthaus wrote: > >> As I've already pointed out, the initial example of the shallow holes and >> deep hole assumes universalism in the sense I described. It becomes a >> meaningless analogy otherwise. > > I get meaning out of the analogy in quite a different way from the sort of > universalism you describe. As you are surely aware from hundreds if not > thousands of conversations with me, I have no use for the sort of > hegemonic universalism you describe. In that, we are (I think) in full > agreement. It is for that reason that I prefer not to use he term > "universalism" and prefer instead the term "pluralism." A pluralist, I > take it, acknowledges that there are many legitimate goals and that > therefore not everyone need have the same ultimate goal in life, nor the > same set of values, nor the same standards of morality, nor the same > narratives, nor the same metaphysics, nor the same epistemology. Most > pluralists also acknowledge that for every goal there are many methods of > reaching it. The most robust pluralists of all admit that there are many > kinds of pluralism. I think (perhaps incorrectly) that I may be among the > more robust pluralists. > > My pluralistic reading of the well analogy is that it is suggesting that > one is more likely to find some degree of satisfaction in life if one > sticks to one goal and pursues it, rather than pursuing dozens of goals in > short bursts of enthusiasm. That is a meaningful reading, I think, that is > in no way hegemonic or universalistic in the ways that both you and I find > disconcerting. > > Having said that, I do not agree with the well analogy at all in any of > its readings. As I have said numerous times, right here on buddha-l, I > think a person can get enough satisfaction in life by being a superficial > dabbler. Such a person is often called a dilettante, a person who finds > delight in pursuing things without much commitment or deep knowledge. So I > reject the well analogy. My own experience shows me it is based on a false > assumption, namely, the assumption that superficiality is never as > satisfactory as profundity. (Hell's bells, if I believed that assumption > were true, would I participate in buddha-l?) > > Now let's get back to my original question. Is it true that the well > analogy comes from the Buddha (by which I mean some character with that > name and/or description in any Buddhist work of fiction)? And if it is > true that it comes from a Buddhist source, is it being used in a > hegemonically universalist sense or as an expression of pluralism? My > guess would be the former, but I would be a delighted dilettante if that > guess turned out to be incorrect. > > Richard > > > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l > From horowitz at chass.utoronto.ca Fri Jul 8 09:48:22 2011 From: horowitz at chass.utoronto.ca (Gad Horowitz) Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2011 11:48:22 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddhas Meditation References: Message-ID: <4DDD81570177425781C39B46BB314012@utor34931c0aec> What if being "attached" to vegetarianism meant that you would treat meat eaters with contempt, or worse? ----- Original Message ----- From: "JKirkpatrick" To: "'Buddhist discussion forum'" Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 7:28 PM Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddhas Meditation > Come on, you philosophes--------------kindly explain why this > phrase makes no sense, or viprysasa-wise, how it does make > sense(????) > > "eating meat with non-attachment is preferable to being attached > to vegetarianism.." > > Precisely what is the point? > IMO it's humbug. > > I ask for comment because this list is ever in the habit of > ignoring anything I say in response to various posts. Now, > typically, you are all doing it again--paying attention only to > what the men among us say. > > I'm not any more idiotic than the rest of you. So either be > inclusive in this discussion, or go to hina hell. > > Joanna > > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l > From smith at wheelwrightassoc.com Fri Jul 8 10:01:20 2011 From: smith at wheelwrightassoc.com (Timothy Smith) Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2011 12:01:20 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddhas Meditation In-Reply-To: <004c01cc3d6a$bf80d1a0$6600a8c0@Dan> References: <003501cc3d01$107d4ad0$6600a8c0@Dan> <004c01cc3d6a$bf80d1a0$6600a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: Quite so, Dan, though the Commons were originally grazing grounds. Perhaps you could reinstitute that custom? My own attachment is exactly the issue. I remain attached to having my words be characterized correctly. My original post was a recounting of an experience I had. You seem to have put the monk's tongue in my head for some reason. Perhaps to get my goat, which is udderly silly, since my goats are Nubian, blessed with high fat milk, and unlikely to be gotten by anyone. I'm grateful that you'll let others decide, leaves me more time for my goats and less for battling Bostonians. BTW, I'll be in Cambridge next week, perhaps a cup of goats milk at Cafe Pamplona or a Guinness at Grafton St? Timothy Smith Office/Mobile 831.624.8138 Fax 831.659-5112 www.wheelwrightassoc.com On Jul 8, 2011, at 8:29 AM, Dan Lusthaus wrote: > Since zoning laws in Boston forbid me from keeping herds of goats at home, > let's disperse some quickly: > > I paraphrased Timothy thus: > >>> Timothy said: Do with the redwoods as you please, just keep a >>> non-attached >>> attitude while doing it. > > The original quote, which I had reproduced several times in previous > messages, so that everyone would have been familiar with it, read thus: > >>>>>> Rather, it seemed clear enough to me that he was admonishing the >>>>>> assembly >>>>>> to act as they saw fit >>>>>> concerning the redwoods, but to act with non-attachment, thus >>>>>> lessening >>>>>> their suffering ... > > Timothy's disavowed goat then hollered: > >> You're completely full of it, Dan. I said no such thing, nor did I imply >> it. > > I'll let others decide for themselves if the paraphrase was fair or not. I > contend it is. I recommend Timothy listen to himself once in awhile before > shouting at others about non-attachment. > > Dan > > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l > From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Fri Jul 8 10:04:27 2011 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2011 12:04:27 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddhas Meditation References: <4DDD81570177425781C39B46BB314012@utor34931c0aec> Message-ID: <013701cc3d88$b6dcec00$6600a8c0@Dan> Gad asks: > What if being "attached" to vegetarianism meant that you would treat meat > eaters with contempt, or worse? That was Richard's ridiculous point. How much "worse" are you considering? Like killing people because they eat meat (like antiabortionists bombing abortion clinics to "save" lives)? I don't know very many vegetarians killing carnivorous humans for being carnivorous. Anything short of that, let's consider: Hurt someone's feeling (probably not -- carnivores are callous, or else they would have become vegetarian's a long time ago). VS condone the continuous killing of thousands of animals. Yeah, Richard is right, the first option is clearly the nastier of the two. Oh, it's about worrying about the mental state of non-carnivores who might chastise a carnivore for being responsible for mass slaughter? Yeah, the vegetarian is REALLY going to feel upset about having spoken out, speaking real truth to greedy, voracious, unstoppable power. Wake up, people! Please. Dan From horowitz at chass.utoronto.ca Fri Jul 8 10:07:46 2011 From: horowitz at chass.utoronto.ca (Gad Horowitz) Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2011 12:07:46 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddhas Meditation References: <4DDD81570177425781C39B46BB314012@utor34931c0aec> <013701cc3d88$b6dcec00$6600a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: oh wow. no more meat for me... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan Lusthaus" To: "Buddhist discussion forum" Sent: Friday, July 08, 2011 12:04 PM Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] Buddhas Meditation > Gad asks: > >> What if being "attached" to vegetarianism meant that you would treat meat >> eaters with contempt, or worse? > > That was Richard's ridiculous point. How much "worse" are you considering? > Like killing people because they eat meat (like antiabortionists bombing > abortion clinics to "save" lives)? I don't know very many vegetarians > killing carnivorous humans for being carnivorous. Anything short of that, > let's consider: > > Hurt someone's feeling (probably not -- carnivores are callous, or else > they > would have become vegetarian's a long time ago). > > VS > > condone the continuous killing of thousands of animals. > > Yeah, Richard is right, the first option is clearly the nastier of the > two. > Oh, it's about worrying about the mental state of non-carnivores who might > chastise a carnivore for being responsible for mass slaughter? Yeah, the > vegetarian is REALLY going to feel upset about having spoken out, speaking > real truth to greedy, voracious, unstoppable power. > > Wake up, people! Please. > > Dan > > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l > From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Fri Jul 8 10:09:59 2011 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2011 12:09:59 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddhas Meditation References: <003501cc3d01$107d4ad0$6600a8c0@Dan><004c01cc3d6a$bf80d1a0$6600a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: <014401cc3d89$7c92c870$6600a8c0@Dan> > I'm grateful that you'll let others decide, leaves me more time for my > goats and less for battling Bostonians. BTW, I'll be in Cambridge next > week, perhaps a cup of goats milk at Cafe Pamplona or a Guinness at > Grafton St? > Timothy Smith A get-together to consume beverages while swapping herding stories would be nice. Contact me offlist. Dan From rhayes at unm.edu Fri Jul 8 10:10:33 2011 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2011 10:10:33 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddhas Meditation In-Reply-To: <93C85221-D2DC-47C3-B45C-0C53E485F91C@wheelwrightassoc.com> References: <003501cc3d01$107d4ad0$6600a8c0@Dan> <7301D2E0-3CD3-463F-92F7-408F9EA26F02@unm.edu> <93C85221-D2DC-47C3-B45C-0C53E485F91C@wheelwrightassoc.com> Message-ID: <8786FCAD-DFC8-4D8A-830C-7F1B7185975B@unm.edu> On Jul 7, 2011, at 20:03 , Timothy Smith wrote: > Doesn't. Won't. Tks. Yr wlcm. Rchrd Hys From rhayes at unm.edu Fri Jul 8 11:14:10 2011 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2011 11:14:10 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddha's Meditation In-Reply-To: <006701cc3d75$969a3be0$6600a8c0@Dan> References: <1309928315.98701.YahooMailNeo@web45414.mail.sp1.yahoo.com><891506CB-4C5B-4F0F-B5D4-7DE17800ACC0@roadrunner.com><186FE2F8-2535-4198-8212-0F2AF98C6AFF@mind2mind.net><014301cc3c24$ab9946a0$6600a8c0@Dan><998F5935-5217-4820-BF3E-52A831AACC14@mind2mind.net><7005E956-D5EF-4C06-804C-29B6053AB9F8@unm.edu><02df01cc3ca6$b17c8ff0$6600a8c0@Dan> <19025D02-21AF-4C57-B080-696FFB29E0BC@mind2mind.net> <006701cc3d75$969a3be0$6600a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: <241221E9-FAD5-4C92-9A37-EEB25E0683A7@unm.edu> On Jul 8, 2011, at 07:47 , Dan Lusthaus wrote: > I will briefly comment on (1) why > the testimonial does not meet the test for empirical evidence, and -- since > this has been a topic on buddha-l before -- (2) why one should be cautious > about the phrase "speak truth to power." > > It is not empirical evidence because it is indeed a testimonial by an > advocate. I am not sure I see the logic behind this claim. Are you saying that someone who is part of a group cannot make an empirical claim about that group? Or are you saying that no one who is a member of a group can make an unbiased observation about that group's behavior? Or are you making some other claim, and if so, what exactly is the principle you are stating? As I see it, the truth value of the observation that there are universalist Quakers who follow principles that qualify as moral (and that therefore it is not the case that universalism is necessarily immoral) does not depend on the convictions of the person making the observation. > Which is why empirical evidence requires 'outside > observers,' reproduction of the results of experiments by other researchers, > etc. If you would like, I can supply the testimonials of quite a few non-Quakers who deem as moral the specific activities of Quakers that I mentioned. > Al Qaida no doubt believes that its actions are moral, following a > divine plan. Evangelical Christians think they are saving the country from > moral decay by "Christianizing" the country in their own image, i.e., what > they are doing is not only moral, but crusading for morality. And so on. > None of that rises to the level of empirical evidence. It is, as Richard > might say, anaikantika (indeterminate), at best. That is completely irrelevant. There is a need for vy?pti only when one is making a universal affirmative or a universal negative proposition and deducing something from it. I was not making a universal proposition (of the form "All universalist Quakers are concerned with morality"), but a singular proposition (of the form "There are universalist Quakers who are concerned with morality"), which is all that is required to show the falsity of the claim that universalism is always immoral, which seemed to me the intention of you claim that universalism is intrinsically immoral. > "Speaking truth to power" is an empty slogan, or more acutely diagnosed, a > passive-aggressive biased slogan. As I said, the slogan has come into public discourse and is used in ways different from the way it was used by 18th century Quakers and is still used by 21st century Quakers. As Quakers use it, it means what I said it means. > Since that honor is bestowed on people like Ahmadinejad But never uncategorically. If one says about one speech given by one man on one occasion that the speech was an example of speaking truth to power, it does not follow that one is saying that everything that person says on every occasion is an example of speaking truth to power. If one admires one thing that a person has done, it does not follow that one admires everything that person does. Similarly, one one believes that some (even most) of a person's actions are vicious, it does not follow that one believes the person in question has no virtues at all. I don't think one needs to have studied very much logic to be aware of that. Now if you will go back and check the archives, you'll find that I agreed with Ahmadinejad that it is unfair for the United States, which still has tens of thousands of nuclear warheads (and is the only country that has actually USED them, if you'll recall), to condemn Iran and Korea for aspiring to develop nuclear weapons. I still think he's right. It is unfair. But then I advocate universal nuclear disarmament, meaning that I am in favor of NO country having a nuclear arsenal. You may recall, that is the argument of the Quaker pamphlet of the 1950s entitled "Speaking truth to power," which for better or for worse brought the phrase back into common usage. > Note, > I am NOT making value judgments about the content, and not suggesting that > Wenders is a more worthy recipient of the honor than Ahmadinejad, but merely > suggesting that the phrase 'speak truth to power' is a misnomer, since that > 'truth' has an agenda; by concealing the agenda so as to be able to claim > deniability makes it passive-aggressive (that is what passive-aggressive > means, e.g., why the KKK wear hoods). You are right. The "truth" in the Quaker phrase has an agenda behind it. The opinion elevated, perhaps without warrant, to the level of a truth is that when power is abused by anyone for any reason, people and other living beings suffer, and when that happens, people should speak up about it and try to prevent such things from happening. The usual aim if Quakers is not to conceal that agenda, but to state it as clearly as possible, and to act on it whenever there is a need. There is nothing passive about it, for it is a call to activism. And one hopes it is not aggressive, since it is a call to end aggression by non-violent means. I personally have never see a Quaker on a peace march wearing a hood as KKK people do, and I have been on quite a few peace marches, but perhaps I need to get around more. Please send pictures of hooded Quakers if you have any. I think you are laboring under one further bit of information, which is that "Speak truth to power" is never used to call into question the actions of anyone but the United States and Israel. That is simply false. As I said, whenever power is being abused by anyone with the result of people suffering, you will hear Quakers and other unhooded people concerned with justice speaking out about it. All you have to do is listen. > So my original charge, that universalism and relativism lead to immoralism > stands. Sorry, but it does not. At the very most you can say that it is possible for a universalist to be immoral. But you have not established (and can't establish, given that it is empirically false) that universalism entails immorality or that universalism is intrinsically immoral. > As for "pluralism" as a > preferable term/concept, the only thorough-going pluralists would be > anarchists and hermits. All the rest are compromising or delusionally > imagining that the Other they tolerate shares on some important level > something in common with them, in which case it is no longer pluralism but > monadic monism -- an obvious contradiction in terms (or, as Joanna prefers, > paradox). My own view on human psychology is that it is rarely easy to know exactly what others and thinking and feeling. My own preference would be to avoid making wholesale claims about the motivations of others. On the face of it, your claim has something in common with the notorious British imam who said not long ago that the only genuine Muslims are those who are striving to convert every last human being on the planet to Islam and who are strictly following every last detail of shariah. Every delf-proclaimed Muslim who believed otherwise, he said, was compromising or delusional. > In the real world usually the "idea" of pluralism becomes quickly > disenchanted when encountering real plurality and heterogeneity. Well, that has not been my experience. I have embraced a pretty strong pluralism my entire life and have never grown tired of real diversity and heterogeneity. It never occurs to me that underlying diversity there is a deep psychological or epistemological or metaphysical unity; in that respect I differ from universalists and monists. There are people who believe that variety is not the spice of life but the very stuff of life; such people are also aware that not everyone shares that conviction, and are not in the least discomforted thereby. > Ergo > banning ritual slaughter to discourage Muslims (so what if Jews are also > inconvenienced!) If we can believe Lidewij Niezink(who may not count as independent empirical evidence, since he is, after all, Dutch), the motivation behind the new Dutch law was to save animals from suffering, not to discourage Muslims or Jews. Indeed, we learned that if anyone can provide independent scientific evidence that his or her way of slaughtering animals does not cause them (the animals) more suffering than if they (the animals) were stunned, then the person showing the proof can proceed to kill the animal without first stunning it (the animal). Of course, you and I would prefer a law saying that no one can kill an animal unless he (the would-be killer) can provide scientific proof that killing does the animal no harm. But who listens to us? > Or, in New York City, Puerto Ricans complain when Dominicans move into their > neighborhood. And on and on... I trust you are saying that there are some Puerto Ricans who issue such complaints, and I am guessing you find such complaints irrational. So you have just recently discovered that there are some irrational human beings? So I guess maybe we are not essentially homo sapiens after all. Richard From rhayes at unm.edu Fri Jul 8 12:26:56 2011 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2011 12:26:56 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddhas Meditation In-Reply-To: <00e101cc3d7f$ba83ea10$6600a8c0@Dan> References: <43785167418A462D80F6646223868C7C@OPTIPLEX> <93ADB70C-B19F-4DEE-B76E-EDE8E88BA2A2@unm.edu> <00e101cc3d7f$ba83ea10$6600a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: <3DDC09B5-9432-4AF9-B455-A13B483FB228@unm.edu> On Jul 8, 2011, at 09:00 , Dan Lusthaus wrote: > Oh, dear, I am having one of those mornings -- lots going on outside the > computer to keep me distracted. In the earlier message, obviously I meant > Geert Wilders, the right-wing loudmouth, not Wim Wenders the film maker. Thanks for the clarification. I was wondering how on earth Wim Wenders go into the discussion. I thought maybe you had discovered that "Paris, Texas" (which Wenders directed) is one of my favorites films. Speaking of Geert Wilders, I'm sure you have heard that we was found not guilty of disseminating hate literature (for, among other things, comparing the Qur'?n to Mein Kampf). The case brings Evelyn Beatrice Hall to mind, the woman who said, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it," a saying that was falsely credited to Voltaire. Wouldn't be the first time a man got credit for a woman's work. Richard Hayes From rhayes at unm.edu Fri Jul 8 12:32:33 2011 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2011 12:32:33 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddha's Meditation In-Reply-To: <838FE9FCEC5C4466B752106CC5F21FDB@utor34931c0aec> References: <1309928315.98701.YahooMailNeo@web45414.mail.sp1.yahoo.com><891506CB-4C5B-4F0F-B5D4-7DE17800ACC0@roadrunner.com><186FE2F8-2535-4198-8212-0F2AF98C6AFF@mind2mind.net><014301cc3c24$ab9946a0$6600a8c0@Dan><03a101cc3cd8$ba8d80e0$6600a8c0@Dan><67FD7872-E1D5-4AE9-80B5-32E7A7C45E7A@wheelwrightassoc.com><040a01cc3cec$4a30c3c0$6600a8c0@Dan><0C4C6B92-0032-46D3-AE6F-AC9F8F2ECBC6@unm.edu><043a01cc3cf2$327da8f0$6600a8c0@Dan> <838FE9FCEC5C4466B752106CC5F21FDB@utor34931c0aec> Message-ID: <668DD660-B100-4009-92BB-1BFEB4C1942A@unm.edu> On Jul 8, 2011, at 09:46 , Gad Horowitz wrote: > Are you, Richard, not PREsupposing that getting satisfaction in life is the > ultimate goal? For everyone? Never having believed that to be true, I am unlikely to have supposed it, presupposed it or postsupposed it. From stroble at hawaii.edu Fri Jul 8 13:12:35 2011 From: stroble at hawaii.edu (andy) Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2011 09:12:35 -1000 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddhas Meditation In-Reply-To: <005501cc3d70$2b8bde80$6600a8c0@Dan> References: <201107071704.01687.stroble@hawaii.edu> <005501cc3d70$2b8bde80$6600a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: <201107080912.37348.stroble@hawaii.edu> > Andy, > > > So eating meat is wrong if it entails these emotions, but to stick to > > this as > > an absolute rule causes more suffering than not. > > Same question as to Timothy: Is this "suffering" in the animal or in the > persons abstaining or indulging? Um, both? What, from a Buddhist perspective, is the cause of the redwood's suffering? > > It is very disheartening to see so many supposed compassionate Buddhists > (except Lidewij) eager to dismiss this issue as goat-herding when literally > the issue is life and death, plain, simple and stark. > Well, there it is. Samsara. Universal value. So every redwood is special, and thus its destruction is wrong? Life and death are not so simple. > One's mental attitude while killing trees, animals, fellow humans (branded > enemy or friend) is of some consequence, but not necessarily to the one > being killed or to those who care about the one(s) being killed. This is > NOT an either/or equation. > > Which is preferable? > > (1) That a deranged, angry, greedy, "attached" individual refrains from > killing your family? > > OR > > (2) Someone with cool, non-attached precision, wipes out your family and > moves on... > > There are plenty of people who can commit homicide with no regret, with > detachment, etc. Some of them we might label sociopaths or psychopaths (I > can't keep up with the psychiatric jargon book, but believe the former term > is "in," i.e., an acceptable 'official' diagnosis these days, while the > latter is currently eschewed as pop-psych -- but I could be wrong). Let's > stipulate that they can kill without feeling any personal discomfort. > Satisfied? I hope not. Well, if I had to choose. . . . This is why I brought up the Gita. Are we supposed to think that Arjuna can war away at his relatives without doing wrong as long as he is not attached to the fruit if his actions? I don't think that conclusion follows for Buddhism. > > Back to the redwood. One might attempt to argue that in general people do > not chop down trees unless motivated by one or more of "greed, hatred > (anger), or delusion", the three poisons. A lumber firm is motivated by > greed; someone with a need to destructively lash out at a defenseless tree > may be motivated by anger (not necessarily at the tree itself, but who > knows?); Or some deluded being, imagining Redwoods are pods from another > planet, imagines he is saving the earth by chopping down the invaders. In > the absence of greed, hatred or delusion there would be no reason to chop > down a redwood. > > Maybe. Nonetheless, the redwood itself cares nothing about that, and should > someone come along and chop him down while non-attached and whistling his > favorite dharani, the redwood would suffer just as much. What is the source of suffering? I agree that the motivation of the actor is not definitive. Are we dealing with a straw man on a slippery slope? But this is a good place to bring up the simile of the double-handed saw. Monks, as low-down thieves might carve you limb from limb with a double-handed saw, yet even then whoever sets his mind at enmity, he, for this reason, is not a doer of my teaching. This is how you must train yourselves: neither will my mind become perverted, nor will I utter an evil speech, but kindly and compassionate will I dwell, with a mind of friendliness and devoid of hatred. (Kakacupama Sutta) So the redwood is delusional, if it suffers, because it is attached to its own existence, when actually it is empty of self. So it doesn't really matter what the attachment status of the sawyers is. Now this is where the original objection to the "cosmic perspective" comes in, if the redwood is not an essential being, destroying it is no great loss, since in the absolute sense it doesn't exist anyway. And the only source of wrong is the mental attitude of the destroyer? In fact, we could imagine a Paul Bunyan Bodhisattva who with the finest of upaya and double-handed saws who come to liberate redwoods from the illusion of their own self-existence by turning them into decking, for their own good, of course. But you are right, the good intentions don't matter, since the redwood would suffer nonetheless. So how does one go about enlightening redwoods? My point would be that the imposition of a universalist position of sunyata is violence, and a form of attachment to non-attachment, or in other words, nihilism. This is not the buddhist position, although it may have been put forth by some buddhists (with "swords of no-sword" and so on). Emptiness does not justify clearcuttting. But the flip-side doesn't follow either. Redwoods die. The species itself may well be headed to extinction. Trying to save them, to preserve being, is the other form of universalism, eternalism. So do trees have standing? Yes, because they can suffer. Not because they have a right to life or existence. And so the attitude of the actor should be kindly and compassionate. -- James Andy Stroble, PhD Lecturer in Philosophy Department of Arts & Humanities Leeward Community College University of Hawaii From franz at mind2mind.net Fri Jul 8 13:18:11 2011 From: franz at mind2mind.net (Franz Metcalf) Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2011 12:18:11 -0700 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddhas Meditation In-Reply-To: <005501cc3d70$2b8bde80$6600a8c0@Dan> References: <201107071704.01687.stroble@hawaii.edu> <005501cc3d70$2b8bde80$6600a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: Dan et al., Dan suggested to me, > Now go do something productive. Thank you, I promise I will. But just a quick work, first, since one of Dan's points really disturbed me. I had previously written that calming the suffering in the mind of the oppressor/harmer/animal killer was a desideratum. A lesser one that ending the oppression/ harming/killing, but still a desideratum. But then Dan asked > Which is preferable? > > (1) That a deranged, angry, greedy, "attached" individual > refrains from killing your family? > > OR > > (2) Someone with cool, non-attached precision, wipes out > your family and moves on... Naturally, the former is preferable, at least to me (since I am hideously attached, especially to my daughter). But Dan's question sparked a harder (at least to me) question: Which is preferable? (1) That a suffering, ?attached? individual kills your family? OR (2) That a non-suffering, "non-attached" individual kills your family? This questions threatens to upend my previous view. It seems to me that that view was based on appreciating, as Joanna noted, a both/and view of suffering: that the killer suffers as well as those killed. The seemingly Buddhist implication here would be that it would be better that the killer did *not* suffer. Then at least that small amount of dukkha would not have to be experienced. That sounds all well and good until one is put (sheesh, thanks alot, Dan!) in the position of the massacred family. In *that* case, at least for myself, I'm certain I *want* the killer to be suffering as he kills. And let me quickly stress that this is not because I want revenge or punishment to befall him. Rather, it is because I feel it is only through suffering as he kills that the killer might eventually realize that this action is deeply wrong, motivated as it is by one or more of the three poisons and resulting in a great deal of unnecessary harm. We recognize this in our legal systems, as Dan has noted, and Dan also reminds us that general Buddhist ethics recognizes this in its central tenet that intention matters. This is what separates Buddhists from Jains and possibly other, more modern, materialist ethical thinks following various kriy?v?das. We can err in focusing too much on the inner state of the actor (this is what Dan is warning us against); we can err in focusing too much on the result of the act (this is what Timothy's quoted teacher [note: NOT Timothy] warned against). We need some balance here, but Buddhist texts and the very existence of the Vinaya as one of the three jewels testify to a balance overwhelmingly favoring focusing on the act. Surely we all agree on that, yes? The now unresolved question in my mind is: Is the suffering a person doing harm experiences kusala or at least useful? If so--and it does seem so in the family-killing illustration--then we might want more it, not less. Franz From horowitz at chass.utoronto.ca Fri Jul 8 13:30:04 2011 From: horowitz at chass.utoronto.ca (Gad Horowitz) Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2011 15:30:04 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Fw: Buddha's Meditation Message-ID: In paragraphs 2 and 3 of this post of yours, Richard, is it not "finding satisfaction in life" that serves as the fundamental criterion in your argument? Do not be so quick to dismiss a well intentioned question. Why is your lip curling? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gad Horowitz" To: "Buddhist discussion forum" Sent: Friday, July 08, 2011 11:46 AM Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] Buddha's Meditation > Are you, Richard, not PREsupposing that getting satisfaction in life is > the > ultimate goal? For everyone? > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Richard Hayes" > To: "Buddhist discussion forum" > Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 7:02 PM > Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] Buddha's Meditation > > >> On Jul 7, 2011, at 16:07 , Dan Lusthaus wrote: >> >>> As I've already pointed out, the initial example of the shallow holes >>> and >>> deep hole assumes universalism in the sense I described. It becomes a >>> meaningless analogy otherwise. >> >> I get meaning out of the analogy in quite a different way from the sort >> of >> universalism you describe. As you are surely aware from hundreds if not >> thousands of conversations with me, I have no use for the sort of >> hegemonic universalism you describe. In that, we are (I think) in full >> agreement. It is for that reason that I prefer not to use he term >> "universalism" and prefer instead the term "pluralism." A pluralist, I >> take it, acknowledges that there are many legitimate goals and that >> therefore not everyone need have the same ultimate goal in life, nor the >> same set of values, nor the same standards of morality, nor the same >> narratives, nor the same metaphysics, nor the same epistemology. Most >> pluralists also acknowledge that for every goal there are many methods of >> reaching it. The most robust pluralists of all admit that there are many >> kinds of pluralism. I think (perhaps incorrectly) that I may be among the >> more robust pluralists. >> >> My pluralistic reading of the well analogy is that it is suggesting that >> one is more likely to find some degree of satisfaction in life if one >> sticks to one goal and pursues it, rather than pursuing dozens of goals >> in >> short bursts of enthusiasm. That is a meaningful reading, I think, that >> is >> in no way hegemonic or universalistic in the ways that both you and I >> find >> disconcerting. >> >> Having said that, I do not agree with the well analogy at all in any of >> its readings. As I have said numerous times, right here on buddha-l, I >> think a person can get enough satisfaction in life by being a superficial >> dabbler. Such a person is often called a dilettante, a person who finds >> delight in pursuing things without much commitment or deep knowledge. So >> I >> reject the well analogy. My own experience shows me it is based on a >> false >> assumption, namely, the assumption that superficiality is never as >> satisfactory as profundity. (Hell's bells, if I believed that assumption >> were true, would I participate in buddha-l?) >> >> Now let's get back to my original question. Is it true that the well >> analogy comes from the Buddha (by which I mean some character with that >> name and/or description in any Buddhist work of fiction)? And if it is >> true that it comes from a Buddhist source, is it being used in a >> hegemonically universalist sense or as an expression of pluralism? My >> guess would be the former, but I would be a delighted dilettante if that >> guess turned out to be incorrect. >> >> Richard >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> buddha-l mailing list >> buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com >> http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l >> > > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l > From rhayes at unm.edu Fri Jul 8 13:47:42 2011 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2011 13:47:42 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Fw: Buddha's Meditation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Jul 8, 2011, at 13:30 , Gad Horowitz wrote: > In paragraphs 2 and 3 of this post of yours, Richard, is it not "finding > satisfaction in life" that serves as the fundamental criterion in your > argument? I see it as a hypothetical claim: IF one seeks satisfaction in life, then one can find it either by sticking with one pursuit or by pursuing many. I don't see anything I have said as suggesting that everyone is pursuing some kind of satisfaction in life. > Do not be so quick to dismiss a well intentioned question. I didn't mean to dismiss it. I thought I answered it by saying that I was not supposing that satisfaction is the pursuit of everyone. > Why is your lip curling? Don't mistake a smile for a snarl. From rhayes at unm.edu Fri Jul 8 14:20:22 2011 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2011 14:20:22 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddhas Meditation In-Reply-To: References: <201107071704.01687.stroble@hawaii.edu> <005501cc3d70$2b8bde80$6600a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: <8660C3CD-3BAB-46B4-824F-1866BA056027@unm.edu> On Jul 8, 2011, at 13:18 , Franz Metcalf wrote: > Thank you, I promise I will. But just a quick work, first, since one > of Dan's points really disturbed me. I had previously written that > calming the suffering in the mind of the oppressor/harmer/animal > killer was a desideratum. A lesser one that ending the oppression/ > harming/killing, but still a desideratum. This whole discussion has been taken it for granted that consequentialism is the only valid meta-ethical theory. With all due respects to Charles Goodman, who has argued at great length and very intelligently that Buddhist ethics are consequentialist in nature, I remain unconvinced. The principal thrust of most Buddhist discussions of ??la, it seems to me, is that it is desirable to cultivate virtues. Virtues need no justification, although it does turn out that being virtuous tends to increase the likelihood that one will be contented. Virtues are neither augmented nor diminished by the consequences of having them. I agree with Keown, Harvey and others in seeing that as the tone of most Buddhist discussions of ??la. And I believe it explains why there is hardly any casuistry in Asian Buddhist texts. Considering all sorts of hypothetical scenarios and thinking about what the limits of a rule are is the sort of thinking one does in deontological and consequentialist ethical systems, but it is relatively rare in virtue ethics. Here is how it seems to me one can look from a virtue-ethics point of view at the claim that it is preferable to be compassionate without attachment than to be compassioanate with attachments to one's compassion. Being compassionate is a virtue. So is unconditional positive regard for others. If one's cultivation of compassion leads one to have a diminished regard for others, then one's overall virtue is less, because one's regard for others is conditional, which is less virtuous than unconditional positive regard. There are various reasons to be wary of consequentialist approaches to ethics. The principal one for me is that there is no reliable way to determine the valence of consequences, and no reliable way to take a full account of what the consequences of an action are. Every action has effects that go on indefinitely and that have an impact on countless beings. It may sound sensible to ask whether it does more harm to kill an animal or to hurt the feelings of a carnivore, but that is a hopelessly flat-footed question, because it cherry picks consequences out of a much larger set of consequences. The question is framed in such a way that it seems there is only one possible rational answer. Alas, moral reasoning is hardly ever that simple. Measuring the amount of good or harm that an action does is not as simple as determining whether the retired sumo wrestler Takamiyama displaces more water than Dan Lusthaus when he enters a hot tub. Needless to say, every ethical theory has its weaknesses. Not everyone is drawn to virtue ethics and find its weaknesses unacceptable. If one is an ethical pluralist, that is not bothersome. It just means different people make different kinds of decisions about what particular conduct is tolerable, acceptable or commendable. Why should there be only one answer to the question of what is tolerable or commendable? I look at most issues from a virtue-ethics perspective. Dan looks at most issues from a consequentialist perspective. It is not surprising that we end up with different decisions from time to time on what is acceptable. And to me it is not even disconcerting. Richard From jkirk at spro.net Fri Jul 8 18:10:02 2011 From: jkirk at spro.net (JKirkpatrick) Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2011 18:10:02 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddhas Meditation In-Reply-To: <93ADB70C-B19F-4DEE-B76E-EDE8E88BA2A2@unm.edu> References: <43785167418A462D80F6646223868C7C@OPTIPLEX> <93ADB70C-B19F-4DEE-B76E-EDE8E88BA2A2@unm.edu> Message-ID: OK Richard--hypothetical argumentation as a function of your discipline is AOK, but language statements are statements. There are _other ways_ of interpreting statements. Nothing that I wrote has anything to do with your stated "possibility of denigrating non-vegetarians", or denigrating anyone, for that matter. You didn't read what I wrote. OR, you misconstrued what I wrote--probably because you want to harp on some people denigrating other people, or the possibility of doing so. This _denigration theme_ is one of your favorite discussion topics, we have seen it before, probably when you are not feeling too well, or suffering indigestion-- but it is not mine (unless we are talking about the Lotus Sutra). So please do not attribute such viewpoints to me. Joanna -----Original Message----- From: buddha-l-bounces at mailman.swcp.com [mailto:buddha-l-bounces at mailman.swcp.com] On Behalf Of Richard Hayes Sent: Friday, July 08, 2011 8:07 AM To: Buddhist discussion forum Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] Buddhas Meditation On Jul 7, 2011, at 23:32, "JKirkpatrick" wrote: > OK . But as a statement it elides the empirical fact that not all > vegetarians are "attached" to being vegetarian, just as all meat > eaters are "not non-attached" when they are eating it. Thus, I don't > see it as a valid empirical statement, even if it is a relative > statement value-wise. I considered the statement humbug from an > empirical viewpoint. It's not meant to be an empirical statement. It can be seen as a hypothetical. IF one's preference for a vegetarian diet leads one to condemn others who have other dietary preferences, THEN it would be better to eat meat so that one can have empathy for those who do not prefer to be vegetarian. That statement in no way implies that vegetarians are bound to denigrate non-vegetarians; it simply states a possibility. Moral absolutists often avail themselves of the slippery slope fallacy. Americans have achieved excellence in employing that fallacy. The domino theory that drove the panic about the dangers of communism was based on it. The dread of same-sex marriage is based on it. Islamophobia is based on it. Arizona's laws against having courses in schools on ethnic diversity is based on it. Interstate 40 runs through Albuquerque. If I want to go visit Jim Peavler, I can get on I-40 and get to his house in ten minutes. If I had Michele Bachmann in the car, she'd say "Oh my God! Don't get on I-40, or you'll end up in Barstow, California." that's the form of thinking of most moral absolutists or perfectionists. Oh my God. I had better stop writing on Buddha-l or else I'll end up writing a Russian novel this morning. Richard _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From jkirk at spro.net Fri Jul 8 18:50:52 2011 From: jkirk at spro.net (JKirkpatrick) Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2011 18:50:52 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] review of Shiva exhibit at the Brooklyn Museum In-Reply-To: <00b301cc3d7c$cf25c5e0$6600a8c0@Dan> References: <43785167418A462D80F6646223868C7C@OPTIPLEX><008a01cc3d79$2f9ff110$6600a8c0@Dan> <00b301cc3d7c$cf25c5e0$6600a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: <61A3AD484AED4541840EEC6C6ED8B6B2@OPTIPLEX> " They embark on big feel-good social projects, like creating the world, then have doubts, regrets, urges to trash their work and start again." This is why some folks say that God is, or was, an artist. Artists (like gods) are notoriously fickle. (See scripture.) Their love cannot be relied upon despite offerings, appeasements, and so on. One of them chose the role of son of God and look what happened to him, with his own connivance. Artists are self-serving, self-referencing sociopaths, even as they create things that often make us think or enjoy certain prospects that they lay before us. If our world had no artists, it would not be a better place. Is this an argument for God? Probably not. Perhaps this is why thinking folks decided to dump God. God is not an artist. S/he is an hypostasised (therefore unreal), wishful or fearful form of us. Meanwhile, artists come and go, they create, we see and enjoy or loathe their works, they are human like us. They live, they suffer, they enjoy, they die. Gods aren't humans. The suttas do not allocate gods to a very elevated loka, since it's a realm of delusion and forever sensual pleasure. It appeared I believe in Hindu and Buddhist history as a means for winning the karmic lottery, as an enticement for humans, for those who choose not to aspire higher but go in for good behavior. Dealings with the gods--Shiva, Vishnu, the rest-- are transactional, based on contract. Insight in Buddhism, far as I could tell, is not based on contract, but simply on effort and I guess for some, trust in the record. Joanna From jkirk at spro.net Fri Jul 8 18:54:23 2011 From: jkirk at spro.net (JKirkpatrick) Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2011 18:54:23 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddhas Meditation In-Reply-To: References: <43785167418A462D80F6646223868C7C@OPTIPLEX> Message-ID: <66215ACA8DA743B68670CA0C7DD67F93@OPTIPLEX> RH: By the way, when I was living in Leiden, I learned that a Dutch friend of mine was in the habit of eating a sausage for breakfast every morning shortly after waking up. I tried to break him of the habit by saying, "Don't you realize that you are only going from bed to wurst? ---------- Good one! JK From rhayes at unm.edu Fri Jul 8 21:04:40 2011 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2011 21:04:40 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddhas Meditation In-Reply-To: References: <43785167418A462D80F6646223868C7C@OPTIPLEX> <93ADB70C-B19F-4DEE-B76E-EDE8E88BA2A2@unm.edu> Message-ID: <392005CE-663C-4BFE-8BC3-90FCA38D6D7D@unm.edu> On Jul 8, 2011, at 18:10 , JKirkpatrick wrote: > OK Richard--hypothetical argumentation as a function of your > discipline is AOK, but language statements are statements. There > are _other ways_ of interpreting statements. > Nothing that I wrote has anything to do with your stated > "possibility of denigrating non-vegetarians", or denigrating > anyone, for that matter. You asked what I meant. I explained what I meant by my statement and was not attributing anything to you. Richard From bshmr at aol.com Fri Jul 8 21:11:24 2011 From: bshmr at aol.com (Richard Basham) Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2011 21:11:24 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddhas Meditation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1310181084.28845.3.camel@aims110> As for the original inquiry, Joanna, ones see the wisdom of The Four Noble Truths every time a committed vegan (or carnivore) dines outside of their usual haunts . AND: Something, I posted elsewhere some days ago, which is informative, multi-dimensional reporting -- that is, though concise not an overly simple sound-bite. Dutch MPs vote to ban religious slaughter Date:Today 01:36 Bill would outlaw halal and kosher meat, as religious leaders say their communities are frightened for their future. ... "They (livestock) stay conscious for up to 5 minutes. They lose a lot of blood and they can choke on their own blood and the cut should be one time, but research shows that with kosher slaughter (they are cut) on average 3.5 times, and with halal 5.5 times," Karen Soeters of the Party for Animals told Al Jazeera. ... http://english.aljazeera.net//news/europe/2011/06/201162945027320392.html Richard Basham From rhayes at unm.edu Fri Jul 8 21:22:12 2011 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2011 21:22:12 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddhas Meditation In-Reply-To: <2102_1310180766_4E17C59E_2102_7717_1_392005CE-663C-4BFE-8BC3-90FCA38D6D7D@unm.edu> References: <43785167418A462D80F6646223868C7C@OPTIPLEX> <93ADB70C-B19F-4DEE-B76E-EDE8E88BA2A2@unm.edu> <2102_1310180766_4E17C59E_2102_7717_1_392005CE-663C-4BFE-8BC3-90FCA38D6D7D@unm.edu> Message-ID: On Jul 8, 2011, at 21:04 , Richard Hayes wrote: > You asked what I meant. I explained what I meant by my statement and was not attributing anything to you. Actually, you didn't ask what I meant. You said something about what I said that seemed to me to indicate you had not taken what I wrote in the way I meant for it to be taken, so I was trying to explain what I meant by restating it in other words. But I was not attributing anything to you. Thanks for asking if I'm feeling well. In fact, I am feeling quite well. I've lost weight, am working out regularly at the gym and walking a lot and am feeling better at 66 that I've ever felt before, both physically and psychologically. What's more, I'm working on a textbook on Buddhist philosophy that I hope will be useful to those who read it. It would hard for things to be better, aside from attaining parinirv??a. Richard From karp at uw.edu.pl Sat Jul 9 04:26:35 2011 From: karp at uw.edu.pl (Artur Karp) Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2011 12:26:35 +0200 Subject: [Buddha-l] Non attached & mindful culinary triumphalism? Message-ID: Dear All, I have always wondered about Mahakassapa's triumphant shout, as expressed in the Mah?kassapattherag?th? (ThG), where he confesses to eating almsfood obtained from a leper and containing his fallen off rotten finger, and he, Mahakassapa, kind of enthuses about his feeling no disgust, "neither while eating it, nor having eaten [it]". 1057. sen?sanamh? oruyha, nagara? pi???ya p?visi?. bhu?janta? purisa? ku??hi?, sakkacca? ta? upa??hahi?. Coming down from my dwelling place, I entered the city for alms, stood courteously next to a leper eating his meal. 1058. so me pakkena hatthena, ?lopa? upan?mayi. ?lopa? pakkhipantassa, a?guli cettha chijjatha. He, with his rotting hand, tossed me a morsel of food, and as the morsel was dropping, a finger fell off right there. 1059. ku??am?la?ca niss?ya, ?lopa? ta? abhu?jisa?. bhu?jam?ne v? bhutte v?, jeguccha? me na vijjati.. Sitting next to a wall, I ate that morsel of food, and neither while eating it, nor having eaten, did I feel any disgust. 1060. utti??hapi??o ?h?ro, p?timutta?ca osadha?. sen?sana? rukkham?la?, pa?suk?la?ca c?vara?. yassete abhisambhutv?, sa ve c?tuddiso naro. Whoever has mastered left-over scraps for food, smelly urine for medicine, the foot of a tree for a dwelling, cast-off rags for robes: He is a man of the four directions. 1061. yattha eke viha??anti, ?ruhant? siluccaya?. tassa buddhassa d?y?do, sampaj?no patissato. iddhibalenupatthaddho, kassapo abhir?hati. Where some are exhausted climbing the mountain, there the Awakened One's heir -- mindful, alert, buoyed by his psychic power -- Kassapa climbs. [Transl. by Thanissaro] Your learned comments, please? Regards from Warsaw, Artur Karp From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Sat Jul 9 05:44:01 2011 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2011 07:44:01 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Non attached & mindful culinary triumphalism? References: Message-ID: <003d01cc3e2d$7f8e89c0$6600a8c0@Dan> Artur, > I have always wondered about Mahakassapa's [...] > eating almsfood obtained from a leper and containing his fallen off > rotten finger, [...] feeling > no disgust, "neither while eating it, nor having eaten [it]". This is a theme that receives expanded treatment in later tantra (eating, etc., in graveyards, practicing 'neutrality' with a host of disgusting items, from skulls, to body wastes, etc.). The key factor in Mahakassapa's case is the fact that he is laboring under the absolute and inviolate rule that a monk must eat whatever is placed in his begging bowl, with no preference or favorites. That still seems to be the case in Theravadin countries and is the cause of more than one western novice monastic deciding that Taiwan or Korea might be a better place to pursue the Dharma than Thailand, e.g., since the insect larvae and other non-appetizing things that too often find their way into the begging bowls will not happen to Taiwanese or Korean monastics, who are strict vegetarians (the Koreans generally even stricter than the Taiwanese or Chinese) and treated as such by the populace. The issue, as a practitioner working under that rule, is how to overcome the natural revulsion at such things, and abide by the rule that one must consume whatever is in one's bowl. Whether Mahakassapa could have adjudicated the situation by determining that the finger is human flesh and thus forbidden (assuming his leper encounter occurred AFTER Buddha made the no-human-flesh rule), and thus refusing to eat it, or whether he simply decided to eat it as a type of practice of upekkha (neutrality), is for the reader (or commentary) to pontificate on. Since one assumes the leper finger fell off unintentionally, it was not 'slaughtered' esp. for mahakassapa, and thus the usual meat prohibition against eating anything specially killed for one did not apply. Perhaps discarded leper fingers are not considered '(living) human body' and instead would be classified as discarded human waste, like urine or excrement. That it is clearly diseased flesh would make a normal person gag and be repulsed. That he ate it with equinimity is meant to display his advanced stage of practice. If he would start frequenting leper colonies looking for food (and more occasional fingers) as a result. THAT would be a problem. Dan From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Sat Jul 9 06:10:01 2011 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2011 08:10:01 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddhas Meditation References: <201107071704.01687.stroble@hawaii.edu><005501cc3d70$2b8bde80$6600a8c0@Dan> <201107080912.37348.stroble@hawaii.edu> Message-ID: <004401cc3e31$2157bee0$6600a8c0@Dan> Andy, >> Same question as to Timothy: Is this "suffering" in the animal or in the >> persons abstaining or indulging? > > Um, both? What, from a Buddhist perspective, is the cause of the > redwood's > suffering? You are asking, or informing? What is the "cause"? Let me hack a few of your fingers off and then we will discuss that further. >> It is very disheartening to see so many supposed compassionate Buddhists >> (except Lidewij) eager to dismiss this issue as goat-herding when >> literally >> the issue is life and death, plain, simple and stark. >> > > Well, there it is. Samsara. Universal value. So every redwood is > special, > and thus its destruction is wrong? Life and death are not so simple. In fact, they are. This has nothing to do with "universal" values. It has to do with each and every individual life. Don't move that into the universal plane, or you'll start thinking that asking about what causes 'suffering' to a tree being chopped down is a meaningful question. > Well, if I had to choose. . . . This is why I brought up the Gita. Are > we > supposed to think that Arjuna can war away at his relatives without doing > wrong as long as he is not attached to the fruit if his actions? I don't > think that conclusion follows for Buddhism. It doesn't, and in Arjuna's case, it is not just that he kills without attachment to the fruit of action, but that it is his DHARMA to do so, being born a Ksatriya, into that particular disfunctional family, rightfully promised the kingship, etc. To not do his Dharma would be adharma, social disorder, according to Krsna, and Krsna informs Arjuna that he has taken incarnation this time precisely to battle adharma. The Gita, in fact, is largely designed as a rebuke to the ahimsa (non-harming) notions being promulgated by Buddhists and Jains at that time, which apparently were finding a sufficient audience to require this sort of dramatic Hindu reply. Even the Samkhyans eschewed 'sacrifice' as barbaric. > So the redwood is delusional, if it suffers, because it is attached to its > own > existence, when actually it is empty of self. Suffering is delusional by nature, but it is still suffering, and one doesn't cure suffering (the injunction and promise of the 4 noble truths) by calling one's victims delusional as one violently annihilates them. To yell, "I am not killing you because you don't exist," while killing someone (or something) is more delusional. >So it doesn't really matter > what the attachment status of the sawyers is. Never really does, actually. Not to the tree, anyway. > But you are right, the good intentions don't matter, since the redwood > would > suffer nonetheless. So how does one go about enlightening redwoods? My > point > would be that the imposition of a universalist position of sunyata is > violence, and a form of attachment to non-attachment, or in other words, > nihilism. You are the first to bring up sunyata in this discussion, so, since we agree it has no place here, let's pretend you didn't say that. Again, it is not about a universalistic position about essentialized redwoods, or anything else traipsing around in the rarified atmosphere of a "universal" plane, it's about actual, concrete, bark-and-sap, really old redwoods being hacked to death by assassins who attempt to rationalize their carnage by eclipsing, in some fashion, the bark-and-sap existence of the tree in front of them (e.g., by imagining a time when they might not be, though here they are). > But the flip-side doesn't follow either. Redwoods die. The species > itself may > well be headed to extinction. Trying to save them, to preserve being, is > the > other form of universalism, eternalism. This is not something we have been discussing, i.e., preserving redwoods by 'extraodinary means.' They are not 'fated' to disappear, and have already demonstrated an ability to outlive most other life-forms on the planet. If conditions become such that THEY -- with their proven longevity -- are endangered, it would seem prudent to take that as a warning sign that the rest of us are next, with our less robust constitutions, and deal with the conditions. To simply resign oneself to the ultimate demise of everything is annihilationalism, an extreme explicitly rejected by the Buddha and Buddhists. >So do trees have standing? Yes, > because they can suffer. Not because they have a right to life or > existence. The trees don't care which 'reason' you prefer to reach the conclusion they prefer, namely: > And so the attitude of the actor should be kindly and compassionate. > James Andy Stroble, PhD Dan From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Sat Jul 9 06:35:50 2011 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2011 08:35:50 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddhas Meditation References: <201107071704.01687.stroble@hawaii.edu><005501cc3d70$2b8bde80$6600a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: <005201cc3e34$bcb3e730$6600a8c0@Dan> Franz, Working through those implications out loud in front of the rest of us WAS doing something productive. The standard Buddhist response to the dispassionate murderer ultimately feeling the pain (that may or may not lead to remorse) is that such actions, being karmic, will lead eventually to bad results, like hell-births. Since mobsters and other assorted nasty folks often live comfortably into very old age, most religions attempting to reinforce such moralistic warnings resort to transcendental justice, i.e., they may get away with it here in this life, but in the next life (lives) they'll get their just deserts. Putting the transcendental justice aside, the other thing to keep in mind is that today, having mechanized destruction, so that a guy basically playing a computer game in Virginia can take out a building full of people in some asian mountains makes the occasion of nonagitated, cool, calm, collected, and rational killing very much a live and current occurrence. The face-to-face encounter one conjurs up in one's imagination of a sweaty, disturbed, agitated person killing people while in some sort of non-ordinary state of consciousness is more a product of the too many movies we see than the reality out there, since, even in face-to-face encounters, when one kid kills another for his sneakers or lunch money, little remorse or anguish accompanies the act, and probably no more greed than when you eye a tasty morsel in a vending machine and start rummaging through your pocket for change. One more complication -- and this perhaps directed at those who are painting this all as some absolutist rhetoric -- there may in fact be times and places when cool, calm, collected killing is the ethical thing to do. And, in self-defense or defense of one's daughter, even an agitated huffing and weazing killing of a perpetrator may be the right and necessary thing to do. Not all killings are the same. But hacking down harmless redwoods, who cannot speak in their defense (or at least loud enough so that some with closed ears may hear them), is not justifiable, and certainly not with argument based on 'inevitable' death for these longevity champions -- unless one is incredibly cynical and nihilistic. > The now unresolved question in my > mind is: Is the suffering a person doing harm experiences kusala or at > least useful? If so--and it does seem so in the family-killing > illustration--then we might want more it, not less. That seems, IMO, a game one plays with oneself in order to justify taking a certain attitude vis-a-vis that person, not something that can be fairly determined from afar in the abstract. In the abstract, to conjure up the term again, it would be anaikantika, indeterminate, or its karmic equivalent, aniyata (= could go either way). Both anaikanta and aniyata are translated into Chinese with the same expression: bu ding ??. Dan From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Sat Jul 9 06:47:38 2011 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2011 08:47:38 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddhas Meditation References: <201107071704.01687.stroble@hawaii.edu><005501cc3d70$2b8bde80$6600a8c0@Dan> <8660C3CD-3BAB-46B4-824F-1866BA056027@unm.edu> Message-ID: <005c01cc3e36$624d9730$6600a8c0@Dan> Richard notes: >I look at most issues from a virtue-ethics perspective. Dan looks at most >issues from a consequentialist perspective. He can classify himself in whichever camp he wishes, but should refrain from characterizing me. I look at redwood extinction from the redwood perspective. If a consequentialist argument occasionally chrystallizes or dramatizes the point, so be it. Richard's brand of virtue-ethics strikes me as narcissistic, reducing actual others to imaginary factoids to be manipulated according to how they relate to a "me." Dangerous, self-centered stuff, and, since drenched and grounded in viparyasa, done unsurprisingly in the name of "unconditional positive regard for others". On the other hand, I am glad to hear that Richard is working out, staying fit, and feeling good. Congratulations. Dan From karp at uw.edu.pl Sat Jul 9 08:31:59 2011 From: karp at uw.edu.pl (Artur Karp) Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2011 16:31:59 +0200 Subject: [Buddha-l] Non attached & mindful culinary triumphalism? In-Reply-To: <003d01cc3e2d$7f8e89c0$6600a8c0@Dan> References: <003d01cc3e2d$7f8e89c0$6600a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: Dan, Let's not forget that the leper, because of the nature of his sickness, belongs to the category of socially excluded persons. Well, would Buddhist monks ask for alms in the households of untouchables? Any rules connected with it? Artur From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Sat Jul 9 09:38:06 2011 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2011 11:38:06 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Non attached & mindful culinary triumphalism? References: <003d01cc3e2d$7f8e89c0$6600a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: <000401cc3e4e$33eec900$6600a8c0@Dan> Artur, > Let's not forget that the leper, because of the nature of his > sickness, belongs to the category of socially excluded persons. Being a leper might prevent one from being able to join the sangha, but I don't think there are any rules about refusing alms from such people. Maybe Lance or someone better acquainted with vinaya minutiae can enligthen us on this. My hunch, until we are informed otherwise, is that one accepts from all, maybe especially the downtrodden, since receiving their gifts is good karma (merit) for them. > Well, would Buddhist monks ask for alms in the households of untouchables? In Buddha's day the notion of an untouchable caste or outcastes was not yet developed, so there would have been no rules excluding them. One has to be of healthy and normal body (e.g., no hermaphrodites allowed) to join the sangha, but one doesn't seek such people out to persecute them, and they should be allowed to donate, I believe. People have pointed out that much of the discussion in the Nikayas when caste issues come up tends to restrict itself to the two upper castes, brahmins and ksatriyas, and those folks have thereby challenged the idea that the early sangha was egalitarian concerning caste. I think the record is unclear, but would enjoy hearing from others with informed opinions on the subject (I am asking a historical question, not whether the sangha *ought to be* an equal-opportunity headshaving community). Dan From selwyn at ntlworld.com Sat Jul 9 09:42:42 2011 From: selwyn at ntlworld.com (L.S. Cousins) Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2011 16:42:42 +0100 Subject: [Buddha-l] Non attached & mindful culinary triumphalism? In-Reply-To: References: <003d01cc3e2d$7f8e89c0$6600a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: <4E1876F2.4090800@ntlworld.com> Artur Karp wrote: > Let's not forget that the leper, because of the nature of his > sickness, belongs to the category of socially excluded persons. > > Well, would Buddhist monks ask for alms in the households of untouchables? > > Any rules connected with it? That's an interesting question. Standing for alms at a household would depend on the particular arrangements for the almsround in that time and place. I am not entirely sure but I think that a Buddhist monk would accept alms from anyone who offers while on his round. The situation is different where the begging round is no longer normally kept up, as in Sri Lanka. Lance Cousins From rhayes at unm.edu Sat Jul 9 11:19:40 2011 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2011 11:19:40 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddhas Meditation In-Reply-To: <005c01cc3e36$624d9730$6600a8c0@Dan> References: <201107071704.01687.stroble@hawaii.edu><005501cc3d70$2b8bde80$6600a8c0@Dan> <8660C3CD-3BAB-46B4-824F-1866BA056027@unm.edu> <005c01cc3e36$624d9730$6600a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: <509DC98B-6D2F-4F9D-905A-22447BE8B2CE@unm.edu> On Jul 9, 2011, at 06:47 , Dan Lusthaus wrote: > Richard notes: > >> I look at most issues from a virtue-ethics perspective. Dan looks at most >> issues from a consequentialist perspective. > > He can classify himself in whihever camp he wishes, but should refrain from > characterizing me. Consequentialists typically look at the consequences of actions and judge the acceptability of actions by calculating the relative gravity of the consequences among a series possible choices. That is a methodology you frequently employ. An ethicist looking at your approach to ethical discussions would note that you follow a textbook model of consequentialism. No one is characterizing you. I am characterizing what you write about ethics and placing it into one of the standard categories used by students of moral philosophy. > I look at redwood extinction from the redwood > perspective. Will all due respects, I doubt very much that you have even the faintest idea how the world looks from a redwood's perspective. > Richard's brand of virtue-ethics strikes me > as narcissistic, reducing actual others to imaginary factoids to be > manipulated according to how they relate to a "me." Read up on virtue ethics. It is pretty clear you don't quite grasp what that approach to ethics is about. I'll supply a reading list in the near future. > On the other hand, I am glad to hear that Richard is working out, staying > fit, and feeling good. Gee, I should have thought you would have thought it dangerous and narcissistic to be physically healthy, given that you seem to regard it as dangerous and narcissistic to be psychologically healthy (which is really what virtue ethics is all about). Richard Hayes Department of Philosophy University of New Mexico Albuquerque, NM From karp at uw.edu.pl Sat Jul 9 12:29:45 2011 From: karp at uw.edu.pl (Artur Karp) Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2011 20:29:45 +0200 Subject: [Buddha-l] Non attached & mindful culinary triumphalism? In-Reply-To: <000401cc3e4e$33eec900$6600a8c0@Dan> References: <003d01cc3e2d$7f8e89c0$6600a8c0@Dan> <000401cc3e4e$33eec900$6600a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: Dan, > In Buddha's day the notion of an untouchable caste or > outcastes was not yet developed, Ca???la-like clearly marginalized and despised semi-tribals. Any mention of almsfood asked/accepted from such groups? Artur From karp at uw.edu.pl Sat Jul 9 12:38:21 2011 From: karp at uw.edu.pl (Artur Karp) Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2011 20:38:21 +0200 Subject: [Buddha-l] Non attached & mindful culinary triumphalism? In-Reply-To: References: <003d01cc3e2d$7f8e89c0$6600a8c0@Dan> <000401cc3e4e$33eec900$6600a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: > a Buddhist monk would > accept alms from anyone who offers while on his round. Dear Lance, would the poorest of the poor offer anything? Is there any evidence of Buddhist monks trying to reach them, quite intentionally, with the Buddha-vacana? Artur From selwyn at ntlworld.com Sat Jul 9 13:28:54 2011 From: selwyn at ntlworld.com (L.S. Cousins) Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2011 20:28:54 +0100 Subject: [Buddha-l] Non attached & mindful culinary triumphalism? In-Reply-To: References: <003d01cc3e2d$7f8e89c0$6600a8c0@Dan> <000401cc3e4e$33eec900$6600a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: <4E18ABF6.3070708@ntlworld.com> I don't think there is any very clear indication in the earlier texts. Probably they simply followed the practice of the day. Later it is very clear. Part of the point of stories of those who offered a single flower to a past Buddha is that anyone can make such an offering. And with food a small amount of rice can always be placed in the bowl. The important thing is the intention. I don't know any evidence of preaching specifically to the poor. But they would be part of the audience for preaching intended generally. One could think of a story such as the cattle herd Nanda who asked for ordination (S IV 181). The Buddha insisted on his returning to his master and handing over the cattle. He said the cattle would return on their own, but the Buddha repeated his insistence. So he did so and returned for ordination. Interestingly this followed a sermon ostensibly addressed to the monks, but Nanda was seated nearby. Lance On 09/07/2011 19:38, Artur Karp wrote: > Dear Lance, > would the poorest of the poor offer anything? Is there any evidence of > Buddhist monks trying to reach them, quite intentionally, with the > Buddha-vacana? From jkirk at spro.net Sat Jul 9 14:23:30 2011 From: jkirk at spro.net (JKirkpatrick) Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2011 14:23:30 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Non attached & mindful culinary triumphalism? In-Reply-To: <4E18ABF6.3070708@ntlworld.com> References: <003d01cc3e2d$7f8e89c0$6600a8c0@Dan> <000401cc3e4e$33eec900$6600a8c0@Dan> <4E18ABF6.3070708@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <326578261B06487288381B9693810AC3@OPTIPLEX> Not a culinary question, but regarding the issue of whether marginal people were admitted for ordination, etc.: Was Angulimala a tribal, a jangal-dweller or forest hunter -- or a villager turned criminal? Thanks, Joanna -------------- I don't think there is any very clear indication in the earlier texts. Probably they simply followed the practice of the day. Later it is very clear. Part of the point of stories of those who offered a single flower to a past Buddha is that anyone can make such an offering. And with food a small amount of rice can always be placed in the bowl. The important thing is the intention. I don't know any evidence of preaching specifically to the poor. But they would be part of the audience for preaching intended generally. One could think of a story such as the cattle herd Nanda who asked for ordination (S IV 181). The Buddha insisted on his returning to his master and handing over the cattle. He said the cattle would return on their own, but the Buddha repeated his insistence. So he did so and returned for ordination. Interestingly this followed a sermon ostensibly addressed to the monks, but Nanda was seated nearby. Lance On 09/07/2011 19:38, Artur Karp wrote: > Dear Lance, > would the poorest of the poor offer anything? Is there any evidence of > Buddhist monks trying to reach them, quite intentionally, with the > Buddha-vacana? _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From twin_oceans at yahoo.com Sat Jul 9 20:43:41 2011 From: twin_oceans at yahoo.com (Katherine Masis) Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2011 19:43:41 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Buddha-l] Non attached & mindful culinary triumphalism? Message-ID: <1310265821.16841.YahooMailNeo@web112609.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Hi, Artur ? I sometimes wonder whether we're taking the old texts way too seriously.? Could some clowning monk have written this in jest? ? Katherine Masis San Jose, Costa Rica From jkirk at spro.net Sat Jul 9 21:41:40 2011 From: jkirk at spro.net (JKirkpatrick) Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2011 21:41:40 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddhas Meditation In-Reply-To: <1310181084.28845.3.camel@aims110> References: <1310181084.28845.3.camel@aims110> Message-ID: <697C738790F1413DA0E7A9A6255457B4@OPTIPLEX> Speaking of unusual haunts, the description from the link reminds me of when I was in Panjab for field work (1965-66), and saw a Sikh villager slaughtering a chicken according to Sikh slaughter laws (yes, they have such ritual rules too, although I don't know if they are so fixated on them when living in western cities as the Muslims and orthodox Jews seem to be). His knife was too dull, so he kept sawing back and forth as the chicken struggled. It was horrible and I ran away. This was also a purloined chicken, stolen by said villager from the untouchables in his village, who raised chickens to amplify their meager resources. The Jats (village elite) would not sink so low as to raise chickens for their table. My second encounter out of my usual haunts was when I was in Dhaka, Bangladesh, doing fieldwork during one of many visits, in 1985. I was staying in a room with loo of an NGO guesthouse, courtesy of a colleague whose husband worked for this NGO, and the room hadn't been scheduled for a visiting overseas guest. I was on the 2d story. Below me under my single window was the house of the former Chief of Police of Calcutta, who had retired to Dhaka. Every single morning I was treated to the screams of half a dozen chickens that were being slaughtered halal, for the daily food supply of his household. Somehow I found another place to stay--it was just too much. I wondered how anyone could get used to it. Full disclosure: I am a carnivore. But when in South or SE Asia, I become a veggie. (I wasn't solo that time in Panjab--his lordship had been complaining about nothing but daal-bhaat or sabzi, and needed to eat meat. Thus, the villager and the chicken slaughter.) Joanna -----Original Message----- From: buddha-l-bounces at mailman.swcp.com [mailto:buddha-l-bounces at mailman.swcp.com] On Behalf Of Richard Basham Sent: Friday, July 08, 2011 9:11 PM To: buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] Buddhas Meditation As for the original inquiry, Joanna, ones see the wisdom of The Four Noble Truths every time a committed vegan (or carnivore) dines outside of their usual haunts . AND: Something, I posted elsewhere some days ago, which is informative, multi-dimensional reporting -- that is, though concise not an overly simple sound-bite. Dutch MPs vote to ban religious slaughter Date:Today 01:36 Bill would outlaw halal and kosher meat, as religious leaders say their communities are frightened for their future. ... "They (livestock) stay conscious for up to 5 minutes. They lose a lot of blood and they can choke on their own blood and the cut should be one time, but research shows that with kosher slaughter (they are cut) on average 3.5 times, and with halal 5.5 times," Karen Soeters of the Party for Animals told Al Jazeera. ... http://english.aljazeera.net//news/europe/2011/06/201162945027320 392.html Richard Basham _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From jkirk at spro.net Sat Jul 9 21:49:51 2011 From: jkirk at spro.net (JKirkpatrick) Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2011 21:49:51 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddhas Meditation In-Reply-To: References: <43785167418A462D80F6646223868C7C@OPTIPLEX><93ADB70C-B19F-4DEE-B76E-EDE8E88BA2A2@unm.edu><2102_1310180766_4E17C59E_2102_7717_1_392005CE-663C-4BFE-8BC3-90FCA38D6D7D@unm.edu> Message-ID: <1F44225288D047FAA6C1EEBA3075122E@OPTIPLEX> Hi Richard, Such cross-purposes are typical of email lists, so no worries about this crossed purpose. Very relieved to hear that you are feeling well and taking care of your health. We can't benefit from practice very well if we don't take care of our health. I finally joined the Y and was going 3x a week to use the recumbent bike and some of the strength machines. Lately, interruptions have intruded on the routine, garden work also needing to be done, weeding especially--but I'll get back to it because it's the only thing that saves me from total decline and facing wheelchair city. Cheers, Joanna -------------------------- On Behalf Of Richard Hayes Sent: Friday, July 08, 2011 9:22 PM On Jul 8, 2011, at 21:04 , Richard Hayes wrote: > You asked what I meant. I explained what I meant by my statement and was not attributing anything to you. Actually, you didn't ask what I meant. You said something about what I said that seemed to me to indicate you had not taken what I wrote in the way I meant for it to be taken, so I was trying to explain what I meant by restating it in other words. But I was not attributing anything to you. Thanks for asking if I'm feeling well. In fact, I am feeling quite well. I've lost weight, am working out regularly at the gym and walking a lot and am feeling better at 66 that I've ever felt before, both physically and psychologically. What's more, I'm working on a textbook on Buddhist philosophy that I hope will be useful to those who read it. It would hard for things to be better, aside from attaining parinirv??a. Richard _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From selwyn at ntlworld.com Sun Jul 10 02:30:00 2011 From: selwyn at ntlworld.com (L.S. Cousins) Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 09:30:00 +0100 Subject: [Buddha-l] Non attached & mindful culinary triumphalism? In-Reply-To: <326578261B06487288381B9693810AC3@OPTIPLEX> References: <003d01cc3e2d$7f8e89c0$6600a8c0@Dan> <000401cc3e4e$33eec900$6600a8c0@Dan> <4E18ABF6.3070708@ntlworld.com> <326578261B06487288381B9693810AC3@OPTIPLEX> Message-ID: <4E196308.1060507@ntlworld.com> Joanna asks: > Not a culinary question, but regarding the issue of whether > marginal people were admitted for ordination, etc.: > Was Angulimala a tribal, a jangal-dweller or forest hunter -- or > a villager turned criminal? Tradition holds that he was a brahmin. That seems to follow from his name, given in the Majjhima sutta about him. We can infer that his parents were G?rgya and Mant???. He is referred to as a cora or bandit. Richard Gombrich believes that he was a follower of proto-?aiva practices. Others are sceptical. I am not sure whether at the time of the Buddha the forest tribes would have had the sort of status they have later. We can of course recall the story in the Vinaya that the six Sakya princes had their barber Up?li ordained before them in order to humble their pride. A barber was certainly of low status, although presumably not an outcaste if such a thing existed at the time. Lance From selwyn at ntlworld.com Sun Jul 10 04:53:21 2011 From: selwyn at ntlworld.com (L.S. Cousins) Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 11:53:21 +0100 Subject: [Buddha-l] Non attached & mindful culinary triumphalism? In-Reply-To: <326578261B06487288381B9693810AC3@OPTIPLEX> References: <003d01cc3e2d$7f8e89c0$6600a8c0@Dan> <000401cc3e4e$33eec900$6600a8c0@Dan> <4E18ABF6.3070708@ntlworld.com> <326578261B06487288381B9693810AC3@OPTIPLEX> Message-ID: <4E1984A1.7060605@ntlworld.com> "We can infer that his parents were G?rgya and Mant???." That should be: "We can infer that his name was G?rgya and his mother was Mant???." Lance From karp at uw.edu.pl Sun Jul 10 06:31:45 2011 From: karp at uw.edu.pl (Artur Karp) Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 14:31:45 +0200 Subject: [Buddha-l] Non attached & mindful culinary triumphalism? In-Reply-To: <4E196308.1060507@ntlworld.com> References: <003d01cc3e2d$7f8e89c0$6600a8c0@Dan> <000401cc3e4e$33eec900$6600a8c0@Dan> <4E18ABF6.3070708@ntlworld.com> <326578261B06487288381B9693810AC3@OPTIPLEX> <4E196308.1060507@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: Dear Joanna, Lance and Dan, What hampers this discussion is scantiness of realistic information on the social structure in the times of the Buddha (whatever way we date him), Fick's (clearly outdated) work notwithstanding. Social marginalization is definitely a byproduct of deforestation and detribalization, the two processes conditioning/accompanying the emergence of the new political and economic order in Northern India. [On that, sufficiently, Romila Thapar and, lately, Greg Bailey & Ian Mabbett.] Pali texts, to the extent that I am familiar with them, don't seem to show any interest in either of the two. Their silence re the effects of marginalization (not of the ?udras, their social position was only relatively marginal) isn't surprising, the real target for Buddhist missionary activities being urbanized and urbanizing segments of the society. [On that Schopen.] The other factors operating behind this marked lack of interest must have been the linguistic-cultural differences. Who were those ex-tribals deprived in the name of progress of their land and their sources of livelihood? Were they Dravidians? Austro-Asiatics? What type of matrimonial exchange they were practicing? Inheritance rules? The texts kind of concentrate on their poverty, seemingly as the effect of their bad karma, not on their being the victims of civilizational violence. Showing them as inferior beings, of the Untermensch type. A quote from Bailey & Mabbet's book (p. 42-43, a fragment repeated nearly verbatim in five texts): "There are degraded families: a candala family, a family of hunters, of bamboo workers, of chariot makers and of refuse removers. A person is born in such a family which is poor, one in which food, drink and possessions are few, in which the lifestyle is difficult, in which animal fodder and covering are gained with difficulty. And he is of poor complexion, ugly, dwarf-like, frequently sick, or else he is blind, deformed, or lame or a cripple; nor does he possess food, drink, clothing, vehicle, garlands, scents and ointment, nor a bed, a dwelling and a lamp plus things to light it with". But the text continues: <> Telling the listeners, that such people transgress (against the accepted norms) - by their way of thinking, speaking and acting, and that is why they deserve hell. (or Hina-Hell, if I may borrow your expression, Joanna). What I like in this fragment, is that this standard list of occupations (ca???la nes?da ve?a rathak?ra pukkusa) is used so many times as part of the argument against brahmanic haughtiness, and so - against inequality. Comparison sounds much better and is more effective if we bring in extreme elements. But is, otherways, nearly empty, one part of it being well known, the other being a bunch of stereotypes. Empty, if not for the standard, although oblique, mention of pigs (pig-through, s?karado?i). Hunter, Bamboo-worker, or Refuse-remover with their pigs and the lack of garlands, scents, ointments - as the mark of their not belonging among civilized people. Ultimately confirmed by their inability (or is it just contempt?) to conform to widely accepted, civilized norms. And ? getting what was coming to them. A brahman friend of mine (M.A. in Hindi Literature), when asked about the untouchable Chamars living (in numerical majority) in his ancestral village, admitted he knew nothing of them, except that they had repulsive habits and no religious life whatsoever, yes some ?jantar-mantar?. I do find similar attitude in the Pali texts. Is the list of physical marks (enumerated as characteristic for people like those candalas, nesadas, venas and pukkusas) not in part similar to the list of marks excluding one from being accepted into the sangha? Again from rainy Warsaw, Artur From karp at uw.edu.pl Sun Jul 10 06:48:07 2011 From: karp at uw.edu.pl (Artur Karp) Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 14:48:07 +0200 Subject: [Buddha-l] Non attached & mindful culinary triumphalism? In-Reply-To: <1310265821.16841.YahooMailNeo@web112609.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1310265821.16841.YahooMailNeo@web112609.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hi, Artur > 2011/7/10 Katherine Masis : > > I sometimes wonder whether we're taking the old texts way too seriously.? Could some clowning monk have written this in jest? Dear Katherine, It's quite possible. But even jests possess a rationale - always. It's our task to reconstruct it. It's another question, whether we possess a sufficiently sophisticated methodology needed for this kind of textual criticism. Artur From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Sun Jul 10 06:48:14 2011 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 08:48:14 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Non attached & mindful culinary triumphalism? References: <003d01cc3e2d$7f8e89c0$6600a8c0@Dan> <000401cc3e4e$33eec900$6600a8c0@Dan> <4E18ABF6.3070708@ntlworld.com><326578261B06487288381B9693810AC3@OPTIPLEX> <4E196308.1060507@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <003201cc3eff$a28bdf40$6600a8c0@Dan> Brief added note to Lance's comments. The ?gamas preserved in Chinese also confirm that A?gulim?la was a Br?hma?a (see passage from Chuyao jing, below), but some give him a different 'birth name,' which at least one claims he recovered after conversion. Marcus Bingenheimer's _Studies in ?gama Literature: With Special Reference to the Shorter Chinese Sa?yukt?gama_, Dharma Drum College Special Series, Taiwan: Shin Wen Feng Print Co., 2011, p. 90 n. 76 (footnote to his annoted translation of "The Conversion of A?gulim?la" in the BZA [Bieyi za ahan jing ?????? T.100], reads [translations in sq. brackets added by me]: -- According to some accounts, A?gulim?la's birth name was Ahi?saka (One who does not Harm). Here the BZA uses Ahi?saka as his Dhamma name implying, lie the g?th? below, that he reclaimed the name after his conversion. See the Yangjuemo jing ???? (T.02.118.0510a17); ????? ("now I call myself Ahi?saka"). Also the Zengyi ahan jing ????? (????? ["my name originally was Ahi?saka"] (T.2.125.721b09)) and the Chuyao jing ??? (????????????????? ["at that time, not far from the country he had left, there was a br?hma?a named Ahi?saka"] (T.4.212.703a25-26). -- Dan From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Sun Jul 10 07:23:12 2011 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 09:23:12 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Non attached & mindful culinary triumphalism? References: <003d01cc3e2d$7f8e89c0$6600a8c0@Dan><000401cc3e4e$33eec900$6600a8c0@Dan><4E18ABF6.3070708@ntlworld.com><326578261B06487288381B9693810AC3@OPTIPLEX><4E196308.1060507@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <003701cc3f04$853824d0$6600a8c0@Dan> Interesting stuff, Artur. > Is the list of physical marks (enumerated as characteristic for people > like those candalas, nesadas, venas and pukkusas) not in part similar > to the list of marks excluding one from being accepted into the > sangha? Some overlap, but let's see: "he is of poor complexion, ugly, dwarf-like, frequently sick, or else he is blind, deformed, or lame or a cripple; nor does he possess food, drink, clothing, vehicle, garlands, scents and ointment, nor a bed, a dwelling and a lamp plus things to light it with..." Bad complexion will not keep one out of the sangha. Nor will simply being ugly (there are some ugly monastics mentioned in the scriptures). Not sure about "dwarf-like" -- I suspect if healthy in other aspects, merely being a dwarf would not exclude one, but not sure (any dwarf monk or nun stories come to mind, anyone? I vaguely remember having encountered some...). "Frequently sick" is too vague. Asthma would not keep one out, but leprosy would. So, that would depend on the type of illness(es) and degree of frequency. I don't think blindness per se is disqualifying (not sure, though; what about deafness? Wouldn't be able to 'hear' the dhamma, which in the preliterate period would have been crucial), but "deformed, lame or cripple" *could* be disqualifying, depending on the nature of the deformities, etc. Lack of food, drink, etc. would be largely irrelevant. What this sounds like -- and thus probably reflects the authorial experiences, as you suggest -- is "beggars", suggesting that the extent of the exposure by the composers of this pericope to these downtrodden people would be the beggars who cross their path. Since sramanas were also beggars of a sort, at least early on, and probably also raggedy looking (lots of stories of monks sowing up their raggedy robes, cautions against accepting clothing that is too fancy or expensive, etc.), one would not imagine the early Buddhist community complaining about fellow beggars in that manner, unless the competition for food became intense. It is probably too much to try to sort out in an email some of the hermeneutic problems re: sources when attempting to reimagine India social history of, let's say, 5th c BCE - 1st c CE. The Pali texts, in fact, have served as primary source material for many Indian historians of this period through most of the 20th c (with some supplement from Artha-sastra, etc.), so (1) our lack of solid stratified dating of the Pali corpus creates difficulties extracting reliable conclusions; (2) determining the ways in which the texts accurately, or in idealized fashion, or fictionally depict groups, situations, etc. remains largely a desirderatum (e.g., who, really were the Shakyas? Lots of theories, few definitive conclusions); (3) Are there reliable ways of identifying and unpacking the clues that may be hidden between the lines in the Pali texts? So far, seems largely ad hoc methodologically speaking. One probably needs to be careful about the "theory of the week," esp. when it serves as a fairly mono-causal narrative, such as "deforestation." It's very sexy today to point to environmentalistic factors (not just in Indian history, but in Central and South American archaeology, etc.), and those 'theories' are displacing the earlier generation of theories; with 'global warming' on many people's minds, and the crises of pollution, etc., environmental cautionary tales serve a purpose and have emotional resonance. Not that long ago leading theories about the formation of "untouchables" focused more on group migrations and immigration (newcomers get excluded). One suspects that as that issue heats up in Europe again, it will again become a 'theory of the week' when looking at India. Fun to speculate, but first one has to decide what counts as evidence, and the best methods for using that evidence. Have you formed any opinions you would like to share on these subjects? Dan From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Sun Jul 10 08:04:55 2011 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 10:04:55 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddhas Meditation References: <201107071704.01687.stroble@hawaii.edu><005501cc3d70$2b8bde80$6600a8c0@Dan><8660C3CD-3BAB-46B4-824F-1866BA056027@unm.edu><005c01cc3e36$624d9730$6600a8c0@Dan> <509DC98B-6D2F-4F9D-905A-22447BE8B2CE@unm.edu> Message-ID: <004501cc3f0a$5945c7f0$6600a8c0@Dan> Richard notes, re: my "approach": >An ethicist looking at your approach to ethical discussions would note that >you follow a textbook model of consequentialism. And comments a bit later: > Read up on virtue ethics. It is pretty clear you don't quite grasp what > that approach to ethics is about. I'll supply a reading list in the near > future. There is a disease currently circulating among Analytic philosophers which has infected those purporting to do Buddhist philosophy with an Analytic manner, called "pin the label on the thinker or idea." It has replaced thinking, evaluating, working through, or what used to be called philosophizing. The joke of course is that the labels never fit (since like the kid's game it is fashioned after, participants are blindfolded concerning their target, so the label intended to portray someone as an ass misses the ass). The disease also resembles the "bop-the-gopher-popping-up" (or whatever that game is called), in which the labeler, with mallet (malice?) in hand awaits any actual idea to pop up in order to slam it down with a label. I've been innoculated against this. Since I was addressing the positions and arguments offered by Richard, and he himself characterized those as virtue-ethics, the disconnect occurred long before I popped out of the hole to get bopped. > Will all due respects, I doubt very much that you have even the faintest > idea how the world looks from a redwood's perspective. That's what Huishi (Hui-shih) said to Zhuangzi (Chuang Tzu) when Zhuangzi commented that the fish swimming below the bridge on which they were standing were happy. My response is the same as Zhuangzi's (it's the last story in ch. 17 of the Zhuangzi). >> On the other hand, I am glad to hear that Richard is working out, staying >> fit, and feeling good. > > Gee, I should have thought you would have thought it dangerous [...] Guessed wrong again. Guess I know how redwoods think better than you know how I think. cheers, and keep up the good work. Dan From rhayes at unm.edu Sun Jul 10 08:27:57 2011 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 08:27:57 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddhas Meditation In-Reply-To: <004501cc3f0a$5945c7f0$6600a8c0@Dan> References: <201107071704.01687.stroble@hawaii.edu> <005501cc3d70$2b8bde80$6600a8c0@Dan> <8660C3CD-3BAB-46B4-824F-1866BA056027@unm.edu> <005c01cc3e36$624d9730$6600a8c0@Dan> <509DC98B-6D2F-4F9D-905A-22447BE8B2CE@unm.edu> <004501cc3f0a$5945c7f0$6600a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: <3F79DE64-A88F-499C-A6C2-57060A9493D9@unm.edu> On Jul 10, 2011, at 8:04, "Dan Lusthaus" wrote: > There is a disease currently circulating among Analytic philosophers which > has infected those purporting to do Buddhist philosophy with an Analytic > manner, called "pin the label on the thinker or idea." It has replaced > thinking, evaluating, working through, or what used to be called > philosophizing. Is "Analytic philosophers purporting to do Buddhist philosophy" a label? Whether it is or not, I don't find much that resembles thinking or philosophizing in this characterization. in what follows this opening I found phrases that suggest an assumption of malice on my part. The assumption is false and does nothing to further an intelligent discussion. For those who are interested in how a virtue-ethics approach to mental health (kusalacitta) supports a life of actively caring for the well-being of others, I'll supply some links later today. Richard From jehms at xs4all.nl Sun Jul 10 09:03:18 2011 From: jehms at xs4all.nl (Erik Hoogcarspel) Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 17:03:18 +0200 Subject: [Buddha-l] Non attached & mindful culinary triumphalism? In-Reply-To: <1310265821.16841.YahooMailNeo@web112609.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1310265821.16841.YahooMailNeo@web112609.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4E19BF36.60705@xs4all.nl> Wise words at last. I remember a year or so ago there was a review on this list of a book about Buddhist selfmutilation in China. Many Asian monks took the Jataka about the Bodhisattva offering himself as food for a hungry tigress as a prescription, while Indian readers never failed to see it as a hyperbole. Apart from the proverbial lack of hygiene in Indian cooking, conspicuous using of fingers in table manners and the typical monkish boasting and attachment to rules, the same appears to be the case here. I would not be surprised if Chinese monks hired leprose to throw their fingers in the mifang so they could eat themselves closer to Buddhahood. erik Op 10-07-11 04:43, Katherine Masis schreef: > Hi, Artur > > I sometimes wonder whether we're taking the old texts way too seriously. Could some clowning monk have written this in jest? > > Katherine Masis > San Jose, Costa Rica > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l > From selwyn at ntlworld.com Sun Jul 10 09:20:40 2011 From: selwyn at ntlworld.com (L.S. Cousins) Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 16:20:40 +0100 Subject: [Buddha-l] Non attached & mindful culinary triumphalism? In-Reply-To: References: <003d01cc3e2d$7f8e89c0$6600a8c0@Dan> <000401cc3e4e$33eec900$6600a8c0@Dan> <4E18ABF6.3070708@ntlworld.com> <326578261B06487288381B9693810AC3@OPTIPLEX> <4E196308.1060507@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <4E19C348.9070504@ntlworld.com> Responding to Artur Karp: > Dear Joanna, Lance and Dan, > > What hampers this discussion is scantiness of realistic information on > the social structure in the times of the Buddha (whatever way we date > him), Fick's (clearly outdated) work notwithstanding. Quite so. > Social marginalization is definitely a byproduct of deforestation and > detribalization, the two processes conditioning/accompanying the > emergence of the new political and economic order in Northern India. > [On that, sufficiently, Romila Thapar and, lately, Greg Bailey& Ian > Mabbett.] This is argued and may be so, but we don't really know anything very solid about these historical processes. There seem to me to be many possibilities. > Pali texts, to the extent that I am familiar with them, don't seem to > show any interest in either of the two. Their silence re the effects > of marginalization (not of the ?udras, their social position was only > relatively marginal) isn't surprising, the real target for Buddhist > missionary activities being urbanized and urbanizing segments of the > society. [On that Schopen.] It is hardly surprising that Buddhist monks would direct their teaching towards those of a similar background to themselves. > The other factors operating behind this marked lack of interest must > have been the linguistic-cultural differences. Who were those > ex-tribals deprived in the name of progress of their land and their > sources of livelihood? Were they Dravidians? Austro-Asiatics? What > type of matrimonial exchange they were practicing? Inheritance rules? We have no idea. > The texts kind of concentrate on their poverty, seemingly as the > effect of their bad karma, not on their being the victims of > civilizational violence. Showing them as inferior beings, of the > Untermensch type. A quote from Bailey& Mabbet's book (p. 42-43, a > fragment repeated nearly verbatim in five texts): > > "There are degraded families: a candala family, a family of hunters, > of bamboo workers, of chariot makers and of refuse removers. A person > is born in such a family which is poor, one in which food, drink and > possessions are few, in which the lifestyle is difficult, in which > animal fodder and covering are gained with difficulty. And he is of > poor complexion, ugly, dwarf-like, frequently sick, or else he is > blind, deformed, or lame or a cripple; nor does he possess food, > drink, clothing, vehicle, garlands, scents and ointment, nor a bed, a > dwelling and a lamp plus things to light it with". > > But the text continues: > < duccarita? carati. So k?yena duccarita? caritv? v?c?ya duccarita? > caritv? manas? duccarita? caritv? k?yassa bhed? parammara?? ap?ya? > duggati? vinip?ta? niraya? upapajjati.>> > > Telling the listeners, that such people transgress (against the > accepted norms) - by their way of thinking, speaking and acting, and > that is why they deserve hell. (or Hina-Hell, if I may borrow your > expression, Joanna). This is out of context. In most cases this passage occurs precisely to distinguish the fate of ca???las, etc. who live a good life from those who live a bad life. Those who live a good life go to a good destination. Those who live a bad life go to a bad destination. And similarly for those from 'high' families. > What I like in this fragment, is that this standard list of > occupations (ca???la nes?da ve?a rathak?ra pukkusa) is used so many > times as part of the argument against brahmanic haughtiness, and so - > against inequality. Comparison sounds much better and is more > effective if we bring in extreme elements. But is, otherways, nearly > empty, one part of it being well known, the other being a bunch of > stereotypes. I don't see it this way at all. All this is part of attempts to expand the brahmanical list of four var?a. So either we have a list of six, as in the repeated line: khattiy? br?hma?? vess?, sudd? ca???lapukkus?; or, we have a contrast between high families (khattiya, br?hma?a and r?ja??a or gahapati and low families i.e. those given in the list of five you cite. This is surely a deliberate attempt to include a wider social range than in the four var?a. > Empty, if not for the standard, although oblique, mention of pigs > (pig-through, s?karado?i). Hunter, Bamboo-worker, or Refuse-remover > with their pigs and the lack of garlands, scents, ointments - as the > mark of their not belonging among civilized people. Ultimately > confirmed by their inability (or is it just contempt?) to conform to > widely accepted, civilized norms. I think the issue here is poverty. > And ? getting what was coming to them. No, this is incorrect, as I indicated above. Lance From rhayes at unm.edu Sun Jul 10 09:22:37 2011 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 09:22:37 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddhist ethics [was: Buddhas Meditation] In-Reply-To: <3F79DE64-A88F-499C-A6C2-57060A9493D9@unm.edu> References: <201107071704.01687.stroble@hawaii.edu> <005501cc3d70$2b8bde80$6600a8c0@Dan> <8660C3CD-3BAB-46B4-824F-1866BA056027@unm.edu> <005c01cc3e36$624d9730$6600a8c0@Dan> <509DC98B-6D2F-4F9D-905A-22447BE8B2CE@unm.edu> <004501cc3f0a$5945c7f0$6600a8c0@Dan> <3F79DE64-A88F-499C-A6C2-57060A9493D9@unm.edu> Message-ID: On Jul 10, 2011, at 08:27 , Richard Hayes wrote: > For those who are interested in how a virtue-ethics approach to mental health (kusalacitta) supports a life of actively caring for the well-being of others, I'll supply some links later today. This is an essay (in the true sense of the word meaning "attempt") I wrote an incalculable aeon ago. Classical Buddhist model of a healthy mind. In Psychology and Buddhism: From Individual to Global Community. Edited by Kathleen H. Dockett, G. Rita Dudley-Grant and C. Peter Bankart. New York: Kluwer, 2003. http://www.unm.edu/~rhayes/healthy.pdf I'm currently working on the syllabus to an upper-level undergraduate course on Buddhist ethics in India and would welcome feedback and suggestions. Later I'll send a bit on what I've been thinking of including, both from the works of Indian philosophers and from modern philosophers of various persuasions who have tried to incorporate discussions of classical Buddhist philosophy into their work. As usual, there is so much material on this topic that it is difficult to choose which approaches and specific topics to cover. Richard Hayes Department of Philosophy University of New Mexico Albuquerque, NM From jkirk at spro.net Sun Jul 10 09:31:09 2011 From: jkirk at spro.net (JKirkpatrick) Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 09:31:09 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Non attached & mindful culinary triumphalism? In-Reply-To: <4E196308.1060507@ntlworld.com> References: <003d01cc3e2d$7f8e89c0$6600a8c0@Dan> <000401cc3e4e$33eec900$6600a8c0@Dan> <4E18ABF6.3070708@ntlworld.com><326578261B06487288381B9693810AC3@OPTIPLEX> <4E196308.1060507@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <515415C2C5CB4CACAD1C854C046A1010@OPTIPLEX> Thanks, Lance. The term cor is still in Hindi, as thief or bandit. Joanna -----Original Message----- From: buddha-l-bounces at mailman.swcp.com [mailto:buddha-l-bounces at mailman.swcp.com] On Behalf Of L.S. Cousins Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2011 2:30 AM To: Buddhist discussion forum Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] Non attached & mindful culinary triumphalism? Joanna asks: > Not a culinary question, but regarding the issue of whether marginal > people were admitted for ordination, etc.: > Was Angulimala a tribal, a jangal-dweller or forest hunter -- or a > villager turned criminal? Tradition holds that he was a brahmin. That seems to follow from his name, given in the Majjhima sutta about him. We can infer that his parents were G?rgya and Mant???. He is referred to as a cora or bandit. Richard Gombrich believes that he was a follower of proto-?aiva practices. Others are sceptical. I am not sure whether at the time of the Buddha the forest tribes would have had the sort of status they have later. We can of course recall the story in the Vinaya that the six Sakya princes had their barber Up?li ordained before them in order to humble their pride. A barber was certainly of low status, although presumably not an outcaste if such a thing existed at the time. Lance _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From jkirk at spro.net Sun Jul 10 10:16:18 2011 From: jkirk at spro.net (JKirkpatrick) Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 10:16:18 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Non attached & mindful culinary triumphalism? In-Reply-To: References: <003d01cc3e2d$7f8e89c0$6600a8c0@Dan><000401cc3e4e$33eec900$6600a8c0@Dan><4E18ABF6.3070708@ntlworld.com><326578261B06487288381B9693810AC3@OPTIPLEX><4E196308.1060507@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <1595E909036F4939A9B177620ADF8825@OPTIPLEX> Thanks, Artur, for all this additional. Joanna --------------------------------------- Dear Joanna, Lance and Dan, What hampers this discussion is scantiness of realistic information on the social structure in the times of the Buddha (whatever way we date him), Fick's (clearly outdated) work notwithstanding. Social marginalization is definitely a byproduct of deforestation and detribalization, the two processes conditioning/accompanying the emergence of the new political and economic order in Northern India. [On that, sufficiently, Romila Thapar and, lately, Greg Bailey & Ian Mabbett.] Pali texts, to the extent that I am familiar with them, don't seem to show any interest in either of the two. Their silence re the effects of marginalization (not of the ?udras, their social position was only relatively marginal) isn't surprising, the real target for Buddhist missionary activities being urbanized and urbanizing segments of the society. [On that Schopen.] The other factors operating behind this marked lack of interest must have been the linguistic-cultural differences. Who were those ex-tribals deprived in the name of progress of their land and their sources of livelihood? Were they Dravidians? Austro-Asiatics? What type of matrimonial exchange they were practicing? Inheritance rules? The texts kind of concentrate on their poverty, seemingly as the effect of their bad karma, not on their being the victims of civilizational violence. Showing them as inferior beings, of the Untermensch type. A quote from Bailey & Mabbet's book (p. 42-43, a fragment repeated nearly verbatim in five texts): "There are degraded families: a candala family, a family of hunters, of bamboo workers, of chariot makers and of refuse removers. A person is born in such a family which is poor, one in which food, drink and possessions are few, in which the lifestyle is difficult, in which animal fodder and covering are gained with difficulty. And he is of poor complexion, ugly, dwarf-like, frequently sick, or else he is blind, deformed, or lame or a cripple; nor does he possess food, drink, clothing, vehicle, garlands, scents and ointment, nor a bed, a dwelling and a lamp plus things to light it with". But the text continues: <> Telling the listeners, that such people transgress (against the accepted norms) - by their way of thinking, speaking and acting, and that is why they deserve hell. (or Hina-Hell, if I may borrow your expression, Joanna). What I like in this fragment, is that this standard list of occupations (ca???la nes?da ve?a rathak?ra pukkusa) is used so many times as part of the argument against brahmanic haughtiness, and so - against inequality. Comparison sounds much better and is more effective if we bring in extreme elements. But is, otherways, nearly empty, one part of it being well known, the other being a bunch of stereotypes. Empty, if not for the standard, although oblique, mention of pigs (pig-through, s?karado?i). Hunter, Bamboo-worker, or Refuse-remover with their pigs and the lack of garlands, scents, ointments - as the mark of their not belonging among civilized people. Ultimately confirmed by their inability (or is it just contempt?) to conform to widely accepted, civilized norms. And ? getting what was coming to them. A brahman friend of mine (M.A. in Hindi Literature), when asked about the untouchable Chamars living (in numerical majority) in his ancestral village, admitted he knew nothing of them, except that they had repulsive habits and no religious life whatsoever, yes some ?jantar-mantar?. I do find similar attitude in the Pali texts. Is the list of physical marks (enumerated as characteristic for people like those candalas, nesadas, venas and pukkusas) not in part similar to the list of marks excluding one from being accepted into the sangha? Again from rainy Warsaw, Artur _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From jkirk at spro.net Sun Jul 10 10:27:14 2011 From: jkirk at spro.net (JKirkpatrick) Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 10:27:14 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Non attached & mindful culinary triumphalism? In-Reply-To: <003701cc3f04$853824d0$6600a8c0@Dan> References: <003d01cc3e2d$7f8e89c0$6600a8c0@Dan><000401cc3e4e$33eec900$6600a8c0@Dan><4E18ABF6.3070708@ntlworld.com><326578261B06487288381B9693810AC3@OPTIPLEX><4E196308.1060507@ntlworld.com> <003701cc3f04$853824d0$6600a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: <1F92A8F7EB794724988027A053E5AB50@OPTIPLEX> Comment on part of this helpful contribution: Just what occurred to me as well: these descriptions do sound like reactions to beggars no doubt haunting the alms rounds. My surmise would be that, rather than hoping for donations from the monks, beggars would use the situation to extract donations from the householders. When I was in Luang Prabang (Laos), during the alms round an obviously very poor woman (skinny, ill-dressed) was squatting on the pavement next to a toddler, holding open a plastic bag, obviously seeking donations. She was sitting right down with the alms donors who were on their knees on the pavement. Someone (a foreigner like me) muttered, "the monks aren't supposed to offer the alms they gather," but I saw one drop something in her bag. In this instance, the almsrounders were sramanas, led by a senior monk. They were all young boys. I don't know if the comment about monks sharing alms being impermissible is factual. Must be a vinaya rule on it. Joanna --------------------- Dan wrote: [........] Wouldn't be able to 'hear' the dhamma, which in the preliterate period would have been crucial), but "deformed, lame or cripple" *could* be disqualifying, depending on the nature of the deformities, etc. Lack of food, drink, etc. would be largely irrelevant. What this sounds like -- and thus probably reflects the authorial experiences, as you suggest -- is "beggars", suggesting that the extent of the exposure by the composers of this pericope to these downtrodden people would be the beggars who cross their path. Since sramanas were also beggars of a sort, at least early on, and probably also raggedy looking (lots of stories of monks sowing up their raggedy robes, cautions against accepting clothing that is too fancy or expensive, etc.), one would not imagine the early Buddhist community complaining about fellow beggars in that manner, unless the competition for food became intense. From karp at uw.edu.pl Sun Jul 10 11:10:35 2011 From: karp at uw.edu.pl (Artur Karp) Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 19:10:35 +0200 Subject: [Buddha-l] Non attached & mindful culinary triumphalism? In-Reply-To: <4E19C348.9070504@ntlworld.com> References: <003d01cc3e2d$7f8e89c0$6600a8c0@Dan> <000401cc3e4e$33eec900$6600a8c0@Dan> <4E18ABF6.3070708@ntlworld.com> <326578261B06487288381B9693810AC3@OPTIPLEX> <4E196308.1060507@ntlworld.com> <4E19C348.9070504@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: >> Social marginalization is definitely a byproduct of >> deforestation and detribalization, the two processes >> conditioning/accompanying the emergence of the new >> political and economic order in Northern India. >> [On that, sufficiently, Romila Thapar and, lately, Greg >> Bailey& Ian > Mabbett.] >This is argued and may be so, but we don't really know > anything very solid about these historical processes. There > seem to me to be many possibilities. Such as? Would you, please, care to share some of your opinions? > This is out of context. In most cases this passage occurs precisely to > distinguish the fate of ca???las, etc. who live a good life from those > who live a bad life. Yes, in most cases, but not always. But, anyway, stress is on the effects of one's karma, not on victimhood. >> And ? getting what was coming to them. > No, this is incorrect, as I indicated above. Yes, we have this to consider: <> If one thinks, speaks, does things the proper way, after death one can count on heaven. Do we have textual examples of people of the candala-nesada-vena-rathakara-pukkusa class advancing in this life? Or what we have here is only a nicely formulated eschatological promise? I do suspect, that whatever their attitudes, however deeply and sincerely they agreed with the principle of total ?u?r???, they would still get what was coming to them. In terms of pitiless exploitation and violence. Regards, Artur From jkirk at spro.net Sun Jul 10 11:17:40 2011 From: jkirk at spro.net (JKirkpatrick) Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 11:17:40 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Non attached & mindful culinary triumphalism? In-Reply-To: <4E19C348.9070504@ntlworld.com> References: <003d01cc3e2d$7f8e89c0$6600a8c0@Dan> <000401cc3e4e$33eec900$6600a8c0@Dan> <4E18ABF6.3070708@ntlworld.com> <326578261B06487288381B9693810AC3@OPTIPLEX> <4E196308.1060507@ntlworld.com> <4E19C348.9070504@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: The descriptive lists Artur cited are very helpful to a project of mine, but would someone please identify the source of the text (or texts?) being discussed here? Lance, My reservations are the same as yours except for the last, where you claim an attempt to enlarge the varna list. Why would the text be about that? Or, if stating lists of high and low groups, what was the purpose? I'm missing context here. That is: was the text going on about good and bad consequences due to good or bad actions, or something else? Joanna -----Original Message----- From: buddha-l-bounces at mailman.swcp.com [mailto:buddha-l-bounces at mailman.swcp.com] On Behalf Of L.S. Cousins Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2011 9:21 AM To: Buddhist discussion forum Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] Non attached & mindful culinary triumphalism? Responding to Artur Karp: > Dear Joanna, Lance and Dan, > > What hampers this discussion is scantiness of realistic information on > the social structure in the times of the Buddha (whatever way we date > him), Fick's (clearly outdated) work notwithstanding. Quite so. > Social marginalization is definitely a byproduct of deforestation and > detribalization, the two processes conditioning/accompanying the > emergence of the new political and economic order in Northern India. > [On that, sufficiently, Romila Thapar and, lately, Greg Bailey& Ian > Mabbett.] This is argued and may be so, but we don't really know anything very solid about these historical processes. There seem to me to be many possibilities. > Pali texts, to the extent that I am familiar with them, don't seem to > show any interest in either of the two. Their silence re the effects > of marginalization (not of the ?udras, their social position was only > relatively marginal) isn't surprising, the real target for Buddhist > missionary activities being urbanized and urbanizing segments of the > society. [On that Schopen.] It is hardly surprising that Buddhist monks would direct their teaching towards those of a similar background to themselves. > The other factors operating behind this marked lack of interest must > have been the linguistic-cultural differences. Who were those > ex-tribals deprived in the name of progress of their land and their > sources of livelihood? Were they Dravidians? Austro-Asiatics? What > type of matrimonial exchange they were practicing? Inheritance rules? We have no idea. > The texts kind of concentrate on their poverty, seemingly as the > effect of their bad karma, not on their being the victims of > civilizational violence. Showing them as inferior beings, of the > Untermensch type. A quote from Bailey& Mabbet's book (p. 42-43, a > fragment repeated nearly verbatim in five texts): > > "There are degraded families: a candala family, a family of hunters, > of bamboo workers, of chariot makers and of refuse removers. A person > is born in such a family which is poor, one in which food, drink and > possessions are few, in which the lifestyle is difficult, in which > animal fodder and covering are gained with difficulty. And he is of > poor complexion, ugly, dwarf-like, frequently sick, or else he is > blind, deformed, or lame or a cripple; nor does he possess food, > drink, clothing, vehicle, garlands, scents and ointment, nor a bed, a > dwelling and a lamp plus things to light it with". > > But the text continues: > < duccarita? carati. So k?yena duccarita? caritv? v?c?ya duccarita? > caritv? manas? duccarita? caritv? k?yassa bhed? parammara?? ap?ya? > duggati? vinip?ta? niraya? upapajjati.>> > > Telling the listeners, that such people transgress (against the > accepted norms) - by their way of thinking, speaking and acting, and > that is why they deserve hell. (or Hina-Hell, if I may borrow your > expression, Joanna). This is out of context. In most cases this passage occurs precisely to distinguish the fate of ca???las, etc. who live a good life from those who live a bad life. Those who live a good life go to a good destination. Those who live a bad life go to a bad destination. And similarly for those from 'high' families. > What I like in this fragment, is that this standard list of > occupations (ca???la nes?da ve?a rathak?ra pukkusa) is used so many > times as part of the argument against brahmanic haughtiness, and so - > against inequality. Comparison sounds much better and is more > effective if we bring in extreme elements. But is, otherways, nearly > empty, one part of it being well known, the other being a bunch of > stereotypes. I don't see it this way at all. All this is part of attempts to expand the brahmanical list of four var?a. So either we have a list of six, as in the repeated line: khattiy? br?hma?? vess?, sudd? ca???lapukkus?; or, we have a contrast between high families (khattiya, br?hma?a and r?ja??a or gahapati and low families i.e. those given in the list of five you cite. This is surely a deliberate attempt to include a wider social range than in the four var?a. > Empty, if not for the standard, although oblique, mention of pigs > (pig-through, s?karado?i). Hunter, Bamboo-worker, or Refuse-remover > with their pigs and the lack of garlands, scents, ointments - as the > mark of their not belonging among civilized people. Ultimately > confirmed by their inability (or is it just contempt?) to conform to > widely accepted, civilized norms. I think the issue here is poverty. > And ? getting what was coming to them. No, this is incorrect, as I indicated above. Lance _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From jkirk at spro.net Sun Jul 10 11:17:40 2011 From: jkirk at spro.net (JKirkpatrick) Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 11:17:40 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Non attached & mindful culinary triumphalism? In-Reply-To: <4E19BF36.60705@xs4all.nl> References: <1310265821.16841.YahooMailNeo@web112609.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4E19BF36.60705@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <9E4465B4747D462883C092E03B5F23AD@OPTIPLEX> Interesting. But since the Chinese also have traditions of satire, humor and folly, why would Chinese monks be any more gullible than Indian ones? Then, we have the Japanese custom of slow poisoning ending up with a pre-embalmed zen master corpse, although their literature also includes humor and satire. As does Indian literature. Maybe it would help if we had the Chinese version of the leper's finger story. Did it get passed on into China, as did Angulimala's story? Were there any commentaries about this? Joanna -------------------------- Wise words at last. I remember a year or so ago there was a review on this list of a book about Buddhist self mutilation in China. Many Asian monks took the Jataka about the Bodhisattva offering himself as food for a hungry tigress as a prescription, while Indian readers never failed to see it as a hyperbole. Apart from the proverbial lack of hygiene in Indian cooking, conspicuous using of fingers in table manners and the typical monkish boasting and attachment to rules, the same appears to be the case here. I would not be surprised if Chinese monks hired leprose to throw their fingers in the mifang so they could eat themselves closer to Buddhahood. erik Op 10-07-11 04:43, Katherine Masis schreef: > Hi, Artur > > I sometimes wonder whether we're taking the old texts way too seriously. Could some clowning monk have written this in jest? > > Katherine Masis > San Jose, Costa Rica > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l > _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From karp at uw.edu.pl Sun Jul 10 11:19:02 2011 From: karp at uw.edu.pl (Artur Karp) Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 19:19:02 +0200 Subject: [Buddha-l] Non attached & mindful culinary triumphalism? In-Reply-To: References: <003d01cc3e2d$7f8e89c0$6600a8c0@Dan> <000401cc3e4e$33eec900$6600a8c0@Dan> <4E18ABF6.3070708@ntlworld.com> <326578261B06487288381B9693810AC3@OPTIPLEX> <4E196308.1060507@ntlworld.com> <003701cc3f04$853824d0$6600a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: Dan, my answer's awaiting the decision of the moderator whether to pass my message to the list. The reason: an attachment containing one small table. Anyway, I'll try to strip the table of all unnecessary elements. Artur From randall.bernard.jones at gmail.com Sun Jul 10 12:09:42 2011 From: randall.bernard.jones at gmail.com (Randall Jones) Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 13:09:42 -0500 Subject: [Buddha-l] Non attached & mindful culinary triumphalism? In-Reply-To: <1F92A8F7EB794724988027A053E5AB50@OPTIPLEX> References: <003d01cc3e2d$7f8e89c0$6600a8c0@Dan> <000401cc3e4e$33eec900$6600a8c0@Dan> <4E18ABF6.3070708@ntlworld.com> <326578261B06487288381B9693810AC3@OPTIPLEX> <4E196308.1060507@ntlworld.com> <003701cc3f04$853824d0$6600a8c0@Dan> <1F92A8F7EB794724988027A053E5AB50@OPTIPLEX> Message-ID: <4e19eaf7.47732a0a.191c.0114@mx.google.com> I don't know about the "permissibility" of sharing alms either, though in Thailand (in Phitsanuloke) I was asked to accompany the monks on their alms rounds and to share the meal afterward. There was however more to eat than the offerings placed in the bowls as women came into the temple kitchen to prepare food too - though this seems to me also to be a form of alms. Randall At 11:27 AM 7/10/2011, you wrote: >Comment on part of this helpful contribution: > >Just what occurred to me as well: these descriptions do sound >like reactions to beggars no doubt haunting the alms rounds. My >surmise would be that, rather than hoping for donations from the >monks, beggars would use the situation to extract donations from >the householders. >When I was in Luang Prabang (Laos), during the alms round an >obviously very poor woman (skinny, ill-dressed) was squatting on >the pavement next to a toddler, holding open a plastic bag, >obviously seeking donations. She was sitting right down with the >alms donors who were on their knees on the pavement. Someone (a >foreigner like me) muttered, "the monks aren't supposed to offer >the alms they gather," but I saw one drop something in her bag. >In this instance, the almsrounders were sramanas, led by a senior >monk. They were all young boys. I don't know if the comment >about monks sharing alms being impermissible >is factual. Must be a vinaya rule on it. > >Joanna >--------------------- > >Dan wrote: >[........] Wouldn't be able to 'hear' the dhamma, which in the >preliterate period would have been crucial), but "deformed, lame >or cripple" *could* be disqualifying, depending on the nature of >the deformities, etc. Lack of food, drink, etc. would be largely >irrelevant. > >What this sounds like -- and thus probably reflects the authorial >experiences, as you suggest -- is "beggars", suggesting that the >extent of the exposure by the composers of this pericope to these >downtrodden people would be the beggars who cross their path. >Since sramanas were also beggars of a sort, at least early on, >and probably also raggedy looking (lots of stories of monks >sowing up their raggedy robes, cautions against accepting >clothing that is too fancy or expensive, etc.), one would not >imagine the early Buddhist community complaining about fellow >beggars in that manner, unless the competition for food became >intense. > >_______________________________________________ >buddha-l mailing list >buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com >http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From jkirk at spro.net Sun Jul 10 12:15:43 2011 From: jkirk at spro.net (JKirkpatrick) Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 12:15:43 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Non attached & mindful culinary triumphalism? Message-ID: Just a quick reminder that I am not looking for ethnic identification titles of forest dweller tribals and I never was, although some respondents got that idea. Even better, however, is that I already know by now, thanks to George T., Tim L., Artur K. and Mikael Aktor that the labels in the texts are not ethnic. They are occupation-based and generic. Thanks for any and all contributions, past and future :) Joanna From selwyn at ntlworld.com Sun Jul 10 12:27:46 2011 From: selwyn at ntlworld.com (L.S. Cousins) Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 19:27:46 +0100 Subject: [Buddha-l] Non attached & mindful culinary triumphalism? In-Reply-To: References: <003d01cc3e2d$7f8e89c0$6600a8c0@Dan> <000401cc3e4e$33eec900$6600a8c0@Dan> <4E18ABF6.3070708@ntlworld.com> <326578261B06487288381B9693810AC3@OPTIPLEX> <4E196308.1060507@ntlworld.com> <4E19C348.9070504@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <4E19EF22.60608@ntlworld.com> Joanna, > The descriptive lists Artur cited are very helpful to a project of mine, but would someone please identify the source of the text (or texts?) being discussed here? These are the references I can quickly locate: three high (ucca) families opposed to five low families plus those in poverty: SN I 93f.; AN II 85; III 385; Pp 51 three high (ucca) families opposed to five low families: M II 152; 183 list of five low (n?ca) families plus those who are in poverty: AN I 107 list of five low (n?ca) families: MN III 169 two superior (ukka??ha) j?ti opposed to five inferior (h?na) j?ti: Vin IV 6; 12 list of six, adding ca???la and pukkusa to the four var?a: SN I 102; 166; AN I 162; III 214; Pv p. 26; Vv p. 91; Mil 5; Ja IV 205; 303; 303 list of kinds of woman, starting with the four var?a and following with the set of five: AN III 226ff. the five are also mentioned as prohibited terms of abuse for monks: Vin IV 7ff. & 13 just three: pukkusa, rathak?ra and vessa: Ja VI 142 > Lance, > My reservations are the same as yours except for the last, where you claim an attempt to enlarge the varna list. Why would the text be about that? Because of a reluctance to give authority to brahmin claims. > Or, if stating lists of high and low groups, what was the purpose? > > I'm missing context here. That is: was the text going on about good and bad consequences due to good or bad actions, or something else? > It was about that. Lance From jkirk at spro.net Sun Jul 10 12:44:25 2011 From: jkirk at spro.net (JKirkpatrick) Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 12:44:25 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Non attached & mindful culinary triumphalism? In-Reply-To: <4E19EF22.60608@ntlworld.com> References: <003d01cc3e2d$7f8e89c0$6600a8c0@Dan> <000401cc3e4e$33eec900$6600a8c0@Dan> <4E18ABF6.3070708@ntlworld.com> <326578261B06487288381B9693810AC3@OPTIPLEX> <4E196308.1060507@ntlworld.com> <4E19C348.9070504@ntlworld.com> <4E19EF22.60608@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <1D6DEF6C89C3401C82B5E4667BC05B85@OPTIPLEX> Wow--many thanks for this list. (>except for the last, where you claim an attempt to enlarge the varna list. Why >would the text be about that? Because of a reluctance to give authority to brahmin claims. I'll ask a bit more about this off the list.) Much indebted. Joanna ---------------------------------- On Behalf Of L.S. Cousins Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2011 12:28 PM Joanna, > The descriptive lists Artur cited are very helpful to a project of mine, but would someone please identify the source of the text (or texts?) being discussed here? These are the references I can quickly locate: three high (ucca) families opposed to five low families plus those in poverty: SN I 93f.; AN II 85; III 385; Pp 51 three high (ucca) families opposed to five low families: M II 152; 183 list of five low (n?ca) families plus those who are in poverty: AN I 107 list of five low (n?ca) families: MN III 169 two superior (ukka??ha) j?ti opposed to five inferior (h?na) j?ti: Vin IV 6; 12 list of six, adding ca???la and pukkusa to the four var?a: SN I 102; 166; AN I 162; III 214; Pv p. 26; Vv p. 91; Mil 5; Ja IV 205; 303; 303 list of kinds of woman, starting with the four var?a and following with the set of five: AN III 226ff. the five are also mentioned as prohibited terms of abuse for monks: Vin IV 7ff. & 13 just three: pukkusa, rathak?ra and vessa: Ja VI 142 > Lance, > My reservations are the same as yours except for the last, where you claim an attempt to enlarge the varna list. Why would the text be about that? Because of a reluctance to give authority to brahmin claims. > Or, if stating lists of high and low groups, what was the purpose? > > I'm missing context here. That is: was the text going on about good and bad consequences due to good or bad actions, or something else? > It was about that. Lance _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From karp at uw.edu.pl Sun Jul 10 14:27:04 2011 From: karp at uw.edu.pl (Artur Karp) Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 22:27:04 +0200 Subject: [Buddha-l] Non attached & mindful culinary triumphalism? In-Reply-To: References: <003d01cc3e2d$7f8e89c0$6600a8c0@Dan> <000401cc3e4e$33eec900$6600a8c0@Dan> <4E18ABF6.3070708@ntlworld.com> <326578261B06487288381B9693810AC3@OPTIPLEX> <4E196308.1060507@ntlworld.com> <003701cc3f04$853824d0$6600a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: [Resending the message without the attachment; attachment sent separately to Joanna, Lance, Dan and Katherine] Dan, > (3) Are > there reliable ways of identifying and unpacking the clues that may be > hidden between the lines in the Pali texts? So far, seems largely ad hoc > methodologically speaking. Not only the Pali, also Sanskrit texts. An exhaustive questionnaire, collocations (of the type XYZ :: rice, XYZ :: barley, XYZ :: wheat; XYZ :: buffalo, buffalo :: chicken, buffalo :: pig; pukkusa :: candala, pukkusa :: nesada, pukkusa :: vena; etc.). Putting the questions in a hierarchical order, quantifying the results, and finally weighing them. A map of significant connections. A map of significant silences. That, hopefully, providing an insight into the texts ideology. A lot of interesting work for the naturally computer-wise XXIst century youngsters. > One probably needs to be careful about the "theory of the > week," esp. when it serves as a fairly mono-causal > narrative, such as "deforestation." A good warning. Except that I use the term "deforestation" always in connection with another term, that is "detribalization". So, a fairly bi-causal narrative. Which, I believe, is much better than the mono-something one.And, let me stress again, both processes run in the background of a much larger process; it is thanks to them that the Indian style civilization gets its resources, that it has a nearly inexhaustible pool of free/cheap workforce. Even today. Let me attach a table showing the correlation between Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes numerical strengths in selected Indian states (India Census, 2001). One immediately notices, that in the areas where there are no more tribes to be robbed of their land, the proportion of Scheduled Castes population is fairly high (up to 30%). And quite conversely, in the areas where the tribes still exist, the proportion of SCs is fairly low, in some cases even nil. I believe these findings can be linked with the extent of deforestation in the areas in question. Cf.: http://www.frienvis.nic.in/forestcovermap.htm, also, detailed maps for Punjab, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Mizoram, etc., at : http://www.mapsofindia.com/forest-maps/ Regards, Artur From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Sun Jul 10 15:29:24 2011 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 17:29:24 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Non attached & mindful culinary triumphalism? References: <1310265821.16841.YahooMailNeo@web112609.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><4E19BF36.60705@xs4all.nl> <9E4465B4747D462883C092E03B5F23AD@OPTIPLEX> Message-ID: <002c01cc3f48$70e19950$6600a8c0@Dan> > Maybe it would help if we had the Chinese version of the leper's > finger story. Did it get passed on into China, as did > Angulimala's story? Not that I am aware of. But before we relegate this type of story to fairy tale land, it might be useful to point out that there is a kind of genre to this sort of story, and gruesome and gory tales are especially prominent in jataka literature. There are other leper stories as well. For instance, in the Dazhidu lun, the Prajnaparamita commentary produced by Kumarajiva attributed to Nagarjuna, in the 12 fascicle (T.25.1509.146b11-19), there is the story of the Crown Prince "Moonlight" (Yueguang Taizi ????), who meets a leper, and vowing to find a cure for him, inquires of various doctors, who prescribe that he give the leper his blood and marrow to drink (and smear over him), which he does. The explicit moral being 'generosity' even to one's own flesh (breaking one's own bones open to extract the marrow). Oh, incidentally, the leper is explicitly identified as a ??? ca???la in the story. Dan From jkirk at spro.net Sun Jul 10 16:42:56 2011 From: jkirk at spro.net (JKirkpatrick) Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 16:42:56 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Non attached & mindful culinary triumphalism? In-Reply-To: <002c01cc3f48$70e19950$6600a8c0@Dan> References: <1310265821.16841.YahooMailNeo@web112609.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><4E19BF36.60705@xs4all.nl><9E4465B4747D462883C092E03B5F23AD@OPTIPLEX> <002c01cc3f48$70e19950$6600a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: <465A5A0625394A9E9658DF0156851A09@OPTIPLEX> Thanks I agree about the Jataka type tales. More gore than in the suttas. Those ca???las sure came in for it. Reminds one of the way some people used the 'n' word in the USA. That of course referred to skin color. Anyone have an etymology for the term ca???la? Joanna -----Original Message----- From: buddha-l-bounces at mailman.swcp.com [mailto:buddha-l-bounces at mailman.swcp.com] On Behalf Of Dan Lusthaus Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2011 3:29 PM To: Buddhist discussion forum Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] Non attached & mindful culinary triumphalism? > Maybe it would help if we had the Chinese version of the leper's > finger story. Did it get passed on into China, as did Angulimala's > story? Not that I am aware of. But before we relegate this type of story to fairy tale land, it might be useful to point out that there is a kind of genre to this sort of story, and gruesome and gory tales are especially prominent in jataka literature. There are other leper stories as well. For instance, in the Dazhidu lun, the Prajnaparamita commentary produced by Kumarajiva attributed to Nagarjuna, in the 12 fascicle (T.25.1509.146b11-19), there is the story of the Crown Prince "Moonlight" (Yueguang Taizi ????), who meets a leper, and vowing to find a cure for him, inquires of various doctors, who prescribe that he give the leper his blood and marrow to drink (and smear over him), which he does. The explicit moral being 'generosity' even to one's own flesh (breaking one's own bones open to extract the marrow). Oh, incidentally, the leper is explicitly identified as a ??? ca???la in the story. Dan _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Sun Jul 10 22:11:45 2011 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 00:11:45 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Non attached & mindful culinary triumphalism? References: <1310265821.16841.YahooMailNeo@web112609.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><4E19BF36.60705@xs4all.nl><9E4465B4747D462883C092E03B5F23AD@OPTIPLEX><002c01cc3f48$70e19950$6600a8c0@Dan> <465A5A0625394A9E9658DF0156851A09@OPTIPLEX> Message-ID: <000801cc3f80$a65b0b10$6600a8c0@Dan> > Anyone have an etymology for the term ca???la? The following is all derived from Monier-Williams: ca?? (derived fr. c???a) to be angry or wrathful. c???a n. (probably fr. candr? , " glowing " with passion) fierce , violent , cruel , impetuous , hot , ardent with passion , passionate , angry c???a mf(?)n. circumcised c???a m. N. of a mythical being (c???asya napty?s , " daughters of ca??a " , a class of female demons c???a m. N. of a demon causing diseases c???a m. of an attendant of yama or of ?iva c???a m. of one of the 7 clouds enveloping the earth at the deluge c???a n. heat c???a n. passion , wrath (for fuller details: http://tinyurl.com/6cn7rlh ) Also related: Since considered the lowest caste due to improper caste mixing (Brahman mother with Shudra father): c???? f. (g. bahv-?di) a passionate woman , vixen c???? f. a term of endearment applied to a mistress c???? f. N. of durg? c???? f. of a female attendant of durg? c???? f. a metre of 4 x 13 syllables And a c???u is a rat (or small monkey), giving ca??ila m. N. of rudra Hence the ?iva / Shaivite association. Dan From jkirk at spro.net Sun Jul 10 22:56:23 2011 From: jkirk at spro.net (JKirkpatrick) Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 22:56:23 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Non attached & mindful culinary triumphalism? In-Reply-To: <000801cc3f80$a65b0b10$6600a8c0@Dan> References: <1310265821.16841.YahooMailNeo@web112609.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><4E19BF36.60705@xs4all.nl><9E4465B4747D462883C092E03B5F23AD@OPTIPLEX><002c01cc3f48$70e19950$6600a8c0@Dan><465A5A0625394A9E9658DF0156851A09@OPTIPLEX> <000801cc3f80$a65b0b10$6600a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: Thanks a lot. I regret that I simply did not have the time today to look it up in MW myself. Best, Joanna -----Original Message----- From: buddha-l-bounces at mailman.swcp.com [mailto:buddha-l-bounces at mailman.swcp.com] On Behalf Of Dan Lusthaus Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2011 10:12 PM To: Buddhist discussion forum Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] Non attached & mindful culinary triumphalism? > Anyone have an etymology for the term ca???la? The following is all derived from Monier-Williams: ca?? (derived fr. c???a) to be angry or wrathful. c???a n. (probably fr. candr? , " glowing " with passion) fierce , violent , cruel , impetuous , hot , ardent with passion , passionate , angry c???a mf(?)n. circumcised c???a m. N. of a mythical being (c???asya napty?s , " daughters of ca??a " , a class of female demons c???a m. N. of a demon causing diseases c???a m. of an attendant of yama or of ?iva c???a m. of one of the 7 clouds enveloping the earth at the deluge c???a n. heat c???a n. passion , wrath (for fuller details: http://tinyurl.com/6cn7rlh ) Also related: Since considered the lowest caste due to improper caste mixing (Brahman mother with Shudra father): c???? f. (g. bahv-?di) a passionate woman , vixen c???? f. a term of endearment applied to a mistress c???? f. N. of durg? c???? f. of a female attendant of durg? c???? f. a metre of 4 x 13 syllables And a c???u is a rat (or small monkey), giving ca??ila m. N. of rudra Hence the ?iva / Shaivite association. Dan _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From karp at uw.edu.pl Mon Jul 11 00:42:42 2011 From: karp at uw.edu.pl (Artur Karp) Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 08:42:42 +0200 Subject: [Buddha-l] Non attached & mindful culinary triumphalism? In-Reply-To: <000801cc3f80$a65b0b10$6600a8c0@Dan> References: <1310265821.16841.YahooMailNeo@web112609.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4E19BF36.60705@xs4all.nl> <9E4465B4747D462883C092E03B5F23AD@OPTIPLEX> <002c01cc3f48$70e19950$6600a8c0@Dan> <465A5A0625394A9E9658DF0156851A09@OPTIPLEX> <000801cc3f80$a65b0b10$6600a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: Joanna, The MW quasi-etymological references (c???a from ? candr?) must be treated with a large dose of circumspection. Consonantal clusters built of nasals + retroflexives, like -??-, may point to non IE origins of the words containing them. For Indo-Aryan continuations of ca??a- see Turner's CDIAL, entries 4584,4585; of c????la - 4740. Best, Artur From karp at uw.edu.pl Mon Jul 11 02:48:46 2011 From: karp at uw.edu.pl (Artur Karp) Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 10:48:46 +0200 Subject: [Buddha-l] Non attached & mindful culinary triumphalism? In-Reply-To: References: <1310265821.16841.YahooMailNeo@web112609.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4E19BF36.60705@xs4all.nl> <9E4465B4747D462883C092E03B5F23AD@OPTIPLEX> <002c01cc3f48$70e19950$6600a8c0@Dan> <465A5A0625394A9E9658DF0156851A09@OPTIPLEX> <000801cc3f80$a65b0b10$6600a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: And, temptingly, CDIAL 4738, 4739 c???a c???a - 'pot'; both of Dravidian origin. A. From stroble at hawaii.edu Mon Jul 11 06:28:59 2011 From: stroble at hawaii.edu (andy) Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 02:28:59 -1000 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddhas Meditation In-Reply-To: <004401cc3e31$2157bee0$6600a8c0@Dan> References: <201107080912.37348.stroble@hawaii.edu> <004401cc3e31$2157bee0$6600a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: <201107110229.00768.stroble@hawaii.edu> Dan wrote: > Andy, > > >> Same question as to Timothy: Is this "suffering" in the animal or in the > >> persons abstaining or indulging? > > > > Um, both? What, from a Buddhist perspective, is the cause of the > > redwood's > > suffering? > > You are asking, or informing? What is the "cause"? Let me hack a few of > your fingers off and then we will discuss that further. > We are getting off the topic. Yes, I aim at informing. I am interested in the Buddhist perspective on violence, as we have discussed several times. I am quite happy that we are down to severed digits as opposed to splitting heads into eight pieces. Now if the aforementioned digits fell into a monk's begging bowl . . . > >> It is very disheartening to see so many supposed compassionate Buddhists > >> (except Lidewij) eager to dismiss this issue as goat-herding when > >> literally > >> the issue is life and death, plain, simple and stark. > > > > Well, there it is. Samsara. Universal value. So every redwood is > > special, > > and thus its destruction is wrong? Life and death are not so simple. > > In fact, they are. This has nothing to do with "universal" values. It has > to do with each and every individual life. Don't move that into the > universal plane, or you'll start thinking that asking about what causes > 'suffering' to a tree being chopped down is a meaningful question. The importance of death is a universalist question. It is putting life up there as an absolute value, the one that is the basis of all others, and so inviolate. That is universalism. Suffering is not universal, it is a fact, and so not the basis for absolute ethics. > > > Well, if I had to choose. . . . This is why I brought up the Gita. Are > > we > > supposed to think that Arjuna can war away at his relatives without doing > > wrong as long as he is not attached to the fruit if his actions? I don't > > think that conclusion follows for Buddhism. > > It doesn't, and in Arjuna's case, it is not just that he kills without > attachment to the fruit of action, but that it is his DHARMA to do so, > being born a Ksatriya, into that particular disfunctional family, > rightfully promised the kingship, etc. To not do his Dharma would be > adharma, social disorder, according to Krsna, and Krsna informs Arjuna > that he has taken incarnation this time precisely to battle adharma. The > Gita, in fact, is largely designed as a rebuke to the ahimsa (non-harming) > notions being promulgated by Buddhists and Jains at that time, which > apparently were finding a sufficient audience to require this sort of > dramatic Hindu reply. Even the Samkhyans eschewed 'sacrifice' as barbaric. Yes, absolutely. But this is the point. Violence is not justified in itself, but by some other value, say "law and order" or the maintenance of the castes. The ahimisic traditions are radical in challenging the necessity of this order. If pushed, you might find me claiming that Buddhism is anarchist, and a major part of that is denying the necessity of violence. > > > So the redwood is delusional, if it suffers, because it is attached to > > its own > > existence, when actually it is empty of self. > > Suffering is delusional by nature, but it is still suffering, and one > doesn't cure suffering (the injunction and promise of the 4 noble truths) > by calling one's victims delusional as one violently annihilates them. To > yell, "I am not killing you because you don't exist," while killing > someone (or something) is more delusional. > > >So it doesn't really matter > > what the attachment status of the sawyers is. > > Never really does, actually. Not to the tree, anyway. > > > But you are right, the good intentions don't matter, since the redwood > > would > > suffer nonetheless. So how does one go about enlightening redwoods? My > > point > > would be that the imposition of a universalist position of sunyata is > > violence, and a form of attachment to non-attachment, or in other words, > > nihilism. > > You are the first to bring up sunyata in this discussion, so, since we > agree it has no place here, let's pretend you didn't say that. But we can't, Dan! First because I did, and secondly because it is pertinent. The attachment to the idea of atman is the source of suffering, and the attachment to the svabhava of an individual redwood is the cause of our suffering at its demise. All I am suggesting is that from a Buddhist perspective, death is not an absolute tragedy. Of course, this is not the same thing as maintaining it is justified. The denial of atman no more justifies violence than it justifies ahimsa. This is my only point. > > Again, it is not about a universalistic position about essentialized > redwoods, or anything else traipsing around in the rarified atmosphere of a > "universal" plane, it's about actual, concrete, bark-and-sap, really old > redwoods being hacked to death by assassins who attempt to rationalize > their carnage by eclipsing, in some fashion, the bark-and-sap existence of > the tree in front of them (e.g., by imagining a time when they might not > be, though here they are). > > > But the flip-side doesn't follow either. Redwoods die. The species > > itself may > > well be headed to extinction. Trying to save them, to preserve being, is > > the > > other form of universalism, eternalism. > > This is not something we have been discussing, i.e., preserving redwoods by > 'extraodinary means.' They are not 'fated' to disappear, and have already > demonstrated an ability to outlive most other life-forms on the planet. If > conditions become such that THEY -- with their proven longevity -- are > endangered, it would seem prudent to take that as a warning sign that the > rest of us are next, with our less robust constitutions, and deal with the > conditions. To simply resign oneself to the ultimate demise of everything > is annihilationalism, an extreme explicitly rejected by the Buddha and > Buddhists. Yes, again, and that was my point. But prudence is a consequentialist theory, and I don'think we are talking about redwoods in the coalmine. And the suffering of the trees has little to do with the environemtal implications of their survival. > > >So do trees have standing? Yes, > > > > because they can suffer. Not because they have a right to life or > > existence. > > The trees don't care which 'reason' you prefer to reach the conclusion they > > prefer, namely: > > And so the attitude of the actor should be kindly and compassionate. Paternalism: we should not be kindly and compassionate because redwoods prefer it, especially since I suspect that they do not prefer it when it comes to competing species or lumberjacks, but because it is the right thing to do -- Andy Stroble, From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Mon Jul 11 08:35:44 2011 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 10:35:44 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddhas Meditation References: <201107080912.37348.stroble@hawaii.edu><004401cc3e31$2157bee0$6600a8c0@Dan> <201107110229.00768.stroble@hawaii.edu> Message-ID: <005101cc3fd7$d1351fe0$6600a8c0@Dan> Hi Andy, >> >> Same question as to Timothy: Is this "suffering" in the animal or in >> >> the >> >> persons abstaining or indulging? >> > >> > Um, both? [...] >> You are asking, or informing? What is the "cause"? Let me hack a few of >> your fingers off and then we will discuss that further. >> > > We are getting off the topic. Yes, I aim at informing. The question mark through me. >I am interested in the > Buddhist perspective on violence, As discussions in the past on this list illustrated, that is not something in the singular; there are numerous perspectives, and each has further caveats and qualifications. In general pretty much every religion says it is against murder, war, etc. Then comes the details, exceptions, actual histories, etc. Buddhists fare well in such comparisons, but they don't remain squeaky clean. > The importance of death is a universalist question. That is one approach, not the only one. Death is the most existentially impinging reminder of impermanence, loss, i.e., suffering. As such it is also painfully particular and individual. According to the early Buddhist texts, Buddha discovers pratitya-samutpada on the final night under the Bodhi tree by beginning his meditation with the question: "Why is there death?" He had previously that night traced out how his current circumstance was the result of actions, attitudes, activities engaged in at a previous moment, which themselves were consequent on prior actions, which were consequent on prior actions -- noting the causal connections -- and tracing these chains back through his life, into his previous life, and into the life before that, and on and on. That gets expressed as a "principle" of karma, but the recovery was of specific, individual actions. In the second watch of the night, he then does the same for other sentient beings, tracing back their past (and potentially future) lives, based on their actions (karma). So he has the "principle of karma", one might even say its apparent "universal" extension, but culled and grounded in particulars, not universalistic reasoning. In the third and final watch of the night, he asks: "Why is there death?" He is not asking about a specific universal value, but about the *fact* that everything is impermanent. And that certainly includes concern with the attendant emotional disruptions that death bring -- both thoughts of one's own death as well as the death of dear ones, even sometimes strangers or redwoods. If he wanted to ask a "universalistic" question, he would have asked: "Why is there impermanence?" instead, but he asks "Why is there Death?" because the issue is not the valueless or value-drained factoid of impermanence, but the actual, deep and unavoidable impact that such impermanence has on every particular thing. Even thoughts. "Death" = loss = pain = impermanence. Hence the formula in Pali texts: all is impermanent, all is dukkha. There might be a presumption somewhere in there that eternal life -- which lots of naive people appear to crave -- would be preferable, but no indication that Buddha is specifically concerned with that, aside from its being one of the numerous implications of the actuality and ineluctability of death. The answer he lights on: There is death because there is birth. In other words, whatever arises, must cease. Whatever is put together, must come apart. So the next question becomes: "Why is there birth?" By the end of the night, he had figured out pratitya-samutpada, which is the content of Buddha's enlightenment. (Since he is working backwards from consequents to their causes, does that make him a reverse consequentialist?) >Suffering is not universal, it is a fact, and > so not the basis for absolute ethics. Since death and suffering are synonymous (see above), each is as universal or non-universal as the other. They can both be taken either way. The Buddhist foundational observation, sabbam dukkham (all is suffering; First Noble Truth), is easy to take as a universal proposition, though I would caution against that. It is properly understood in concrete, distinct, particular circumstances, not as a general, bloodless factoid. That, because of impermanence (= death) "everything" (sabba) undergoes suffering, makes it universally applicable, found everywhere and anywhere, but not itself a universal. >> You are the first to bring up sunyata in this discussion, so, since we >> agree it has no place here, let's pretend you didn't say that. > > But we can't, Dan! First because I did, and secondly because it is > pertinent. Not necessarily. Emptiness is such a misunderstood, misapplied term, I don't see why bringing in the conceptual anarchy associated with that will clarify this discussion. It's not necessary. >All I am suggesting is that from a Buddhist > perspective, death is not an absolute tragedy. And I am suggesting that from standard Buddhist perspectives, death both is and isn't an absolute tragedy. Forgetting about the other side of the equation creates a lop-sided, untenable Buddhism. >And the > suffering of the trees has little to do with the environemtal implications > of > their survival. It's as relevant a factor as any of the others one might consider, especially in the context of their survival. That's why some people prefer to understand pratitya-samutpada as "relationality". Have you read Frank Cook's book on Huayan, _The Jewel Net of Indra_? My students love that book because it makes the case for environmentalism using Buddhist causal theories, esp. pratitya-samutpada and the multi-relational mutualities of Huayan thinking. If Huayan stands for anything, it is that adequate attention to individuals is never isolationism. Nothing can be properly understood apart from the multiple webs of relations that engender and contextualize it. A redwood divorced from its environment is no longer a living thing, but a mere item for more or less idle speculation. > Paternalism: we should not be kindly and compassionate because redwoods > prefer > it, especially since I suspect that they do not prefer it when it comes to > competing species or lumberjacks, but because it is the right thing to do The tree does not care what formulation someone leans on to find a reason to leave it alone. The tree is a consequentialist. It just wants those who might destroy it to desist. (and if you want a virtue-ethics version of that, check out Spinoza's conatus, or Nietzsche's will-to-overcome. The labels obscure, pidgeon-hole; we're better off without them; the tree is also a Spinozist and Neitzschean, etc., but without having to read them or argue about such labels). Dan From rhayes at unm.edu Mon Jul 11 09:20:04 2011 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 09:20:04 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddhas Meditation In-Reply-To: <005101cc3fd7$d1351fe0$6600a8c0@Dan> References: <201107080912.37348.stroble@hawaii.edu><004401cc3e31$2157bee0$6600a8c0@Dan> <201107110229.00768.stroble@hawaii.edu> <005101cc3fd7$d1351fe0$6600a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: <1B585E6D-DCF1-43F1-BECF-C5C42D1A13FB@unm.edu> On Jul 11, 2011, at 08:35 , Dan Lusthaus wrote: > The tree does not care what formulation someone leans on to find a reason to > leave it alone. The tree is a consequentialist. It just wants those who > might destroy it to desist. I have had two friends over the years who spend a good deal of their time talking to trees and other forms of vegetation. One of them insists that most edible plants actually want to be eaten. That is their raison d'?tre. Even trees, he said, don't mind at all being cut down and used for habitation. (I'm not sure how they feel about being made into roller coasters. My friend didn't tell me.) We may be here in a realm where we have nothing much to go on but projections, speculations and assumptions based on our own experiences as human beings. There may be a certain wisdom in refraining from imagining what plants, rocks, sharks and squid want out of life. > The labels obscure, pidgeon-hole; > we're better off without them; Labels are also useful heuristics, aids in arriving at better understanding. Understanding can be impeded if one takes labels as rigid and absolute?no one reminds us of that better than M?dhyamikas. But it can also be impeded if one refuses to form working hypotheses and testing them, which often consists in applying predicates (which are, after all, labels) provisionally and seeing what the limits of the predicates are. Richard Hayes Department of Philosophy University of New Mexico Albuquerque, NM From aryacitta at hotmail.com Mon Jul 11 15:04:44 2011 From: aryacitta at hotmail.com (David Living) Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 21:04:44 +0000 Subject: [Buddha-l] Non attached & mindful culinary triumphalism? Message-ID: Just returning to that old quote about the mindful meat eater - would the following version of the quote make more sense "Better to eat your pork chops mindfully than your quorn segments un-mindfully"; the point being that mindfulness is more important than an unthinking attachment to rules and regulations. Don't want to get too pedantic and all that but..... Aryacitta/Dave Living From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Mon Jul 11 15:34:48 2011 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 17:34:48 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Non attached & mindful culinary triumphalism? References: Message-ID: <003801cc4012$5cd51840$6600a8c0@Dan> > Just returning to that old quote about the mindful meat eater - would the > following version of the quote make more sense > > "Better to eat your pork chops mindfully than your quorn segments > un-mindfully"; the point being that mindfulness is more important than an > unthinking attachment to rules and regulations. > Aryacitta/Dave Living Better for whom? The pig? The narcissist for whom pigs and cows are just fodder for self-image and feelings of self-improvement or lesser-self? Dan From bshmr at aol.com Mon Jul 11 16:33:43 2011 From: bshmr at aol.com (Richard Basham) Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 16:33:43 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddhas Meditation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1310423623.25289.40.camel@aims110> On Mon, 2011-07-11 at 08:35 -0600, "Dan Lusthaus" wrote: > The tree does not care what formulation someone leans on to find a > reason to leave it alone. The tree is a consequentialist. It just > wants those who might destroy it to desist. About 20 years of tutelage under a competent zen priest might lighten your mind but in the meantime keep those fanciful imaginings spinning as it seems to give you meaning. Now, be a tiger (for us), please Richard Basham From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Mon Jul 11 18:16:50 2011 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 20:16:50 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Buddhas Meditation References: <1310423623.25289.40.camel@aims110> Message-ID: <001301cc4028$ff157e90$6600a8c0@Dan> > About 20 years of tutelage under a competent zen priest might lighten > your mind but in the meantime keep those fanciful imaginings spinning as > it seems to give you meaning. > > Now, be a tiger (for us), please > Richard Basham Richard B., my mind doesn't need any lightening. This list has enough lightweights trying to pretend they're heavy. But you really do need a new obsession... Dan From jkirk at spro.net Mon Jul 11 19:11:36 2011 From: jkirk at spro.net (JKirkpatrick) Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 19:11:36 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] LA County Museum exhibit of art: The Way of the Elders Message-ID: <989692F14B5043218754583051287A1A@OPTIPLEX> If there are any art lovers on this list, which I rather doubt but just in case, please see this LA County Museum website on the Way of the Elders: http://lacma.wordpress.com/2011/07/11/highlights-of-the-way-of-th e-elders/ The page opens with a wonderful image of the walking Buddha, a rarely seen sculptural concept (in India anyway) except in Burma, and sometimes in Thailand. My guess as to why is that the southeast Asians developed sitting and walking meditation beyond what the Indians practised--Indian iconography of Buddha emphasises the sitting posture. Walking meditation is as important in SE Asian Buddhism as sitting. In Bagan, northern Burma, there are wonderful carved wooden figures of the walking Buddha in several of the big famous pagodas. From rhayes at unm.edu Mon Jul 11 20:08:07 2011 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 20:08:07 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] LA County Museum exhibit of art: The Way of the Elders In-Reply-To: <989692F14B5043218754583051287A1A@OPTIPLEX> References: <989692F14B5043218754583051287A1A@OPTIPLEX> Message-ID: <24786005-D0D6-45C8-BD9A-D1A0285396EB@unm.edu> On Jul 11, 2011, at 19:11 , JKirkpatrick wrote: > If there are any art lovers on this list, which I rather doubt Just out of curiosity, why would you doubt that there are art lovers on this list? I happen to love many arts. Art Garfunkel. Art Pepper. Art Blakey. Art Tatum. Artie Shaw. Article one section two of the constitution of the United States (which grants the legislative branch the woefully underused power of impeachment), and art for art's sake (which sounds pretty narcissistic if you ask me). Loving the arts makes me a substandard Buddhist and a wretchedly poor Quaker, but it can't be helped. Thanks for the link. From rhayes at unm.edu Mon Jul 11 22:12:32 2011 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 22:12:32 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Non attached & mindful culinary triumphalism? In-Reply-To: <003801cc4012$5cd51840$6600a8c0@Dan> References: <003801cc4012$5cd51840$6600a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: <55E961DF-A063-4E08-9C1C-8146468057F9@unm.edu> On Jul 11, 2011, at 15:34 , Dan Lusthaus wrote: > The narcissist for whom pigs and cows are just > fodder for self-image and feelings of self-improvement or lesser-self? For a man who decries labels, this fellow has a big pocket full of them, which he apples liberally. From sanskrit_studies at yahoo.com Mon Jul 11 22:38:35 2011 From: sanskrit_studies at yahoo.com (Geoff Morrison) Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 21:38:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Buddha-l] LA County Museum exhibit of art: The Way of the Elders In-Reply-To: <989692F14B5043218754583051287A1A@OPTIPLEX> References: <989692F14B5043218754583051287A1A@OPTIPLEX> Message-ID: <1310445515.67252.YahooMailNeo@web65109.mail.ac2.yahoo.com> Rumor to the contrary, the are, in fact, many art lovers on this list. Thanks for letting the rest of the list members know about the Los Angeles County Museum of Art's (LACMA) exhibit, "The Way of the Elders: The Buddha in Modern Theravada Traditions," consisting of slightly more than a dozen items from LACMA's Southeast Asia Collection, but definitely worth a visit to LACMA for the value of this exhibition alone, IMHO. If you happen to live in Southern California or will be visiting same by March, 2012, the representations of Buddha await you at LACMA. As Leo, the Lion, advises art lovers, at the beginning of any MGM film, by roaring out "Ars gratia artis," or "art for art's sake," credited to Th?ophile Gautier, who was supposed to have been the first to use "l'art pour l'art" as a slogan, which Louis B. Mayer, the "M" in MGM, Latinized for Leo's benefit, in the lion's cameo appearance inside the MGM Logo. If any of the list members are interested in viewing this exhibit of modern renderings of Buddha, "roar" on over to LACMA to have a look. (No play upon words intended here, of course.) Metta,? Geoff Morrison ________________________________ From: JKirkpatrick To: 'Buddhist discussion forum' Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 6:11 PM Subject: [Buddha-l] LA County Museum exhibit of art: The Way of the Elders If there are any art lovers on this list, which I rather doubt but just in case, please see this LA County Museum website on the Way of the Elders: http://lacma.wordpress.com/2011/07/11/highlights-of-the-way-of-th e-elders/ The page opens with a wonderful image of the walking Buddha, a rarely seen sculptural concept (in India anyway) except in Burma, and sometimes in Thailand. My guess as to why is that the southeast Asians developed sitting and walking meditation beyond what the Indians practised--Indian iconography of Buddha emphasises the sitting posture. Walking meditation is as important in SE Asian Buddhism as sitting.? In Bagan, northern Burma, there are wonderful carved wooden figures of the walking Buddha in several of the big famous pagodas. From the above website: 'Cloth banners were commissioned and donated to monasteries for hanging inside the temple walls until production ceased around the beginning of the twentieth century.' So Tibetans weren't the only group to decorate their temples with painted cloth banners, albeit gigantic ones designed to cover an entire outside wall. Inside, usually it was painted murals-----whereas the Thai painted cloth banners were designated (according to this site) for indoor temple d?cor (and edification, of course-- like the temple d?cor of all Buddhist architecture everywhere). Joanna _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Mon Jul 11 23:07:17 2011 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 01:07:17 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Non attached & mindful culinary triumphalism? References: <003801cc4012$5cd51840$6600a8c0@Dan> <55E961DF-A063-4E08-9C1C-8146468057F9@unm.edu> Message-ID: <003201cc4051$924f9740$6400a8c0@Dan> > For a man who decries labels, this fellow has a big pocket full of them, > which he apples liberally. There's a difference between diagnostics and labeling. Issue would be whether the description is accurate, or ridiculing it is a way of blunting its accuracy. Dan From rhayes at unm.edu Tue Jul 12 07:24:50 2011 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 07:24:50 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Non attached & mindful culinary triumphalism? In-Reply-To: <003201cc4051$924f9740$6400a8c0@Dan> References: <003801cc4012$5cd51840$6600a8c0@Dan> <55E961DF-A063-4E08-9C1C-8146468057F9@unm.edu> <003201cc4051$924f9740$6400a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: <1CFDE469-4BAA-4BCE-BC1F-6158E07BD6C6@unm.edu> On Jul 11, 2011, at 23:07, "Dan Lusthaus" wrote: > There's a difference between diagnostics and labeling. Issue would be > whether the description is accurate, or ridiculing it is a way of blunting > its accuracy. Exactly. From jkirk at spro.net Tue Jul 12 07:29:46 2011 From: jkirk at spro.net (JKirkpatrick) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 07:29:46 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Non attached & mindful culinary triumphalism? In-Reply-To: References: <1310265821.16841.YahooMailNeo@web112609.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><4E19BF36.60705@xs4all.nl><9E4465B4747D462883C092E03B5F23AD@OPTIPLEX><002c01cc3f48$70e19950$6600a8c0@Dan><465A5A0625394A9E9658DF0156851A09@OPTIPLEX><000801cc3f80$a65b0b10$6600a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: Turner's CDIAL---sorry--what is that? Is it online? I'm very ignorant in IE and other philology--thanks for this caveat--I'd not be surprised, speaking as an anthropologist, that the -??- may point to non-IE origins, since the people so-labeled must have been around before the Aryas got there. -----Original Message----- From: buddha-l-bounces at mailman.swcp.com [ mailto:buddha-l-bounces at mailman.swcp.com] On Behalf Of Artur Karp Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 12:43 AM To: Buddhist discussion forum Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] Non attached & mindful culinary triumphalism? Joanna, The MW quasi-etymological references (c???a from ? candr?) must be treated with a large dose of circumspection. Consonantal clusters built of nasals + retroflexives, like -??-, may point to non IE origins of the words containing them. For Indo-Aryan continuations of ca??a- see Turner's CDIAL, entries 4584,4585; of c????la - 4740. Best, Artur _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From rhayes at unm.edu Tue Jul 12 07:39:58 2011 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 07:39:58 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Non attached & mindful culinary triumphalism? In-Reply-To: <1CFDE469-4BAA-4BCE-BC1F-6158E07BD6C6@unm.edu> References: <003801cc4012$5cd51840$6600a8c0@Dan> <55E961DF-A063-4E08-9C1C-8146468057F9@unm.edu> <003201cc4051$924f9740$6400a8c0@Dan> <1CFDE469-4BAA-4BCE-BC1F-6158E07BD6C6@unm.edu> Message-ID: <1F62178B-917D-435D-AD31-563DA7D051D6@unm.edu> On Jul 12, 2011, at 07:24 , Richard Hayes wrote: > On Jul 11, 2011, at 23:07, "Dan Lusthaus" wrote: > >> There's a difference between diagnostics and labeling. Issue would be >> whether the description is accurate, or ridiculing it is a way of blunting >> its accuracy. > > Exactly. There is, incidentally, no accuracy at all in the label "narcissistic" when applied wholesale to people who subscribe to any particular approach to meta-ethics. "Narcissist" is a psychological term and is probably best applied by a trained analyst after considerable exposure to the analysand to whom it is applied. It isn't something to be thrown around lightly, lest it be construed as a form of ridicule that has the effect, as Dan puts it so well, of blunting accuracy. From geoff.zinderdine at gmail.com Tue Jul 12 07:58:02 2011 From: geoff.zinderdine at gmail.com (Geoff Zinderdine) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 09:58:02 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Non attached & mindful culinary triumphalism? In-Reply-To: <1F62178B-917D-435D-AD31-563DA7D051D6@unm.edu> References: <003801cc4012$5cd51840$6600a8c0@Dan> <55E961DF-A063-4E08-9C1C-8146468057F9@unm.edu> <003201cc4051$924f9740$6400a8c0@Dan> <1CFDE469-4BAA-4BCE-BC1F-6158E07BD6C6@unm.edu> <1F62178B-917D-435D-AD31-563DA7D051D6@unm.edu> Message-ID: > > > On Jul 12, 2011, at 07:24 , Richard Hayes wrote: > > > On Jul 11, 2011, at 23:07, "Dan Lusthaus" > wrote: > > > >> There's a difference between diagnostics and labeling. Issue would be > >> whether the description is accurate, or ridiculing it is a way of > blunting > >> its accuracy. > > > > Exactly. > > There is, incidentally, no accuracy at all in the label "narcissistic" when > applied wholesale to people who subscribe to any particular approach to > meta-ethics. "Narcissist" is a psychological term and is probably best > applied by a trained analyst after considerable exposure to the analysand to > whom it is applied. It isn't something to be thrown around lightly, lest it > be construed as a form of ridicule that has the effect, as Dan puts it so > well, of blunting accuracy. Is that necessarily true when ridiculing "lightweights" on an academic forum? I would think that the accuracy is less important than the sheer blunt force trauma of the bludgeon. Just to clarify. Geoff From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Tue Jul 12 08:18:30 2011 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 10:18:30 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Non attached & mindful culinary triumphalism? References: <1310265821.16841.YahooMailNeo@web112609.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><4E19BF36.60705@xs4all.nl><9E4465B4747D462883C092E03B5F23AD@OPTIPLEX><002c01cc3f48$70e19950$6600a8c0@Dan><465A5A0625394A9E9658DF0156851A09@OPTIPLEX><000801cc3f80$a65b0b10$6600a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: <006201cc409e$93a9a200$6400a8c0@Dan> > Turner's CDIAL---sorry--what is that? Is it online? It's an Indo-European dictionary, so a larger base of terminology than Sanskrit. It is online, at http://dsal.uchicago.edu/dictionaries/soas/index.html Dan From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Tue Jul 12 08:55:27 2011 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 10:55:27 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Non attached & mindful culinary triumphalism? References: <003801cc4012$5cd51840$6600a8c0@Dan><55E961DF-A063-4E08-9C1C-8146468057F9@unm.edu><003201cc4051$924f9740$6400a8c0@Dan><1CFDE469-4BAA-4BCE-BC1F-6158E07BD6C6@unm.edu><1F62178B-917D-435D-AD31-563DA7D051D6@unm.edu> Message-ID: <006901cc40a3$bcd89820$6400a8c0@Dan> > Is that necessarily true when ridiculing "lightweights" on an academic > forum? There was no identification of who the lightweights might be, so no specific targets were bludgeoned. Unless some are, as the song goes, so vain they think that song is about them, no actual harm was done to anyone. As for the term "narcissist", it does have a specific psychoanalytic technical sense, in which case it is usually referred to as "narcissistic personality disorder" (NPD -- which has very specific symptoms that are not what we are discussing here), but that is derived from a Greek myth that predates Freud by a couple of millennia, and so it also, and first of all, has a non-clinical sense of someone absorbed by gazing in a mirror. If one prefers, we could use the analogous Yogacara term -- vijnapti-matra -- instead, but then people would think we are talking about idealist metaphysics and not the problem of mistaking one's projections for an external world. There is a long history of people attacking *how* things are said when they are actually trying to avoid *what* is said. A proposal, by several people, in several ways, has been given to treat the life and death of animals as something other than the life and death of animals, to wit, as occasions for determining the degree to which one doing the consideration of foodstuffs is "attached" or "nonattached" to the idea that killing animals is a problem. Some think their detachment is more important than the life of an animal (which only plays a subsidiary role in the self-evaluation of level of detachment). The animal becomes a speck on the person's mirror, not something that undergoes slaughter. That is a form of narcissism. We have even been treated to a couple versions of the claim that eating meat with detachment is "better" than being "attached" to the idea of vegetarianism. Why? Because the latter may involve some internal psychological agitation. Then those same proposers also want to ban "psychology" from the discussion because it might serve a pejorative function? Very funny. All in the name of trying to preserve the "right" to consume flesh. It's not a "right," it's a capacity, and everyone has to decide for themselves how mindful they want to be concerning food, and in which ways. In order to decide intelligently, it helps to know what is at stake/steak. Dan From randall.bernard.jones at gmail.com Tue Jul 12 09:01:39 2011 From: randall.bernard.jones at gmail.com (Randall Jones) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 10:01:39 -0500 Subject: [Buddha-l] What's the point In-Reply-To: <006901cc40a3$bcd89820$6400a8c0@Dan> References: <003801cc4012$5cd51840$6600a8c0@Dan> <55E961DF-A063-4E08-9C1C-8146468057F9@unm.edu> <003201cc4051$924f9740$6400a8c0@Dan> <1CFDE469-4BAA-4BCE-BC1F-6158E07BD6C6@unm.edu> <1F62178B-917D-435D-AD31-563DA7D051D6@unm.edu> <006901cc40a3$bcd89820$6400a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: <4e1c61e9.810ddd0a.0e99.593e@mx.google.com> Maybe it's just a senior moment, but I'm having trouble remembering what's the point of the prohibition against killing. Thoughts? Randall From rhayes at unm.edu Tue Jul 12 10:53:30 2011 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 10:53:30 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Non attached & mindful culinary triumphalism? In-Reply-To: <006901cc40a3$bcd89820$6400a8c0@Dan> References: <003801cc4012$5cd51840$6600a8c0@Dan> <55E961DF-A063-4E08-9C1C-8146468057F9@unm.edu> <003201cc4051$924f9740$6400a8c0@Dan> <1CFDE469-4BAA-4BCE-BC1F-6158E07BD6C6@unm.edu> <1F62178B-917D-435D-AD31-563DA7D051D6@unm.edu> <006901cc40a3$bcd89820$6400a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: On Jul 12, 2011, at 8:55, "Dan Lusthaus" wrote: > All in the name of trying to preserve the "right" to consume flesh. Knowing how deeply Dan treasures accuracy, I feel obligated to point out that no one here has said anything about rights. Certainly nothing at all has been said or implied about anyone's right to consume flesh. Indeed, virtue ethics (which has been mentioned) is usually seen as an alternative to discussions of rights. The usual stance in virtue ethics is that having virtues is both sv?rtha and par?rtha (beneficial to oneself and to others). It is quite rare (unheard of in me experience) for a virtues-based ethicist since Alasdair MacIntyre to focus on rights. Narcissism (in its more popular non-technical sense) is never, to my knowledge, mentioned as a virtue and is usually regarded as a vice, so people who are seriously pursuing a path of cultivating virtues and avoiding vices usually do their best not to cultivate narcissism. Some are more successful than others, of course, of course in pursuing virtues and avoiding vices. But I think it's pretty clear that there is no inherent danger of a person whose focus is on virtues being narcissistic. Dan now admits that his claim about some people being narcissistic was not aimed at anyone in particular. So I guess that makes it a predicate in search of a subject, a sort of psychological dangling modifier. Since it does not apply to anyone here, perhaps we can just forget about it and restrict ourselves to using labels, predicates and working hypotheses that are meaningful and have a subject to which they are meant to be applied. Richard From rhayes at unm.edu Tue Jul 12 11:45:57 2011 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 11:45:57 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] What's the point In-Reply-To: <4e1c61e9.810ddd0a.0e99.593e@mx.google.com> References: <003801cc4012$5cd51840$6600a8c0@Dan> <55E961DF-A063-4E08-9C1C-8146468057F9@unm.edu> <003201cc4051$924f9740$6400a8c0@Dan> <1CFDE469-4BAA-4BCE-BC1F-6158E07BD6C6@unm.edu> <1F62178B-917D-435D-AD31-563DA7D051D6@unm.edu> <006901cc40a3$bcd89820$6400a8c0@Dan> <4e1c61e9.810ddd0a.0e99.593e@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <6956342F-42D0-4913-AC27-C67E5CC6DB27@unm.edu> On Jul 12, 2011, at 9:01, Randall Jones wrote: > Maybe it's just a senior moment, but I'm having trouble remembering > what's the point of the prohibition against killing. Assuming the context is traditional Buddhism, and that we're not talking about vinaya rules, there are no prohibitions. What there are instead are voluntary training principles that one undertakes. The point, broadly speaking, is conformity with a community to which one has chosen to belong. In an excellent book (with which I find myself in profound disagreement on several points), Charles Goodman argues that Buddhists follow precepts out of respect for the Buddha. One honors him by acting as he did. (I don't disagree with that at all.) Buddhas, arhants and bodhisattvas, says Goodman, do not engage in any kind of moral reasoning. They do not deliberate at all on how to behave. They simply act. Moreover, since there is no free will in Buddhism (says Goodman), buddhas etc have NO CHOICE but to act harmlessly. It's not that they choose not to kill and to be honest and to desist from harsh speech and backbiting; it's that a buddha, arhant or bodhisattva simply cannot deliberately step on a cockroach, tell a lie, say a negative thing (even true) about another or drink a beer. Goodman has argued these points in various papers in several different journals, but much of what he has said is recapitulated in The Consequences of Compassion. A breathtakingly excellent critique of Goodman's position will be coming out soon in Sophia (the philosophical journal by that name published by Springer). I don't know the author's name, but I did a blind review of the article and have heard that it was indeed accepted after receiving praise from several reviewers. It's called "Freedom with a Buddhist Face." (As one can infer from the title, the author is convinced that there is freedom of will in Buddhism, even among buddhas and bodhisattvas.) One more thing to say about Goodman is that he rejects Keown's position that Buddhist ethics are of the virtue-ethics variety. His claim is that Aristotle (and also most Stoics) sees virtue as something that results in eudaemonia, which is usually described as having a healthy and flourishing self (which is in turn seen as the best way to be instrumental in the flourishing of others). But if there is no self, says Goodman, there is no one or nothing to flourish. Therefore a Buddhist who adheres to an?tman can't be a virtue ethicist. He is quite adamant on this point. So Buddhists must be consequentialists, he says. But what kind of consequentialist? His answer is: character-consequentialist, that is, someone who believes that cultivating good character by accumulating virtues has good consequences. That is fine, but it ends up being just about exactly what a virtue-ethicist says in the first place. So it looks as though Goodman is rejecting a position when it is called by one name and then endorsing that very same position when it goes by another name. He certainly wouldn't be the first philosopher, or even the first Buddhist philosopher, to do that. There is more to say, but if I said it now, I would be late to an appointment with a student. And keeping others waiting is inconsiderate, and that is no virtue. Richard (one of many) From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Tue Jul 12 11:54:26 2011 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 13:54:26 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Non attached & mindful culinary triumphalism? References: <003801cc4012$5cd51840$6600a8c0@Dan><55E961DF-A063-4E08-9C1C-8146468057F9@unm.edu><003201cc4051$924f9740$6400a8c0@Dan><1CFDE469-4BAA-4BCE-BC1F-6158E07BD6C6@unm.edu><1F62178B-917D-435D-AD31-563DA7D051D6@unm.edu><006901cc40a3$bcd89820$6400a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: <011601cc40bc$bde1c160$6400a8c0@Dan> > Knowing how deeply Dan treasures accuracy, I feel obligated to point out > that no one here has said anything about rights. It was the elephant in the room, Richard. >But I think it's pretty clear that there is no inherent danger of a person >whose focus is on virtues being narcissistic. Evidence and testimony seems to suggest otherwise. > Dan now admits that his claim about some people being narcissistic was not > aimed at anyone in particular. Actually, to be accurate, it is the word "lightweight" that I indicated had not been pinned to specific individuals. I've explained what sort of attitude I am characterizing as narcissism. Others can decide for themselves whether the shoe fits. But thanks for taking "accuracy" seriously and recognizing that I do as well. You are 100% right that I do very much treasure that. Dan From franz at mind2mind.net Tue Jul 12 12:01:30 2011 From: franz at mind2mind.net (Franz Metcalf) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 11:01:30 -0700 Subject: [Buddha-l] LA County Museum exhibit of art: The Way of the Elders In-Reply-To: <989692F14B5043218754583051287A1A@OPTIPLEX> References: <989692F14B5043218754583051287A1A@OPTIPLEX> Message-ID: <6B73042D-DE16-44BC-A0F6-57770FA07AEC@mind2mind.net> Thanks for the notice, Joanna. BTW: children up to 17 may sign up for LACMA's NexGen program and visit the museum free of charge (and they can bring in one adult with them for free, as well). A wonderful form of dana to the next generation (who says only gifts to the bhikkhusangha are dana?). Pearl and I will surely go and see the exhibition. Franz From randall.bernard.jones at gmail.com Tue Jul 12 12:14:30 2011 From: randall.bernard.jones at gmail.com (Randall Jones) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 13:14:30 -0500 Subject: [Buddha-l] What's the point In-Reply-To: <6956342F-42D0-4913-AC27-C67E5CC6DB27@unm.edu> References: <003801cc4012$5cd51840$6600a8c0@Dan> <55E961DF-A063-4E08-9C1C-8146468057F9@unm.edu> <003201cc4051$924f9740$6400a8c0@Dan> <1CFDE469-4BAA-4BCE-BC1F-6158E07BD6C6@unm.edu> <1F62178B-917D-435D-AD31-563DA7D051D6@unm.edu> <006901cc40a3$bcd89820$6400a8c0@Dan> <4e1c61e9.810ddd0a.0e99.593e@mx.google.com> <6956342F-42D0-4913-AC27-C67E5CC6DB27@unm.edu> Message-ID: <4e1c8f0a.634dec0a.7560.47b1@mx.google.com> Thank you, Richard. I'll get Goodman's The Consequences of Compassion and keep a look out for the upcoming Sophia article. Randall At 12:45 PM 7/12/2011, you wrote: >On Jul 12, 2011, at 9:01, Randall Jones > wrote: > Maybe >it's just a senior moment, but I'm having >trouble remembering > what's the point of the >prohibition against killing. Assuming the >context is traditional Buddhism, and that we're >not talking about vinaya rules, there are no >prohibitions. What there are instead are >voluntary training principles that one >undertakes. The point, broadly speaking, is >conformity with a community to which one has >chosen to belong. In an excellent book (with >which I find myself in profound disagreement on >several points), Charles Goodman argues that >Buddhists follow precepts out of respect for the >Buddha. One honors him by acting as he did. (I >don't disagree with that at all.) Buddhas, >arhants and bodhisattvas, says Goodman, do not >engage in any kind of moral reasoning. They do >not deliberate at all on how to behave. They >simply act. Moreover, since there is no free >will in Buddhism (says Goodman), buddhas etc >have NO CHOICE but to act harmlessly. It's not >that they choose not to kill and to be honest >and to desist from harsh speech and backbiting; >it's that a buddha, arhant or bodhisattva simply >cannot deliberately step on a cockroach, tell a >lie, say a negative thing (even true) about >another or drink a beer. Goodman has argued >these points in various papers in several >different journals, but much of what he has said >is recapitulated in The Consequences of >Compassion. A breathtakingly excellent critique >of Goodman's position will be coming out soon in >Sophia (the philosophical journal by that name >published by Springer). I don't know the >author's name, but I did a blind review of the >article and have heard that it was indeed >accepted after receiving praise from several >reviewers. It's called "Freedom with a Buddhist >Face." (As one can infer from the title, the >author is convinced that there is freedom of >will in Buddhism, even among buddhas and >bodhisattvas.) One more thing to say about >Goodman is that he rejects Keown's position that >Buddhist ethics are of the virtue-ethics >variety. His claim is that Aristotle (and also >most Stoics) sees virtue as something that >results in eudaemonia, which is usually >described as having a healthy and flourishing >self (which is in turn seen as the best way to >be instrumental in the flourishing of others). >But if there is no self, says Goodman, there is >no one or nothing to flourish. Therefore a >Buddhist who adheres to an?gtman can't be a >virtue ethicist. He is quite adamant on this >point. So Buddhists must be consequentialists, >he says. But what kind of consequentialist? His >answer is: character-consequentialist, that is, >someone who believes that cultivating good >character by accumulating virtues has good >consequences. That is fine, but it ends up being >just about exactly what a virtue-ethicist says >in the first place. So it looks as though >Goodman is rejecting a position when it is >called by one name and then endorsing that very >same position when it goes by another name. He >certainly wouldn't be the first philosopher, or >even the first Buddhist philosopher, to do that. >There is more to say, but if I said it now, I >would be late to an appointment with a student. >And keeping others waiting is inconsiderate, and >that is no virtue. Richard (one of many) >_______________________________________________ >buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com >http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Tue Jul 12 12:29:54 2011 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 14:29:54 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] What's the point References: <003801cc4012$5cd51840$6600a8c0@Dan><55E961DF-A063-4E08-9C1C-8146468057F9@unm.edu><003201cc4051$924f9740$6400a8c0@Dan><1CFDE469-4BAA-4BCE-BC1F-6158E07BD6C6@unm.edu><1F62178B-917D-435D-AD31-563DA7D051D6@unm.edu><006901cc40a3$bcd89820$6400a8c0@Dan><4e1c61e9.810ddd0a.0e99.593e@mx.google.com> <6956342F-42D0-4913-AC27-C67E5CC6DB27@unm.edu> Message-ID: <015b01cc40c1$b244c960$6400a8c0@Dan> > Assuming the context is traditional Buddhism, and that we're not talking about vinaya rules, there are no prohibitions. What there are instead are voluntary training principles Really? Traditional Buddhism? Please explain, then, what Traditional Buddhists mean when they distinguish: (1) prak.rti s?vadya (lit. "blameworthy by nature"), i.e., wrongdoing that is a violation of basic human or natural laws, regardless of one's affiliation with Buddhism, such as murder; and (2) pratik.sepa.na s?vadya (lit. "blameworthy for contradicting [the precepts]"), i.e., wrongdoing that violates a Buddhist precept or rule. The latter is something generally not forbidden to humans (such as licit sex or alcohol), but something specifically prohibited to Buddhists or Buddhist clerics. The former is not determined "voluntarily." Dan From bshmr at aol.com Tue Jul 12 12:32:40 2011 From: bshmr at aol.com (Richard Basham) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 12:32:40 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] What's the point In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1310495560.17913.16.camel@aims110> On Tue, 2011-07-12 at 10:52 -0600, Randall Jones wrote: > > Maybe it's just a senior moment, but I'm having trouble remembering > what's the point of the prohibition against killing. > > Thoughts? Being vacuous and without mass , killing is a form of genocide/suicide (past lives) as well as permission to be killed (karma). On a secular perspective, the admonishment is to be aware and cognizant of more than one's own consequence and intent. That is what I recall, not that it is what was heard. Others may share some memorized sutra, tale, or commentary that explains lucidly the proper view. Richard Basham From rhayes at unm.edu Tue Jul 12 13:18:01 2011 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 13:18:01 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] What's the point In-Reply-To: <015b01cc40c1$b244c960$6400a8c0@Dan> References: <003801cc4012$5cd51840$6600a8c0@Dan><55E961DF-A063-4E08-9C1C-8146468057F9@unm.edu><003201cc4051$924f9740$6400a8c0@Dan><1CFDE469-4BAA-4BCE-BC1F-6158E07BD6C6@unm.edu><1F62178B-917D-435D-AD31-563DA7D051D6@unm.edu><006901cc40a3$bcd89820$6400a8c0@Dan><4e1c61e9.810ddd0a.0e99.593e@mx.google.com> <6956342F-42D0-4913-AC27-C67E5CC6DB27@unm.edu> <015b01cc40c1$b244c960$6400a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: <1511F27B-14CC-4BAE-B708-470C3307E8AF@unm.edu> On Jul 12, 2011, at 12:29 , Dan Lusthaus wrote: > Please explain, then, what Traditional Buddhists mean when they distinguish: > > (1) prak.rti s?vadya (lit. "blameworthy by nature"), i.e., wrongdoing that is a violation of basic human or natural laws, regardless of one's affiliation with Buddhism, such as murder; and > > (2) pratik.sepa.na s?vadya (lit. "blameworthy for contradicting [the precepts]"), i.e., wrongdoing that violates a Buddhist precept or rule. Tell me which texts make this distinction. I have never encountered those terms in my readings. Richard Hayes Department of Philosophy University of New Mexico Albuquerque, NM From aryacitta at hotmail.com Tue Jul 12 14:18:04 2011 From: aryacitta at hotmail.com (David Living) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 20:18:04 +0000 Subject: [Buddha-l] Non attached & mindful culinary triumphalism? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > "Better to eat your pork chops mindfully than your quorn segments > > un-mindfully"; the point being that mindfulness is more important than an > > unthinking attachment to rules and regulations. > > Aryacitta/Dave Living > > Better for whom? The pig? The narcissist for whom pigs and cows are just > fodder for self-image and feelings of self-improvement or lesser-self? > > Dan Good point Dan. I think this quote is more for beginners than advanced practitioners like yourself. Its not ideal Buddhism by any stretch of the imagination but some consolation for those of us who find it hard to renounce the pleasurable habit of eating meat. You might say "skilful means"???? For those of more advanced disposition being mindful of the terrible pain a pig has to go through in order to end up on our plate would have a strong queasy influence on their decision not to eat it. Just the other day while eating a boiled egg that cheeped like a bird when I cut open the shell - it was the hot air pent up inside it escaping that caused the noise - gave me "food for thought" about not buying or eating eggs any more. Aryacitta/Dave Living From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Tue Jul 12 14:34:37 2011 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 16:34:37 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] What's the point References: <003801cc4012$5cd51840$6600a8c0@Dan><55E961DF-A063-4E08-9C1C-8146468057F9@unm.edu><003201cc4051$924f9740$6400a8c0@Dan><1CFDE469-4BAA-4BCE-BC1F-6158E07BD6C6@unm.edu><1F62178B-917D-435D-AD31-563DA7D051D6@unm.edu><006901cc40a3$bcd89820$6400a8c0@Dan><4e1c61e9.810ddd0a.0e99.593e@mx.google.com><6956342F-42D0-4913-AC27-C67E5CC6DB27@unm.edu><015b01cc40c1$b244c960$6400a8c0@Dan> <1511F27B-14CC-4BAE-B708-470C3307E8AF@unm.edu> Message-ID: <018e01cc40d3$1e7bf8e0$6400a8c0@Dan> >> Please explain, then, what Traditional Buddhists mean when they >> distinguish: >> >> (1) prak.rti s?vadya (lit. "blameworthy by nature"), i.e., wrongdoing >> that is a violation of basic human or natural laws, regardless of one's >> affiliation with Buddhism, such as murder; and >> >> (2) pratik.sepa.na s?vadya (lit. "blameworthy for contradicting [the >> precepts]"), i.e., wrongdoing that violates a Buddhist precept or rule. > > Tell me which texts make this distinction. I have never encountered those > terms in my readings. They are found in precisely the sorts of texts one would expect to look at for ethical and moral categories, such as ??? T 22.1428.899b27 Dharmagupta vinaya; ??? T 1421.22.7c5 Mah???saka vinaya; and the Bodhisattvabh?mi. prak?ti s?vadya ??, the Tib. is rang bzhin gyis kha na ma tho ba dang bcas pa pratik?epa?a s?vadya ??, the Tib. is bcas pa'i kha na ma tho ba dang bcas pa prak?ti s?vadya ?? is found over 820 times in the main part of the Chinese Buddhist canon, and pratik?epa?a s?vadya ?? about 700 times, so hardly what would be considered rare terms. Not as familiar with their frequency in Tibetan literature, but Tsongkhapa does discuss the distinction (may be present in Mark Tatz _Asa?ga?s Chapter on Ethics with the Commentary of Tsong-kha-pa_, Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen, 1986, pp. 214f or so). If you go to this link, you will find some Tibetan occurrences http://tinyurl.com/6fqvbfy (keep clicking the various items until texts appear) Dan From jkirk at spro.net Tue Jul 12 14:47:17 2011 From: jkirk at spro.net (JKirkpatrick) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 14:47:17 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] LACMA exhibit: The Way of theElders + note to list In-Reply-To: <6B73042D-DE16-44BC-A0F6-57770FA07AEC@mind2mind.net> References: <989692F14B5043218754583051287A1A@OPTIPLEX> <6B73042D-DE16-44BC-A0F6-57770FA07AEC@mind2mind.net> Message-ID: <3A189B1592764C619C784543A3CA99DC@OPTIPLEX> Franz--that's great! Happy to hear it :) Please tell us what you and Pearl though of it next week, after I'm back at my PC. Meanwhile--to the list: I'm preparing for a house guest who arrives Thursday. We disappear from the sangha planet for 3 days. Back on Sun. My ability to keep up with the crazy and welcome renewal of Buddha-Hell activity will be intermittent, but eventually I'll read it all. Cheers y'all, Joanna -----Original Message----- From: buddha-l-bounces at mailman.swcp.com [mailto:buddha-l-bounces at mailman.swcp.com] On Behalf Of Franz Metcalf Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 12:02 PM To: Buddhist discussion forum Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] LA County Museum exhibit of art: The Way of theElders Thanks for the notice, Joanna. BTW: children up to 17 may sign up for LACMA's NexGen program and visit the museum free of charge (and they can bring in one adult with them for free, as well). A wonderful form of dana to the next generation (who says only gifts to the bhikkhusangha are dana?). Pearl and I will surely go and see the exhibition. Franz _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Tue Jul 12 14:58:54 2011 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 16:58:54 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Non attached & mindful culinary triumphalism? References: Message-ID: <019b01cc40d6$831c49f0$6400a8c0@Dan> David, Great last name, by the way! >Just the other day while eating a boiled egg that cheeped like a bird when >I cut open the shell - it was the hot air pent up inside it escaping that >caused the noise - gave me "food for thought" about not buying or eating >eggs any more. > Aryacitta/Dave Living There may be reasons for avoiding eggs, but imagining that they are chicken embryos that otherwise would have hatched is unfortunately not the most accurate one. Unless one is following a macrobiotic or similar diet and especially seeking out fertilized eggs, the eggs one commonly finds in the supermarket, grocery store, or egg farm are not fertilized, and so will never become a chicken. It is -- if you don't mind an unpleasant image -- actually chicken menses, not a fertilized embryo. The kind of epiphany/visualization you describe can be a very effective way to change one's behavior. In my own case, I used to be a major carnivore -- avoided veggies, cheese, fish, just ate meat. Loved steak. One day I sat down to eat a juicy steak and, instead of tasting like steak, it tasted like cow. I didn't want to eat a cow, or even bite one -- I like cows. I've been a vegetarian every since. That was in April 1970. The industrial production of eggs should give one pause, since many birds do give up their comfort and lives for that, often under appalling circumstances. One can find providers of eggs that treat their chickens more humanely, but that will probably not be your local supermarket. Dan From jkirk at spro.net Tue Jul 12 15:09:53 2011 From: jkirk at spro.net (JKirkpatrick) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 15:09:53 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] LA County Museum exhibit of art: The Way of theElders In-Reply-To: <1310445515.67252.YahooMailNeo@web65109.mail.ac2.yahoo.com> References: <989692F14B5043218754583051287A1A@OPTIPLEX> <1310445515.67252.YahooMailNeo@web65109.mail.ac2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <104A8357DB224594B240D1D63A705F4A@OPTIPLEX> Geoff Thanks for the amusing and heartening reply. Joanna -----Original Message----- From: buddha-l-bounces at mailman.swcp.com [mailto:buddha-l-bounces at mailman.swcp.com] On Behalf Of Geoff Morrison Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 10:39 PM To: Buddhist discussion forum Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] LA County Museum exhibit of art: The Way of theElders Rumor to the contrary, the are, in fact, many art lovers on this list. Thanks for letting the rest of the list members know about the Los Angeles County Museum of Art's (LACMA) exhibit, "The Way of the Elders: The Buddha in Modern Theravada Traditions," consisting of slightly more than a dozen items from LACMA's Southeast Asia Collection, but definitely worth a visit to LACMA for the value of this exhibition alone, IMHO. If you happen to live in Southern California or will be visiting same by March, 2012, the representations of Buddha await you at LACMA. As Leo, the Lion, advises art lovers, at the beginning of any MGM film, by roaring out "Ars gratia artis," or "art for art's sake," credited to Th?ophile Gautier, who was supposed to have been the first to use "l'art pour l'art" as a slogan, which Louis B. Mayer, the "M" in MGM, Latinized for Leo's benefit, in the lion's cameo appearance inside the MGM Logo. If any of the list members are interested in viewing this exhibit of modern renderings of Buddha, "roar" on over to LACMA to have a look. (No play upon words intended here, of course.) Metta,? Geoff Morrison ________________________________ From: JKirkpatrick To: 'Buddhist discussion forum' Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 6:11 PM Subject: [Buddha-l] LA County Museum exhibit of art: The Way of the Elders If there are any art lovers on this list, which I rather doubt but just in case, please see this LA County Museum website on the Way of the Elders: http://lacma.wordpress.com/2011/07/11/highlights-of-the-way-of-th e-elders/ The page opens with a wonderful image of the walking Buddha, a rarely seen sculptural concept (in India anyway) except in Burma, and sometimes in Thailand. My guess as to why is that the southeast Asians developed sitting and walking meditation beyond what the Indians practised--Indian iconography of Buddha emphasises the sitting posture. Walking meditation is as important in SE Asian Buddhism as sitting.? In Bagan, northern Burma, there are wonderful carved wooden figures of the walking Buddha in several of the big famous pagodas. From rhayes at unm.edu Tue Jul 12 16:00:17 2011 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 16:00:17 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Non attached & mindful culinary triumphalism? In-Reply-To: <011601cc40bc$bde1c160$6400a8c0@Dan> References: <003801cc4012$5cd51840$6600a8c0@Dan><55E961DF-A063-4E08-9C1C-8146468057F9@unm.edu><003201cc4051$924f9740$6400a8c0@Dan><1CFDE469-4BAA-4BCE-BC1F-6158E07BD6C6@unm.edu><1F62178B-917D-435D-AD31-563DA7D051D6@unm.edu><006901cc40a3$bcd89820$6400a8c0@Dan> <011601cc40bc$bde1c160$6400a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: On Jul 12, 2011, at 11:54 , Dan Lusthaus wrote: >> Knowing how deeply Dan treasures accuracy, I feel obligated to point out >> that no one here has said anything about rights. > > It was the elephant in the room, Richard. I didn't see it, perhaps because I think about the matter almost exactly as you do, or at least I agree completely with what you said, which is that people do not have a right to eat animals, but a capacity. To apply rights to this issue is not at all helpful. > >> But I think it's pretty clear that there is no inherent danger of a person >> whose focus is on virtues being narcissistic. > > Evidence and testimony seems to suggest otherwise. I have not seen the evidence, nor have I heard the testimonies, but I'd be happy to consider any that you can provide. If evidence and testimonies are for public consumption, please provide them. There's nobody here but us empiricists. Richard Hayes Department of Philosophy University of New Mexico Albuquerque, NM From rhayes at unm.edu Tue Jul 12 16:04:37 2011 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 16:04:37 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Non attached & mindful culinary triumphalism? In-Reply-To: <011601cc40bc$bde1c160$6400a8c0@Dan> References: <003801cc4012$5cd51840$6600a8c0@Dan><55E961DF-A063-4E08-9C1C-8146468057F9@unm.edu><003201cc4051$924f9740$6400a8c0@Dan><1CFDE469-4BAA-4BCE-BC1F-6158E07BD6C6@unm.edu><1F62178B-917D-435D-AD31-563DA7D051D6@unm.edu><006901cc40a3$bcd89820$6400a8c0@Dan> <011601cc40bc$bde1c160$6400a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: On Jul 12, 2011, at 11:54 , Dan Lusthaus wrote: > But thanks for taking "accuracy" seriously and recognizing that I do as > well. You are 100% right that I do very much treasure that. Just to be 100% accurate, it's accuracy that I take seriously, not "accuracy". In that respect we are, as on most important issues, in complete agreement. In fact, the only substantial issue on which we have any but minor semantic disagreements is the acceptability of some of the policies of the state of Israel, but that is nothing to discuss on this forum. That is something we can discuss on ISRAE-L. Richard Hayes Department of Philosophy University of New Mexico Albuquerque, NM From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Tue Jul 12 16:56:18 2011 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 18:56:18 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Non attached & mindful culinary triumphalism? References: <003801cc4012$5cd51840$6600a8c0@Dan><55E961DF-A063-4E08-9C1C-8146468057F9@unm.edu><003201cc4051$924f9740$6400a8c0@Dan><1CFDE469-4BAA-4BCE-BC1F-6158E07BD6C6@unm.edu><1F62178B-917D-435D-AD31-563DA7D051D6@unm.edu><006901cc40a3$bcd89820$6400a8c0@Dan><011601cc40bc$bde1c160$6400a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: <01e201cc40e7$01b53e60$6400a8c0@Dan> > Just to be 100% accurate, it's accuracy that I take seriously, not > "accuracy". Can I quote you on that? In quotes? Checking back on the http://www.aciparchive.org/ace/ page, I see that the link I sent defaults to the opening page, not the search results, so to get the results, click the first option: Classical Indian Works Preserved in Tibetan Translation Tengyur Collection, Derge Version In the search bar, type or paste: bcas pa'i kha na ma tho ba dang bcas pa Click the "search collection" button. Click any of the resulting boxes (the number of "volumes" is an indication of how many hits per division). Click, for instance, the 'DUL BA (i.e., vinaya) button (or the mngon pa / abhidharma; the term will be in a bhasya on the Udanavarga; also in a TSIGS SU BCAD PA'I DON BSDUS PA ZHES BYA BA'I BSTAN BCOS; and so on). You will get more boxes with numbers of titles, and actual text titles. Click any of the titles, and a page will open with a scan of the page of text above (if available) and a transliteration below, with the search term highlighted. You will find the term in the Sarvastivadin Pratimoksa for nuns, e.g.; and in the Yogacabhumi, and THUB PA'I DGONGS PA'I RGYAN, and so on. Enjoy. It is a very useful site. Dan From jkirk at spro.net Tue Jul 12 19:30:29 2011 From: jkirk at spro.net (JKirkpatrick) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 19:30:29 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Non attached & mindful culinary triumphalism? In-Reply-To: <006201cc409e$93a9a200$6400a8c0@Dan> References: <1310265821.16841.YahooMailNeo@web112609.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><4E19BF36.60705@xs4all.nl><9E4465B4747D462883C092E03B5F23AD@OPTIPLEX><002c01cc3f48$70e19950$6600a8c0@Dan><465A5A0625394A9E9658DF0156851A09@OPTIPLEX><000801cc3f80$a65b0b10$6600a8c0@Dan> <006201cc409e$93a9a200$6400a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: Thanks--further reading of the long message list finally solved my problem. This clinches it. Joanna ----------- > Turner's CDIAL---sorry--what is that? Is it online? It's an Indo-European dictionary, so a larger base of terminology than Sanskrit. It is online, at http://dsal.uchicago.edu/dictionaries/soas/index.html Dan _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From rhayes at unm.edu Tue Jul 12 21:41:56 2011 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 21:41:56 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Non attached & mindful culinary triumphalism? In-Reply-To: <01e201cc40e7$01b53e60$6400a8c0@Dan> References: <003801cc4012$5cd51840$6600a8c0@Dan> <55E961DF-A063-4E08-9C1C-8146468057F9@unm.edu> <003201cc4051$924f9740$6400a8c0@Dan> <1CFDE469-4BAA-4BCE-BC1F-6158E07BD6C6@unm.edu> <1F62178B-917D-435D-AD31-563DA7D051D6@unm.edu> <006901cc40a3$bcd89820$6400a8c0@Dan> <011601cc40bc$bde1c160$6400a8c0@Dan> <01e201cc40e7$01b53e60$6400a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: <7407A52A-34B9-488A-A26A-E2113BAF7BB8@unm.edu> Thanks for the links. Any references to texts in Sanskrit? As I think you know, I don't read Chinese or Tibetan. In my response to the query about prohibitions, I was careful to specify that I was speaking about Buddhism outside the vinaya. There is nothing about ethics in the vinaya. It's nothing but rules that one must adhere to if one expects to get alms in fifth century BCE India. I'd be more interested in an abhidharma texts or a s?tra. It looks like an interesting distinction, sort of like a distinction between something that one finds repugnant because it is toxic?people gag when they smell rotten food to prevent them from eating something that could kill them?and something that one has been taught to find repugnant through religious indoctrination. But it would help to see some context for the expressions. >> Just to be 100% accurate, it's accuracy that I take seriously, not >> "accuracy". > > Can I quote you on that? In quotes? Yes, of course. Just remember to use single quotes inside the double quotes. > Richard From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Wed Jul 13 05:26:21 2011 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 07:26:21 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Non attached & mindful culinary triumphalism? References: <003801cc4012$5cd51840$6600a8c0@Dan><55E961DF-A063-4E08-9C1C-8146468057F9@unm.edu><003201cc4051$924f9740$6400a8c0@Dan><1CFDE469-4BAA-4BCE-BC1F-6158E07BD6C6@unm.edu><1F62178B-917D-435D-AD31-563DA7D051D6@unm.edu><006901cc40a3$bcd89820$6400a8c0@Dan><011601cc40bc$bde1c160$6400a8c0@Dan><01e201cc40e7$01b53e60$6400a8c0@Dan> <7407A52A-34B9-488A-A26A-E2113BAF7BB8@unm.edu> Message-ID: <001801cc414f$b29c47b0$6400a8c0@Dan> > Thanks for the links. Any references to texts in Sanskrit? I haven't compiled a Skt reading list on the topic, and accessible, easily searchable Sanskrit resources are still lagging far behind East Asian and Tibetan sources (even the Pali Canon with some extra-canonical materials has been readily available for some years). Here is one passage from the Bodhisattvabhumi -- rather a twisted ethical argument, which I have written on (essay is coming out in an edited volume on Levinas and Asian thought). Asanga is stirring dangerous waters. He is not defining the terms (he assumes we are familiar with them), but trying to more or less reverse or neutralize them. This passage played an important role in early Tibetan Buddhist history (used to justify the assassination of a king who was persecuting Buddhism), and was discussed in detail later on by the likes of Tsongkhapa: asti ca kim?cit prak?ti-s?vadyam api yad bodhisattvas tad-r?pen?op?ya-kau?alena samud?carati yen?n?pattika? ca bhavati bahu ca pun?yam? pras?yate| yath? 'pi tad bodhisattvah? coram? taskaram? prabh?t?n?m? pr?n?i?at?n?m? mah'?tman?m? ?r?vaka-pratyekabuddha-bodhisattv?n?m? vadh?yodyatam ?mis?a-kim?citka-hetoh? prabh?t' ?nantarya-karma-kriy?-prayuktam? pa?yati| d?s?t?v? ca punar evam? cetas? cittam abhisam?skaroti| yady apy aham enam? pr?n?inam? j?vit?d vyaparopya narakes??papadyeya| k?mam? bhavatu me narakopapattih?| es?a ca sattva ?nantaryam? karma k?tv? m? bh?n naraka-par?yan?a iti| evam-??ayo bodhisattvas tam? pr?n?inam? ku?ala-citto 'vy?k?ta-citto v? viditv? ?t?yam?nah? anukam?p?-cittam ev' ?yaty?m up?d?ya j?vit?d vyaparopayati| an?pattiko bhavati bahu ca pun?yam? pras?yate|| yath? 'pi tad bodhisattvah? ye sattv? r?j?no v? bhavam?ti r?ja-mah?-m?tr? va adhim?tra-raudr?h? sattves?u nirday? ek?m?ta-para-p?d??-prav?tt?h?| t?m? saty?m? ?aktau tasm?d r?jy'ai?vary' ?dhipaty?c cy?vayati yatra sthit?s te tan-nid?nam? bahv-apun?yam? prasavam?ty anukam?p?citto hita-sukh' ??ayah?. (Wogihara, p. 165-166; Wogihara Unrai, ed. (1971) Bodhisattvabh?mi. Tokyo: Sankibo Buddhist Book Store. Originally publ. 1930-36) >There is nothing about ethics in the vinaya. Yes and no. Lots of rules, true. The interesting "ethical reasoning" part is when the situations that lead to the formulation of the rule -- and the principles by which the rules are devised -- are provided. >It's nothing but rules that one must adhere to if one expects to get alms >in fifth century BCE India. I share that cynical view of a good chunk of it, such as the rules concerning 'meat' (aside from the prohibition on thigh soup). But some are more general, clear attempts at a middle way applied concretely (e.g., the height of a bed, type of robes, footwear, etc.). Concessions for the sake of alms demonstrates that the principles never violate what is practical and feasible, itself a very prudent principle. The rules on medicine and treating the sick, which trump most other rules (e.g., allowing women to interact with men on "off hours," and even touch men when ministering medicines and care; etc.) reinforce this. Rules against hunting on the "preserves" in which Buddhists dwell (like the Deer Park) also demonstrate a gentle way of pushing back against the cultural norm. >It looks like an interesting distinction, sort of like a distinction >between something that one finds repugnant because it is toxic?people gag >when they smell rotten food to prevent them from eating something that >could kill them?and something that one has been taught to find repugnant >through religious indoctrination. The 'natural crime' is not "naturized" that way. It is more along the lines of what we might consider generally or universally condemnable wrongdoing: murder, stealing, lying, and so on. Stuff that any culture, anywhere would condemn. This is what all humans, by virtue of having been born human, are obligated to adhere to (regardless of urges to do otherwise). The violations of monastic codes are exactly that. Once one takes monastic vows one is obligated to follow those rules, recognized as above and beyond what humans are normally called upon to obey. Violating these rules can result in punishment and even expulsion, depending on the degree of severity of the transgression. Point is, neither the 'natural crime' nor the 'monastic crime' involves "voluntary" adherence. For humans, the "human rules" are in effect, whether one likes them or not, or wants to follow them or not. One abstains from killing, not as an experiment in voluntary practice, but because it violates a natural law of sorts. One may or may not "volunteer" to become a monastic, but once one IS a monastic, the monastic codes are not voluntary, but compulsory and obligatory. Their compulsory nature and enforcement are not arbitrary. >>> Just to be 100% accurate, it's accuracy that I take seriously, not >>> "accuracy". >> >> Can I quote you on that? In quotes? > > Yes, of course. Just remember to use single quotes inside the double > quotes. perfect. Dan From selwyn at ntlworld.com Wed Jul 13 05:48:53 2011 From: selwyn at ntlworld.com (L.S. Cousins) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 12:48:53 +0100 Subject: [Buddha-l] Non attached & mindful culinary triumphalism? In-Reply-To: <001801cc414f$b29c47b0$6400a8c0@Dan> References: <003801cc4012$5cd51840$6600a8c0@Dan><55E961DF-A063-4E08-9C1C-8146468057F9@unm.edu><003201cc4051$924f9740$6400a8c0@Dan><1CFDE469-4BAA-4BCE-BC1F-6158E07BD6C6@unm.edu><1F62178B-917D-435D-AD31-563DA7D051D6@unm.edu><006901cc40a3$bcd89820$6400a8c0@Dan><011601cc40bc$bde1c160$6400a8c0@Dan><01e201cc40e7$01b53e60$6400a8c0@Dan> <7407A52A-34B9-488A-A26A-E2113BAF7BB8@unm.edu> <001801cc414f$b29c47b0$6400a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: <4E1D8625.8080801@ntlworld.com> Dan & Richard, The following are to hand: See Abhidharma-d?pa p.127f. & Abhidharmasamuccaya-bh??ya: praj?aptis?vadye?vapi prak?tis?vadye?viva t?vre?a gaurave?a ?ik?a??da?um?tre?vavadye?u bhayadar?? bhavati / samant?t parip?r?a ?ik??m?d?ya ?ik?ate ?ik??pade?vityucyate // Abhidharmako?abh??ya: p.214 & 218f. Vinayas?tra 8.157 and a couple of passages in the ?ik??samuccaya, for which I don't have references to hand. A few stray references in later texts. In Pali (Burmese eds): Spk-p? I 86 Sv-p? I 31 The distinction is older, no doubt. Lance From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Wed Jul 13 06:45:11 2011 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 08:45:11 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Non attached & mindful culinary triumphalism? References: <003801cc4012$5cd51840$6600a8c0@Dan><55E961DF-A063-4E08-9C1C-8146468057F9@unm.edu><003201cc4051$924f9740$6400a8c0@Dan><1CFDE469-4BAA-4BCE-BC1F-6158E07BD6C6@unm.edu><1F62178B-917D-435D-AD31-563DA7D051D6@unm.edu><006901cc40a3$bcd89820$6400a8c0@Dan><011601cc40bc$bde1c160$6400a8c0@Dan><01e201cc40e7$01b53e60$6400a8c0@Dan><7407A52A-34B9-488A-A26A-E2113BAF7BB8@unm.edu><001801cc414f$b29c47b0$6400a8c0@Dan> <4E1D8625.8080801@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <00c301cc415a$b50b4ae0$6400a8c0@Dan> Thanks, Lance. > & Abhidharmasamuccaya-bh??ya: > praj?aptis?vadye?vapi prak?tis?vadye?viva [...] Yes, praj?apti-s?vadya is a common synonym for pratik?epa?a-s?vadya. Very helpful. Just curious: do you know of a Theravada correlate? S?vadya in Pali would be s?vajja, but do the Theravadins, perhaps in the later texts, make a comparable distinction between praj?apti/pratik?epa?a vs prak?ti? best, Dan From rhayes at unm.edu Wed Jul 13 06:48:39 2011 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 06:48:39 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Non attached & mindful culinary triumphalism? In-Reply-To: <4E1D8625.8080801@ntlworld.com> References: <003801cc4012$5cd51840$6600a8c0@Dan><55E961DF-A063-4E08-9C1C-8146468057F9@unm.edu><003201cc4051$924f9740$6400a8c0@Dan><1CFDE469-4BAA-4BCE-BC1F-6158E07BD6C6@unm.edu><1F62178B-917D-435D-AD31-563DA7D051D6@unm.edu><006901cc40a3$bcd89820$6400a8c0@Dan><011601cc40bc$bde1c160$6400a8c0@Dan><01e201cc40e7$01b53e60$6400a8c0@Dan> <7407A52A-34B9-488A-A26A-E2113BAF7BB8@unm.edu> <001801cc414f$b29c47b0$6400a8c0@Dan> <4E1D8625.8080801@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <54DA392C-3CBA-408F-9E40-544FF2E6A79D@unm.edu> On Jul 13, 2011, at 05:48 , L.S. Cousins wrote: > The following are to hand: > > See Abhidharma-d?pa p.127f. > > & Abhidharmasamuccaya-bh??ya: > praj?aptis?vadye?vapi prak?tis?vadye?viva t?vre?a gaurave?a > ?ik?a??da?um?tre?vavadye?u > bhayadar?? bhavati / samant?t parip?r?a ?ik??m?d?ya ?ik?ate > ?ik??pade?vityucyate // > > Abhidharmako?abh??ya: > p.214 & 218f. Thank you, Lance. All these passages seem to be talking about what is blameworthy and frowned upon (s?vadya), which I take to be a rather different concept from prohibited (prati?edha). In English we might describe an action as disgusting or nasty or something of the like, but that is not quite the same as saying it is prohibited. Prohibition strikes me as more of a legal category. If one does a prohibited action, there will be penalties to pay and perhaps freedoms lost. If one does an action that others regard as contemptible (s?vadya), then one will be contemned, perhaps shunned. The point I have been trying to make is that the notion of prohibition, that is, the more legal notion of an action proscribed by law and accompanied by punishment if there is an infraction, is restricted to the vinaya, and whether one binds oneself by vinaya is a purely voluntary thing. It is not compulsory to renounce the householder's life and go forth into the homeless life. Nowhere in Buddhism, as far as I know from my very limited reading, is there anything quite like a divine commandment of the form "Thou shalt not...." That is really what I was thinking when I said there are no prohibited actions within Buddhism itself. (Of course, Buddhists are rarely encouraged to break civil laws, because breaking laws is frowned upon. Buddhists are for the most part not like Quakers in that respect. If one has not yet served time in jail, or at least been indicted for a breaking a human law that is perceived as incompatible with a higher law, then one has not yet earned one's salt as a Quaker.) By the way, Lance, at this year's seminar in Buddhism we were treated to a series of excellent presentations by your former student, Sarah Shaw. She captivated the students with some lively, informative and charming presentations on Buddhist meditation. People whose main orientation to Buddhism is Zen often know astonishingly little about the theory and practice of Buddhist meditation outside their own tradition, so even some of the experienced Zen practitioners learned a great deal from Sarah's presentations. Thank you again or the references. I shall study them and take them into account as I continue to come to terms with just what kind of an animal the Buddhist notion of ??la is. Richard From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Wed Jul 13 08:12:07 2011 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 10:12:07 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Non attached & mindful culinary triumphalism? References: <003801cc4012$5cd51840$6600a8c0@Dan><55E961DF-A063-4E08-9C1C-8146468057F9@unm.edu><003201cc4051$924f9740$6400a8c0@Dan><1CFDE469-4BAA-4BCE-BC1F-6158E07BD6C6@unm.edu><1F62178B-917D-435D-AD31-563DA7D051D6@unm.edu><006901cc40a3$bcd89820$6400a8c0@Dan><011601cc40bc$bde1c160$6400a8c0@Dan><01e201cc40e7$01b53e60$6400a8c0@Dan><7407A52A-34B9-488A-A26A-E2113BAF7BB8@unm.edu><001801cc414f$b29c47b0$6400a8c0@Dan><4E1D8625.8080801@ntlworld.com> <54DA392C-3CBA-408F-9E40-544FF2E6A79D@unm.edu> Message-ID: <00dc01cc4166$d99f30e0$6400a8c0@Dan> >All these passages seem to be talking about what is blameworthy and frowned >upon (s?vadya), which I take to be a rather different concept from >prohibited (prati?edha). That's part of how Buddhists used the term, but not the whole picture. Cf. Edgerton's Buddhist-Hybrid Dictionary, p. 594; PTS Pali-Eng Dict, p. 707. It is not just how others look at something (assigning blame), but also a flaw in someone's character or criminality in action. The Chinese translators used two equivalents to render s?vadya in this context: 1. jie ?, which means precept, rule, discipline, ??la, etc. 2. zui ?, wrongdoing, crime, misdeed, "sin," etc. One finds, for instance, discussions of the "two types of crimes" ?? (er zui): (a) ?? (xing zui) prak?ti-s?vadya, "a crime by its very nature", understood as a crime which is wrong in itself, such as murder, etc.; (b) ?? (zhe zui) pratik?epa?a-s?vadya, "a crime against what has been prohibited or forbidden", i.e., the monastic rules. Its conventional nature is also captured when the term praj?apti-s?vadya is used, praj?apti implying here something conventionally-derived. These terms are also rendered in Chinese as: (a) ?? (xing jie) prak?ti-??la, prak?ti-s?vadya, i.e., rules in accordance with the nature (of actions). (NB: This term can also be used when talking about positive deeds, esp. the 10 basic kusala activities.) (b) ?? (zhe jie) pratik?epa?a-s?vadya, prohibitive precepts. To be clear: ? xing = "nature" (as in Buddha-nature, human-nature, and is used by some translators like Xuanzang for -t? and -tva suffixes). It is the 'nature of x". ? zhe means to forbid, reject, prohibit, bar, hinder, etc., and one of its attested equivalents is prati?edha. To illustrate the meaning of the Chinese term zui ? (wrongdoing, crime) in non-Buddhist contexts, here are the senses and some common expressions using the term from Lin Yutang's Chinese-English Dictionary: http://humanum.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/Lexis/Lindict/ (1) A criminal act: ?? commit crime; ?? guilty; ?? innocent; ?? a capital crime; ???? doubly guilty; ???? serve you right; ???? hideous crime deserving the harshest punishment; ?? [zui4fan4], ?? [zui4ren2]; ?? [zui4ming2], ?? [zui4zhuang4]; ?? [zui4kui2]. (2) Wrongdoing, misconduct, a sin, moral transgression: ?? [zui4guo4], ?? [zui4nie4]?; ??? a wicked act, (retribution for) wrongdoing; ?? [zui4e4] ?? [zui4li4]1 ; ?? [zui4qian1] ; ?? give offense to (s.o.); ?? denounce and punish: ????? make a punitive expedition; ?? (LL) publicly announce criminal charges against person: (modn.) ?excuse me, please,??pardon me,??I am sorry?; ?? ask person for pardon, acknowledge one's guilt (fault, mistake). (3) Hardships, sufferings, painful experience: ?? suffer mental agony (physical pain). Words 1. ?? [zui4an4], n., (law) a criminal case. 2. ?? [zui4qian1], n., a guilty conscience, wicked acts. 3. ?? [zui4e4], n., a deadly crime. 4. ?? [zui4fan4], n., a criminal, a condemned prisoner. 5. ?? [zui4guo4], n., a guilty conscience: ???????(court.)?you give me a guilty conscience? (by extending courtesies). 6. ?? [zui4ji3], v.i., to blame oneself for wrongdoing: ????(of a ruler) acknowledge by royal decree one's responsibility for misgovernment or national calamity. 7. ?? [zui4zhuang4], n., an indictment against person for crime committed. 8. ?? [zui4kui2], n., chief culprit. 9. ?? [zui4li4]1, n., criminal responsibility. 10. ?? [zui4li4]2, n., dependents of criminals forced into slavery. 11. ?? [zui4ming2]([zui4ming0]), n., criminal charges leveled against a person. 12. ?? [zui4nie4]([zui4nie0]), n., (1) wrongdoing, sin; a (2) retribution for wrong done. 13. ?? [zui4ren2], (1) n., a convict; (2) v.i., to blame s.o. for misconduct. 14. ?? [zui4xing4], n., a criminal act. 15. ?? [zui4ze2], n., responsibility for misconduct. This is more than community disapproval, though that is also entailed. Blame is not assigned arbitrarily or merely conventionally, but according to the nature of the action. Dan From jehms at xs4all.nl Wed Jul 13 08:34:05 2011 From: jehms at xs4all.nl (Erik Hoogcarspel) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 16:34:05 +0200 Subject: [Buddha-l] Non attached & mindful culinary triumphalism? In-Reply-To: <54DA392C-3CBA-408F-9E40-544FF2E6A79D@unm.edu> References: <003801cc4012$5cd51840$6600a8c0@Dan><55E961DF-A063-4E08-9C1C-8146468057F9@unm.edu><003201cc4051$924f9740$6400a8c0@Dan><1CFDE469-4BAA-4BCE-BC1F-6158E07BD6C6@unm.edu><1F62178B-917D-435D-AD31-563DA7D051D6@unm.edu><006901cc40a3$bcd89820$6400a8c0@Dan><011601cc40bc$bde1c160$6400a8c0@Dan><01e201cc40e7$01b53e60$6400a8c0@Dan> <7407A52A-34B9-488A-A26A-E2113BAF7BB8@unm.edu> <001801cc414f$b29c47b0$6400a8c0@Dan> <4E1D8625.8080801@ntlworld.com> <54DA392C-3CBA-408F-9E40-544FF2E6A79D@unm.edu> Message-ID: <4E1DACDD.8010001@xs4all.nl> The line that kept coming to my mind while reading the discussion is that 'the Buddha tought karma and its consequences'. This means that if you like to go to hell you can listen and learn, no hard feelings. Kill and have your chosen carreer. Which brings me to the conclusion that killing or eating meat is what you make of it. There are ontological veggies who think they can eat their tummies full and keep their noses clean. Become a veggie and thou shallt become no sin. Those are in the same category as the kosjer and hallal fans. There are the believers, who want to play the game of their belief (read group) according to the rules, just to be sure or for the fun of it. And there are the political veggies who boycot an industry which they object to. Nowhere does compassion come in. Why not? Because it is just an icing on the cake, a mere ornament, a way to feel good about yourself. But it is based on a view on nature that is derived from early child visits to the zoo. The pig that as been slaughtered could also be eaten by a pack of wolves or die in pain of old age. Nature is not mild or benign nor are slaughterhouses. But the fact remains that the production of cheese and yoghurt necessitate slaughter and that minced meat is even more animal friendly than bio-organic beef, because this is made from old milk cows. Even soyaproduction is not environment friendly these days. This is samsara, there's no place to hide. erik Op 13-07-11 14:48, Richard Hayes schreef: > On Jul 13, 2011, at 05:48 , L.S. Cousins wrote: > >> The following are to hand: >> >> See Abhidharma-d?pa p.127f. >> >> & Abhidharmasamuccaya-bh??ya: >> praj?aptis?vadye?vapi prak?tis?vadye?viva t?vre?a gaurave?a >> ?ik?a??da?um?tre?vavadye?u >> bhayadar?? bhavati / samant?t parip?r?a ?ik??m?d?ya ?ik?ate >> ?ik??pade?vityucyate // >> >> Abhidharmako?abh??ya: >> p.214& 218f. > Thank you, Lance. All these passages seem to be talking about what is blameworthy and frowned upon (s?vadya), which I take to be a rather different concept from prohibited (prati?edha). In English we might describe an action as disgusting or nasty or something of the like, but that is not quite the same as saying it is prohibited. Prohibition strikes me as more of a legal category. If one does a prohibited action, there will be penalties to pay and perhaps freedoms lost. If one does an action that others regard as contemptible (s?vadya), then one will be contemned, perhaps shunned. The point I have been trying to make is that the notion of prohibition, that is, the more legal notion of an action proscribed by law and accompanied by punishment if there is an infraction, is restricted to the vinaya, and whether one binds oneself by vinaya is a purely voluntary thing. It is not compulsory to renounce the householder's life and go forth into the homeless life. > Nowhere in Buddhism, as far as I know from my very limited reading, is there anything quite like a divine commandment of the form "Thou shalt not...." That is really what I was thinking when I said there are no prohibited actions within Buddhism itself. (Of course, Buddhists are rarely encouraged to break civil laws, because breaking laws is frowned upon. Buddhists are for the most part not like Quakers in that respect. If one has not yet served time in jail, or at least been indicted for a breaking a human law that is perceived as incompatible with a higher law, then one has not yet earned one's salt as a Quaker.) > > By the way, Lance, at this year's seminar in Buddhism we were treated to a series of excellent presentations by your former student, Sarah Shaw. She captivated the students with some lively, informative and charming presentations on Buddhist meditation. People whose main orientation to Buddhism is Zen often know astonishingly little about the theory and practice of Buddhist meditation outside their own tradition, so even some of the experienced Zen practitioners learned a great deal from Sarah's presentations. > > Thank you again or the references. I shall study them and take them into account as I continue to come to terms with just what kind of an animal the Buddhist notion of ??la is. > > Richard > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l > From selwyn at ntlworld.com Wed Jul 13 09:11:39 2011 From: selwyn at ntlworld.com (L.S. Cousins) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 16:11:39 +0100 Subject: [Buddha-l] Non attached & mindful culinary triumphalism? In-Reply-To: <00c301cc415a$b50b4ae0$6400a8c0@Dan> References: <003801cc4012$5cd51840$6600a8c0@Dan><55E961DF-A063-4E08-9C1C-8146468057F9@unm.edu><003201cc4051$924f9740$6400a8c0@Dan><1CFDE469-4BAA-4BCE-BC1F-6158E07BD6C6@unm.edu><1F62178B-917D-435D-AD31-563DA7D051D6@unm.edu><006901cc40a3$bcd89820$6400a8c0@Dan><011601cc40bc$bde1c160$6400a8c0@Dan><01e201cc40e7$01b53e60$6400a8c0@Dan><7407A52A-34B9-488A-A26A-E2113BAF7BB8@unm.edu><001801cc414f$b29c47b0$6400a8c0@Dan> <4E1D8625.8080801@ntlworld.com> <00c301cc415a$b50b4ae0$6400a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: <4E1DB5AB.5060304@ntlworld.com> Dear Dan, > Yes, praj?apti-s?vadya is a common synonym for pratik?epa?a-s?vadya. > > Very helpful. > > Just curious: do you know of a Theravada correlate? S?vadya in Pali would be > s?vajja, but do the Theravadins, perhaps in the later texts, make a > comparable distinction between praj?apti/pratik?epa?a vs prak?ti? Spk-p? I 86: kiriyadvayasiddhiy? dhammavinayasiddhi. dhammena hi anus?sanasiddhi, vinayena ov?dasiddhi. dhammena dhammakath?siddhi, vinayena ariyatu?h?bh?vasiddhi. s?vajjadvayaparivajjanato dhammavinayasiddhi. dhammena hi visesato pakatis?vajjaparicc?gasiddhi, vinayena pa??attis?vajjaparicc?gasiddhi. gaha??hapabbajit?na? s?dh?ra??s?dh?ra?agu?advayasiddhi. Sv-p? I 31 on Sv I 17: *da?hikammasithil?kara?appayojan?* yath?kkama? pakatis?vajjapa??attis?vajjesu sikkh?padesu. As far as I know, an equivalent to pratik?epa?a in this usage in not found. I get the impression that the Chinese texts introduce a moralistic tinge which is not there in the Indian texts. That said, I suppose that for a monk the rules are laid down by the Buddha and some of the rules at least are definite prohibitions. Lance From Kdorje at aol.com Wed Jul 13 09:14:35 2011 From: Kdorje at aol.com (Kdorje at aol.com) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 11:14:35 EDT Subject: [Buddha-l] Non attached & mindful culinary triumphalism? Message-ID: <55658.1d9326ca.3b4f105b@aol.com> There is a distinction in law that seems to be the same. Crime malum in se are those that are based on English common law and are said to the natural, moral or public principles of a civilized society, sometimes said to be the result of a depraved heart. Examples are murder, theft, rape, and most crimes of violence. On the other hand are crimes malum prohibitum, those acts that are prohibited by statutes enacted for the efficient running of society, such as parking restrictions, speed limits, tax evasion. Best wishes, Konchog Dorje In a message dated 7/13/2011 10:12:35 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, vasubandhu at earthlink.net writes: >All these passages seem to be talking about what is blameworthy and frowned >upon (s?vadya), which I take to be a rather different concept from >prohibited (prati?edha). That's part of how Buddhists used the term, but not the whole picture. Cf. Edgerton's Buddhist-Hybrid Dictionary, p. 594; PTS Pali-Eng Dict, p. 707. It is not just how others look at something (assigning blame), but also a flaw in someone's character or criminality in action. The Chinese translators used two equivalents to render s?vadya in this context: 1. jie ?, which means precept, rule, discipline, ??la, etc. 2. zui ?, wrongdoing, crime, misdeed, "sin," etc. One finds, for instance, discussions of the "two types of crimes" ?? (er zui): (a) ?? (xing zui) prak?ti-s?vadya, "a crime by its very nature", understood as a crime which is wrong in itself, such as murder, etc.; (b) ?? (zhe zui) pratik?epa?a-s?vadya, "a crime against what has been prohibited or forbidden", i.e., the monastic rules. Its conventional nature is also captured when the term praj?apti-s?vadya is used, praj?apti implying here something conventionally-derived. These terms are also rendered in Chinese as: (a) ?? (xing jie) prak?ti-??la, prak?ti-s?vadya, i.e., rules in accordance with the nature (of actions). (NB: This term can also be used when talking about positive deeds, esp. the 10 basic kusala activities.) (b) ?? (zhe jie) pratik?epa?a-s?vadya, prohibitive precepts. To be clear: ? xing = "nature" (as in Buddha-nature, human-nature, and is used by some translators like Xuanzang for -t? and -tva suffixes). It is the 'nature of x". ? zhe means to forbid, reject, prohibit, bar, hinder, etc., and one of its attested equivalents is prati?edha. To illustrate the meaning of the Chinese term zui ? (wrongdoing, crime) in non-Buddhist contexts, here are the senses and some common expressions using the term from Lin Yutang's Chinese-English Dictionary: http://humanum.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/Lexis/Lindict/ (1) A criminal act: ?? commit crime; ?? guilty; ?? innocent; ?? a capital crime; ???? doubly guilty; ???? serve you right; ???? hideous crime deserving the harshest punishment; ?? [zui4fan4], ?? [zui4ren2]; ?? [zui4ming2], ?? [zui4zhuang4]; ?? [zui4kui2]. (2) Wrongdoing, misconduct, a sin, moral transgression: ?? [zui4guo4], ?? [zui4nie4]?; ??? a wicked act, (retribution for) wrongdoing; ?? [zui4e4] ?? [zui4li4]1 ; ?? [zui4qian1] ; ?? give offense to (s.o.); ?? denounce and punish: ????? make a punitive expedition; ?? (LL) publicly announce criminal charges against person: (modn.) ?excuse me, please,??pardon me,??I am sorry?; ?? ask person for pardon, acknowledge one's guilt (fault, mistake). (3) Hardships, sufferings, painful experience: ?? suffer mental agony (physical pain). Words 1. ?? [zui4an4], n., (law) a criminal case. 2. ?? [zui4qian1], n., a guilty conscience, wicked acts. 3. ?? [zui4e4], n., a deadly crime. 4. ?? [zui4fan4], n., a criminal, a condemned prisoner. 5. ?? [zui4guo4], n., a guilty conscience: ???????(court.)?you give me a guilty conscience? (by extending courtesies). 6. ?? [zui4ji3], v.i., to blame oneself for wrongdoing: ????(of a ruler) acknowledge by royal decree one's responsibility for misgovernment or national calamity. 7. ?? [zui4zhuang4], n., an indictment against person for crime committed. 8. ?? [zui4kui2], n., chief culprit. 9. ?? [zui4li4]1, n., criminal responsibility. 10. ?? [zui4li4]2, n., dependents of criminals forced into slavery. 11. ?? [zui4ming2]([zui4ming0]), n., criminal charges leveled against a person. 12. ?? [zui4nie4]([zui4nie0]), n., (1) wrongdoing, sin; a (2) retribution for wrong done. 13. ?? [zui4ren2], (1) n., a convict; (2) v.i., to blame s.o. for misconduct. 14. ?? [zui4xing4], n., a criminal act. 15. ?? [zui4ze2], n., responsibility for misconduct. This is more than community disapproval, though that is also entailed. Blame is not assigned arbitrarily or merely conventionally, but according to the nature of the action. Dan _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Wed Jul 13 10:15:11 2011 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 12:15:11 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Non attached & mindful culinary triumphalism? References: <003801cc4012$5cd51840$6600a8c0@Dan><55E961DF-A063-4E08-9C1C-8146468057F9@unm.edu><003201cc4051$924f9740$6400a8c0@Dan><1CFDE469-4BAA-4BCE-BC1F-6158E07BD6C6@unm.edu><1F62178B-917D-435D-AD31-563DA7D051D6@unm.edu><006901cc40a3$bcd89820$6400a8c0@Dan><011601cc40bc$bde1c160$6400a8c0@Dan><01e201cc40e7$01b53e60$6400a8c0@Dan><7407A52A-34B9-488A-A26A-E2113BAF7BB8@unm.edu><001801cc414f$b29c47b0$6400a8c0@Dan><4E1D8625.8080801@ntlworld.com><00c301cc415a$b50b4ae0$6400a8c0@Dan> <4E1DB5AB.5060304@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <012e01cc4178$7aeec0d0$6400a8c0@Dan> Thank you, Lance. > As far as I know, an equivalent to pratik?epa?a in this usage in not > found. Since praj?apti-s?vadya is a common synonym for pratik?epa?a-s?vadya, the pa??attis?vajja in the Spk-p? I 86 passage does the job, I imagine. > I get the impression that the Chinese texts introduce a moralistic tinge > which is not there in the Indian texts. That said, I suppose that for a > monk the rules are laid down by the Buddha and some of the rules at > least are definite prohibitions. Perhaps. Here is part of what Muller's DDB says re: pratik?epa?a-s?vadya: "?? crime not wrong in itself, e.g. taking alcohol, but forbidden by the Buddha for the sake of the other precepts; transgression of this is therefore a sin against the Buddha." Digital Dictionary of Buddhism, under ?? (er zai, "two kinds of crimes") http://tinyurl.com/6l9o2qh [type "guest" for password, without quotation marks, leave username blank, for access and 10 searches a day; BTW, you can try searching for Sanskrit or Pali terms - with or without diacriticals, not just Chinese.] One of the terms that er zai ("two types of crimes") renders is ubhay?vadya, "two types of avadya"; avadya does carry a strong sense of deserving of censure, blame, non-praiseworthy, but also includes imperfection, vice, etc. in its meanings. I think drawing too sharp a distinction between the subjective-sense of assigning blame and the objective sense of being blameworthy, such that these terms would only denote one but not the other is questionable, though there may be ideologically attractive reasons for wanting to do so. Dan From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Wed Jul 13 10:18:19 2011 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 12:18:19 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Non attached & mindful culinary triumphalism? References: <55658.1d9326ca.3b4f105b@aol.com> Message-ID: <012f01cc4178$7b173060$6400a8c0@Dan> > There is a distinction in law that seems to be the same. Crime malum in se > [and] crimes malum prohibitum, > Konchog Dorje Thanks, Konchog. Very interesting. This does indeed seem very similar. Are you, or have you been a law student, or do you just keep this sort of fascinating arcana on your fingertips? Dan From horowitz at chass.utoronto.ca Wed Jul 13 11:09:19 2011 From: horowitz at chass.utoronto.ca (Gad Horowitz) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 13:09:19 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Non attached & mindful culinary triumphalism? References: <003801cc4012$5cd51840$6600a8c0@Dan><55E961DF-A063-4E08-9C1C-8146468057F9@unm.edu><003201cc4051$924f9740$6400a8c0@Dan><1CFDE469-4BAA-4BCE-BC1F-6158E07BD6C6@unm.edu><1F62178B-917D-435D-AD31-563DA7D051D6@unm.edu><006901cc40a3$bcd89820$6400a8c0@Dan><011601cc40bc$bde1c160$6400a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: <7D72A9F271534F3197693A49BCB3598B@utor34931c0aec> ISRA-EL; yes all you macho disputants are great at struggling with G-d. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Hayes" To: "Buddhist discussion forum" Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 6:04 PM Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] Non attached & mindful culinary triumphalism? > On Jul 12, 2011, at 11:54 , Dan Lusthaus wrote: > >> But thanks for taking "accuracy" seriously and recognizing that I do as >> well. You are 100% right that I do very much treasure that. > > Just to be 100% accurate, it's accuracy that I take seriously, not > "accuracy". In that respect we are, as on most important issues, in > complete agreement. In fact, the only substantial issue on which we have > any but minor semantic disagreements is the acceptability of some of the > policies of the state of Israel, but that is nothing to discuss on this > forum. That is something we can discuss on ISRAE-L. > > Richard Hayes > Department of Philosophy > University of New Mexico > Albuquerque, NM > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l > From rhayes at unm.edu Wed Jul 13 12:23:51 2011 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 12:23:51 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Non attached & mindful culinary triumphalism? In-Reply-To: <55658.1d9326ca.3b4f105b@aol.com> References: <55658.1d9326ca.3b4f105b@aol.com> Message-ID: <64761B71-FE28-43DE-903B-248B2D4FA02A@unm.edu> On Jul 13, 2011, at 09:14 , Kdorje at aol.com wrote: Konchog Dorje wrote: > There is a distinction in law that seems to be the same. Crime malum in se > are those that are based on English common law and are said to the natural, > moral or public principles of a civilized society, sometimes said to be > the result of a depraved heart. Examples are murder, theft, rape, and most > crimes of violence. On the other hand are crimes malum prohibitum, those acts > that are prohibited by statutes enacted for the efficient running of > society, such as parking restrictions, speed limits, tax evasion. That's an interesting legal distinction. These days I am living in a very strange country (whose name shall be left unmentioned) in which there are people who try to write laws that reflect what they imagine to be natural moral principles. These people often hold that it is unnatural for people of the same gender to have sexual relations. (Some of their ancestors probably agreed that it is unnatural for people of African ancestry to mingle socially with people of European ancestry, unnatural for women to be involved in politics, and unnatural for aborigines to live in forests or on the prairies instead of on reservations.) It is interesting to think about what on earth is natural among human beings. Is it natural for one human being to kill another? Given that hardly any human society can be found that does not have a proud history of warfare in which enemies have been crushed, multilated, humiliated and enslaved, it would appear that for human beings, killing other members of the species is quite natural. And for a very long time it has been natural for human beings to kill members of other species for food and clothing; human societies that do not feed and clothe themselves by hunting game usually resort to raising animals for the purpose of killing them for food. Is adultery unnatural? When DNA testing was first making an appearance, there was a famous study in which DNA samples were gathered from everyone living in a tame little village in England, and one of the unexpected results was that one-third of the children had DNA indicating that their father was someone other than the husband of their mother. People were shocked to discover that adultery was considerably more widespread than anyone had hitherto suspected. Is incest unnatural? Estimates vary, but enough women are now reporting having been sexually approached by biological relatives (are maybe not, given that so many children are not really the offspring of their putative fathers). Incestuous child molesting does seem to be common enough to make it difficult to make the case that it is unnatural. Is it unnatural for human beings to have sexual relations for reasons other than to have a child? One hears just enough rumors to make one suspect that there are more than a few people who engage in sexual activity for recreational purposes, which suggests that even non-procreational sex is natural. I have been told by more than one earnest soul that it is unnatural for a human being to be a vegetarian, unnatural for a Western person to adopt an Asian religion, unnatural for anyone to shave his or her head, unnatural for anyone past puberty and before senility to be celibate, unnatural for anyone to deny that there is an eternal self, and unnatural to deny that there are moral facts. If any of these folks are correct, quite a few of us on buddha-l are naturally in a heap of trouble. We might as well become cannibalistic pedophiles. One of the things that seems to be natural for people is to assume that the moral guidelines they have been indoctrinated to believe (or that they have come to adopt through their own peculiar experiences) are natural, not purely conventional, not contingent, not culturally conditioned, not provisional. Defining what exactly it means for any offense to be a natural offense is so fraught with difficulty that some thinkers through history have called into question the very idea of natural morality. Among Buddhists, Candrak?rti famously called into question whether anything can be said to be what it is naturally (prak?ty?), which for him was a synonym of essentially (svabh?vena). For people who think like that, the distinction between malum in se and malum prohibitum breaks down; everything that human beings do to restrain behavior they would prefer not to have to live with is malum prohibitum. Only the narcissists in the crowd (which we now learn means all those who do not realize that all the categories in which we deal are purely subjective, vij?aptim?tra, nothing but projections onto the world of categories that have in fact originated in the human mind and and not discoveries but superimpositions) would believe in natural (or universal) moral laws and inalienable rights and so forth. Unnatural though it may seem, some of volunteer to feel compassion for such benighted souls. Richard Hayes Department of Philosophy University of New Mexico Albuquerque, NM From stroble at hawaii.edu Wed Jul 13 14:25:20 2011 From: stroble at hawaii.edu (andy) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 10:25:20 -1000 Subject: [Buddha-l] Non attached & mindful culinary triumphalism? In-Reply-To: <12372_1310581483_4E1DE2E9_12372_16422_3_64761B71-FE28-43DE-903B-248B2D4FA02A@unm.edu> References: <55658.1d9326ca.3b4f105b@aol.com> <12372_1310581483_4E1DE2E9_12372_16422_3_64761B71-FE28-43DE-903B-248B2D4FA02A@unm.edu> Message-ID: <201107131025.22362.stroble@hawaii.edu> Richard Hayes wrote: > Defining what exactly it means for any offense to be a natural offense is > so fraught with difficulty that some thinkers through history have called > into question the very idea of natural morality. Among Buddhists, > Candrak?rti famously called into question whether anything can be said to > be what it is naturally (prak?ty?), which for him was a synonym of > essentially (svabh?vena). For people who think like that, the distinction > between malum in se and malum prohibitum breaks down; everything that > human beings do to restrain behavior they would prefer not to have to live > with is malum prohibitum. Only the narcissists in the crowd (which we now > learn means all those who do not realize that all the categories in which > we deal are purely subjective, vij?aptim?tra, nothing but projections onto > the world of categories that have in fact originated in the human mind and > and not discoveries but superimpositions) would believe in natural (or > universal) moral laws and inalienable rights and so forth. Unnatural > though it may seem, some of [us?] volunteer to feel compassion for such > benighted souls. > Ah, things are getting clearer! Prohibited acts are malum in se, not malum prohibitum! But of course the distinction is not all that helpful. There is a similar distinction between natural law and civil law, the ius gentium or law of peoples, and the conventional laws of a people. The question is what makes a malum in se a malum at all. We are back to universality as a sign of the wrongness of action, but it in no way defines the wrongness. Perhaps I am being too foundationalist in my thinking about ethics, or too critical, and asking for a ground is futile. But to think there are two different rationales for Buddhist sila strikes me as unsatisfactory, especially when we don't know what the first one is. So Richard, in regard to your project, are you not going to include the other main ethical theory, deontology? Certainly includes normative force, and universality as a sign, but I don't know if I can see Kant advocating compassion. Benevolence, yes, but not quite metta. Andy Stroble From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Wed Jul 13 16:28:32 2011 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 18:28:32 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Non attached & mindful culinary triumphalism? References: <55658.1d9326ca.3b4f105b@aol.com> <64761B71-FE28-43DE-903B-248B2D4FA02A@unm.edu> Message-ID: <001601cc41ac$32c826a0$6400a8c0@Dan> A polemical soliloquy that seems rhetorically compelling, but a counter case could be made with the same sort arguments. The argument *for* acknowledging malum in se (bad in itself) would run something like: while some people certainly mess around (adultery, incest), all societies ban illicit sexual relations. They may fine tune their definition of incest (are first cousins on or off limits? Second cousins?), or be more or less tolerant of types of adultery, but all insist that "Thou shalt not (unless...)..." It is in the nature of human culture to forbid such relations (though their enforcement and degree and style of disapproval may vary, just as their taste in foods may vary -- nonetheless all eat). Richard commits the same fallacy that undergrads make when first presented with Mencius' theory usually expressed (in English) as "Human Nature is originally good." (Mencius is one of the early, great virtue ethicists.) That fallacy is to misconstrue what is meant by nature. Mencius never suggests that he means "nature" means "happens automatically." He never contends that we all *automatically* do good. Rather his claim is that we have the capacity for goodness, which, if it is nurtured, cultivated and allowed to grow unhindered, will develop into a full fledged "virtue" (de). For Mencius, as a dedicated Confucian, the primary incipient virtues are humankind-ness (ren), justice [ethical balance between needs and obligations of the individual vs needs and obligations to the groun] (yi), etiquette (li), and the ability to determine the difference between right and wrong (zhi). In incipient form these are observable, respectively, in everyone as follows: A feeling of commiseration (the bambi reflex) a sense of approval or disapproval (of the actions of others) a feeling of respect, reverence, adulation (misplaced perhaps, by incipients, on sports and celebrity 'heroes') a basic sense of fairness (e.g., children know when they are being blamed unfairly). These incipient forms don't guarantee that the full blown virtues they are indications of will fully blossom on their ownautomatically. They require cultivation, and can be hindered or even devastated. Water will tend to go downward 'naturally', but it can be made to go up by damming it (repression) or slapping it (subjecting it to violence). In short, that human "nature" is "good" doesn't mean people automatically will do the right thing in all times and in all places. That the DNA of two-thirds of the children in the English village, the majority, indicated no adultery, is significant. It is attractive to imagine that the human situation is a blank slate capable of endless manipulation by choice -- gives social engineers the illusion that they can create anything. "Biology is not destiny" has given way to more respect for and ackowledgement of "biological clocks," and so on. And, no, Andy, it's not immediately translatable into "universals". All healthy humans have the capacity to laugh, but we don't laugh at the same thing (and some of us are funnier than others). Some cultures treasure humor, others suppress it (cf. The Name of the Rose). Laughter is neither a universal, nor a mere subjective particular happenstance, and there are many types of laughs. Language, since it only functions with samanya-laksana (generalized universalistic classes), keeps giving the illusion that the variety of things that can be gathered under a word are items in a "class." It's a linguistic trick, worth resisting from allowing it to settle in as a mental trick. "Available to everyone" is not the same as "ontological universal." But a capacity that all possess does indicate something in se. Dan From rhayes at unm.edu Wed Jul 13 16:35:17 2011 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 16:35:17 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Non attached & mindful culinary triumphalism? In-Reply-To: <201107131025.22362.stroble@hawaii.edu> References: <55658.1d9326ca.3b4f105b@aol.com> <12372_1310581483_4E1DE2E9_12372_16422_3_64761B71-FE28-43DE-903B-248B2D4FA02A@unm.edu> <201107131025.22362.stroble@hawaii.edu> Message-ID: On Jul 13, 2011, at 14:25 , andy wrote: > Perhaps I am being too foundationalist in my thinking about ethics, or too > critical, and asking for a ground is futile. But to think there are two > different rationales for Buddhist sila strikes me as unsatisfactory, especially > when we don't know what the first one is. Well said. > So Richard, in regard to your project, are you not going to include the other > main ethical theory, deontology? I am the only person I can find who has suggested that one might regard Buddhist ethics as having a deontological dimension. People who write about Buddhist ethics seem to be agreed that whatever else one might think about Buddhist ethics, it is CLEARLY not deontological. So I guess a deontologist kant be a Buddhist. Richard Hayes Department of Philosophy University of New Mexico Albuquerque, NM From rhayes at unm.edu Wed Jul 13 16:52:32 2011 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 16:52:32 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Non attached & mindful culinary triumphalism? In-Reply-To: <001601cc41ac$32c826a0$6400a8c0@Dan> References: <55658.1d9326ca.3b4f105b@aol.com> <64761B71-FE28-43DE-903B-248B2D4FA02A@unm.edu> <001601cc41ac$32c826a0$6400a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: <7E93C6DB-914E-4C26-BC92-D6283BD863EA@unm.edu> On Jul 13, 2011, at 16:28 , Dan Lusthaus wrote: > The argument *for* acknowledging malum in se (bad in itself) would run > something like: while some people certainly mess around (adultery, incest), > all societies ban illicit sexual relations. That is trivially true. If a society bans any sexual practices, then they are illicit. But I suppose your point is that if every society bans a particular practice, then that practice must be naturally bad, or bad in itself. I just don't see how that follows. > Richard commits the same fallacy that undergrads make when first presented > with Mencius' theory usually expressed (in English) as "Human Nature is > originally good." Again, I can't quite follow your claim. You'll have to spell it out for me. I agree with everything you have said about Mencius, including how some people misconstrue him. But I see no connection between the mistake that undergraduates make when they read Mencius and anything I have said. > It is attractive to imagine that the human situation is a blank slate > capable of endless manipulation by choice Attractive to whom? Does that idea appeal to you? It doesn't appeal to me. Perhaps my notion of naturalness is too limited, but when I think of something being natural, I think in mechanical, chemical and biological terms. Arsenic is naturally bad for people's health. No human being who eats too much of it can survive. Nothing that I can think of in the moral realm is like that. It's no obvious to me that there are behaviors that undermine one's tendency to survive because they are morally bad; they may undermine one's tendency to survive because they are hazardous to one's physical health. Smoking tobacco, being sendentary, being obese and so forth may reduce one's chances of living to an advanced age, so they might be considered naturally bad for one's health, but I cannot see them as being naturally bad in a moral sense. The category of morality seems entirely superfluous. Richard Hayes From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Wed Jul 13 17:06:34 2011 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 19:06:34 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Non attached & mindful culinary triumphalism? References: <55658.1d9326ca.3b4f105b@aol.com><64761B71-FE28-43DE-903B-248B2D4FA02A@unm.edu><001601cc41ac$32c826a0$6400a8c0@Dan> <7E93C6DB-914E-4C26-BC92-D6283BD863EA@unm.edu> Message-ID: <005201cc41b1$830d8560$6400a8c0@Dan> Another Skt occurrence: Bodhicary?vat?ra, 2, 64.2 prak?ty? yac ca s?vadya? praj?apty?vadyameva ca // Dan From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Wed Jul 13 17:34:22 2011 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 19:34:22 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Non attached & mindful culinary triumphalism? References: <55658.1d9326ca.3b4f105b@aol.com><64761B71-FE28-43DE-903B-248B2D4FA02A@unm.edu><001601cc41ac$32c826a0$6400a8c0@Dan> <7E93C6DB-914E-4C26-BC92-D6283BD863EA@unm.edu> Message-ID: <006001cc41b5$6501bb00$6400a8c0@Dan> > The category of morality seems entirely superfluous. I agree with that completely. The issue, however, has been how Buddhists thought of it, not what we prefer or our baseline assumptions/conclusions/preferences. It would be hard to say that Buddhists -- even Candrakirti -- were that dismissive of morality (the Candrakirti text that Karen Lang has been translating, his "moral tales" we might call them, demonstrates that). Others here might have additional translations of the Bodhicary?vat?ra, but I grabbed some that were in reach, Stephen Batchelor's, and one based on the oral commentary of Geshe Kelsang Gyatso (based on the Tibetan version, confirming the distinction is preserved in Tibetan), the Crosby-Skilling version, and old Matics. The full verse in Skt is: may? b?lena m??hena yatki?citp?pam?citam / prak?ty? yac ca s?vadya? praj?apty?vadyameva ca // (2.64) Batchelor: Whatever has been done by me Through Ignorance and unknowing Be it the breaking of a vow Or a deed by nature wrong, The Geshe's group: Through my ignorance, I have committed countless non-virtuous actions, breaking vows or engaging in deeds which were by nature wrong. The Kate Crosby and Andrew Skilton tr. (Oxford Univ. Press): Whatever evil I, a deluded fool, have amassed, what is wrong by nature and what is wrong by convention, Matics, as if often the case, messes up a bit, but gets the prak?ty? right: Whatever the evil which ahs been accumulated by my foolishness and ignorance, and whatever of my speaking and teaching is objectionable, and whatever is evil by nature: One can argue that the Buddhists *ought not* to have made such a distinction, but not that they didn't. (Nor that p?pa is only in the eye of the beholder) Dan From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Wed Jul 13 18:06:20 2011 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 20:06:20 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] PBS report on Smithsonian exhibit of Chinese Buddhist Cave References: <55658.1d9326ca.3b4f105b@aol.com><64761B71-FE28-43DE-903B-248B2D4FA02A@unm.edu><001601cc41ac$32c826a0$6400a8c0@Dan><7E93C6DB-914E-4C26-BC92-D6283BD863EA@unm.edu> <006001cc41b5$6501bb00$6400a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: <008001cc41b9$dc5f73a0$6400a8c0@Dan> A glimpse of the future. When they come up with a home version of this, one will be able to visit all museums and sites while still at home, including, as in this case, a reconstructed site that no longer exists in the way it once did, except virtually. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/entertainment/july-dec11/chinatemples_07-11.html This was broadcast of the PBS Evening News on July 11. Dan From stroble at hawaii.edu Wed Jul 13 18:47:59 2011 From: stroble at hawaii.edu (andy) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 14:47:59 -1000 Subject: [Buddha-l] Non attached & mindful culinary triumphalism? In-Reply-To: <001601cc41ac$32c826a0$6400a8c0@Dan> References: <55658.1d9326ca.3b4f105b@aol.com> <64761B71-FE28-43DE-903B-248B2D4FA02A@unm.edu> <001601cc41ac$32c826a0$6400a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: <201107131448.01292.stroble@hawaii.edu> > A polemical soliloquy that seems rhetorically compelling, but a counter > case could be made with the same sort arguments. > > The argument *for* acknowledging malum in se (bad in itself) would run > something like: while some people certainly mess around (adultery, incest), > all societies ban illicit sexual relations. They may fine tune their > definition of incest (are first cousins on or off limits? Second cousins?), > or be more or less tolerant of types of adultery, but all insist that "Thou > shalt not (unless...)..." It is in the nature of human culture to forbid > such relations (though their enforcement and degree and style of > disapproval may vary, just as their taste in foods may vary -- nonetheless > all eat). Not a counter-case at all. Philosophically speaking (which I tend to do), the question is what is wrong with sexual impropiety itself? We may suspect that the fact that all human societies have some prohibitions on it means that there must be something "wrong" about it. But that doesn't answer the question. What is wrong with it? > Richard commits the same fallacy that undergrads make when first presented > with Mencius' theory usually expressed (in English) as "Human Nature is > originally good." (Mencius is one of the early, great virtue ethicists.) > That fallacy is to misconstrue what is meant by nature. Mencius never > suggests that he means "nature" means "happens automatically." He never > contends that we all *automatically* do good. Rather his claim is that we > have the capacity for goodness, which, if it is nurtured, cultivated and > allowed to grow unhindered, will develop into a full fledged "virtue" (de). Category mistake: we are not talking about the polymorphous nature of humans, but about the nature of the good. What is held to be good by humans varies quite a bit, and even if it did not, it would still not be an argument for an objective good. Xunzi holds human nature is originally perverse, but still advocates the same Confucian virtues as Mencius. In either case, following the Dao is allegedly better than not. The question is why? > > And, no, Andy, it's not immediately translatable into "universals". All > healthy humans have the capacity to laugh, but we don't laugh at the same > thing (and some of us are funnier than others). Some cultures treasure > humor, others suppress it (cf. The Name of the Rose). Laughter is neither a > universal, nor a mere subjective particular happenstance, and there are > many types of laughs. Homo Ridens? Are you sure it is "healthy" humans who have this capacity? This presupposes ethical valuation, in advance. > Language, since it only functions with > samanya-laksana (generalized universalistic classes), keeps giving the > illusion that the variety of things that can be gathered under a word are > items in a "class." It's a linguistic trick, worth resisting from allowing > it to settle in as a mental trick. "Available to everyone" is not the same > as "ontological universal." But a capacity that all possess does indicate > something in se. > > Dan Moral claims are not ontological claims. But they do tend to be universal claims. When Buddhists say that killing is wrong, the implication is that it is always wrong, and wrong for anyone to do. Again, the question is "why?" Now if our justification for such a prohibition is that it can have bad consequences, we have made it into a principle of prudence rather than morality, and we have to inquire into what makes a consequence bad. If we say it goes against human nature (though that seems questionable!), we have made a presumption that human nature is good. And if we just say that it is a malum in se, well that doesn't even address the question of why it is wrong. Buddhism says that killing is wrong because it causes suffering. That's all. But then so do harsh speech, intoxication, and sexual impropiety. And if any of these actions did not have this consequence, they would not be wrong. Which leads us to upaya, and exemptions to the "universal" rule against killing. This is what I find problematic, in regard to "buddhist warfare." The delightful thing about budda-l is the range of disciplines. That is also the frustrating thing. Philosophers are after different questions than scholars of religions or anthropologists, and to a certain degree are more interested in logical consistency than what the diverse historical Buddhist tradition has said. And we tend to question any and all presuppositions about the way the world is, or what is right or wrong. The attraction of Buddhism is the metaphysics, and how that produces a Buddhist ethics. -- Andy From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Wed Jul 13 21:19:51 2011 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 23:19:51 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Non attached & mindful culinary triumphalism? References: <55658.1d9326ca.3b4f105b@aol.com><64761B71-FE28-43DE-903B-248B2D4FA02A@unm.edu><001601cc41ac$32c826a0$6400a8c0@Dan> <201107131448.01292.stroble@hawaii.edu> Message-ID: <000801cc41d4$e596f6d0$6400a8c0@Dan> I see Andy took his vitamins today. Ok, let's dig in. > It is in the nature of human culture to forbid >> such relations (though their enforcement and degree and style of >> disapproval may vary, just as their taste in foods may vary -- >> nonetheless >> all eat). > > Not a counter-case at all. In fact, it is. It extracts a different conclusion from the same sets of data. Richard asserted that the fact that people BREAK rules indicates that what rules prohibit are not "in themselves bad" (malum in se). The counter case is that wherever one turns one finds such rules (with variation), and that such behavior is treated as a crime, misdeed, an "ought not to." So even if one grants that there are natural urges and appetites that drive some (not all) people to break the rules, this is still everywhere perceived and considered as a breaking of the rules. Ergo it is at least as "natural" to insist on and impose such rules as it is to have urges to stray. This of course is precisely the sort of thing that Mencius and Gaozi argued about. >Philosophically speaking (which I tend to do), the > question is what is wrong with sexual impropiety itself? We may suspect > that > the fact that all human societies have some prohibitions on it means that > there must be something "wrong" about it. But that doesn't answer the > question. What is wrong with it? The desire to want to pin things down univocally is admirable, but not always practical and sometimes not feasible. As with the famous definition (was it O.W. Holmes?) of pornography: "I know it when I see it," some things are a bit elusive, retain some ambiguity and wiggling room, and yet are sufficiently clear under most circumstances to allow one to act appropriately in relation to them. "Sexual impropriety" is a blanket term for a wide variety of behavoirs, and to expect they can be turned into an "it" in the singular, such that a single "wrong" can be defined of it, or even a single set of "wrongs", is simply confusion. What is wrong about "rape" is not necessarily what is wrong about "adultery," and (according to Indian dharma-sastra codes and vinaya) there is a difference between raping a prostitute, a nun and child -- all are rape, but the penalty (and degree or kind of guilt) is different in each case. Similarly for incest(s). Or adultery/-ies. Why homogenize the differences just to satisfy an urge for a univocal universal? >> Richard commits the same fallacy that undergrads make when first >> presented >> with Mencius' theory usually expressed (in English) as "Human Nature is >> originally good." (Mencius is one of the early, great virtue ethicists.) >> That fallacy is to misconstrue what is meant by nature. Mencius never >> suggests that he means "nature" means "happens automatically." He never >> contends that we all *automatically* do good. Rather his claim is that we >> have the capacity for goodness, which, if it is nurtured, cultivated and >> allowed to grow unhindered, will develop into a full fledged "virtue" >> (de). > > Category mistake: we are not talking about the polymorphous nature of > humans, > but about the nature of the good. Who is this "we"? Mencius is not a platonist. He is not interested in the nature of the good. He is interested in how certain innate impulses to do good things (helping others, etc.) can be furthered, not simply for individual betterment, but to engender a healthier society (he was living during a time in China called the Warring States period, where everyone was asking the Rodney King question: "Why can't we all just get along?"). >Xunzi holds human nature is originally perverse, He is often depicted that way in the secondary treatments, his position reduced to the misleading slogan: "Human nature is originally bad (or evil)." But his position is actually much more sophisticated. People are, he contends, basically selfish, and thus need to be trained, taught by an exemplary teacher, like Confucius, to help them overcome their selfish tendencies. He would fit right in with Rousseau, Adam Smith, and many other political/philosophical thinkers of that period. Since Zhuxi (Chu-hsi) (12th c.) pulled Mencius out of mothballs and gave him subsequent centrality in neo-confucian thinking, it is often overlooked that from the time of Xunzi (Hsun tzu) until Zhuxi, Confucians were basically Xunzi-ans, and largely ignored Mencius altogether. That's more than a 1000 years during which Confucianism and Xunzi were synonymous. Why the sudden switch under Zhuxi? Influence from Huayan, which had adopted a similarly rosy view of original buddha-nature in contrast to the Tiantai position, more Xunzi-an, viz., there must be some evil even in Buddha-nature. >In either case, following > the Dao is allegedly better than not. The question is why? Because it works, and it is the dao, lit. the "way" things work. Why is it better to put the horse before the cart? Because that is the dao of horse carts. The Chinese are more direct and focused on the practical, pragmatic, and utilitarian (in various mixes). The side-step to a universal justifier is not a dance they found interesting or inviting. > Homo Ridens? Are you sure it is "healthy" humans who have this capacity? The fact that you would ask that makes me laugh. > This presupposes ethical valuation, in advance. We didn't discuss how I arrived at the conclusion, whether an apriori assertion or aposteriori conclusion, etc. Anyone who thinks that is a serious question is in some serious need of jocularity. Even Kant writes about jokes (in the 3rd critique). > Moral claims are not ontological claims. The point of Mencius' turn to the issue of basic human nature was precisely to give the virtues touted by Confucians an ontological basis, which is why the question of human-nature is the Chinese counterpart to the West's concern with ontology and the existence of God, occupying a similar ubiquitous, central position. And why Buddhism wasn't speaking (to) Chinese until it developed the idea of buddha-nature as the Buddhist entry in that unavoidable debate. The distinction drawn by Buddhists -- and apparently British law -- between laws according to the nature of the act or according to conventional consensus suggests that for some ontology and morality are not separate domains, though morality includes an "artificial" as well as a "natural" domain. >But they do tend to be universal > claims. That is the precise point when ethics degenerates into moralism, and when the problems begin. >When Buddhists say that killing is wrong, the implication is that it > is always wrong, and wrong for anyone to do. Even Buddhists qualify this. The Skt passage from the Bodhisattvabhumi that I recently posted stipulates under which conditions one SHOULD kill a tyrant. The rules against killing are much stricter when applied to clerics than to laypeople, and even less to rulers or soldiers. So your assumption that an elusive "universal" -- applied equally to all once and for all -- is entailed by Buddhists stating that killing is wrong is itself wrong. > Again, the question is "why?" Actually, it tends to be "which?" > Now if our justification for such a prohibition is that it can have bad > consequences, we have made it into a principle of prudence rather than > morality, You are working toward a very narrow sense of morality. Careful you don't end up straitjacketing yourself. >and we have to inquire into what makes a consequence bad. If one of many reasons that can be given for why killing is bad is that it produces bad consequences, the first question is "which" -- which sorts of bad consequences? And to whom? The killer? The killee? Others? Whom? Family? Associates? Society in general? And so on. Do they all suffer the same bad consequence, or are there different consequences, or even a range of multiple types of consequences that can accrue to each? >If we say > it goes against human nature (though that seems questionable!), Because we have yet to clarify which sense(s) of human nature are at play in such claims. >we have made a > presumption that human nature is good. And if we just say that it is a > malum > in se, well that doesn't even address the question of why it is wrong. This is a straightjacket of your own devising. I've suggested a few ways to avoid snagging yourself in it, but once tied in, I'll leave you to work your own way out. The guard will be along to feed you presently... > Buddhism says that killing is wrong because it causes suffering. That's > all. That's one of many reasons, and again, the issue is "which?" and "to whom?" Followed by "how?" Followed by: "What can be done to avoid, rectify, or ameliorate this?" They also say one goes to hell. Depending on who you kill, maybe even Avici hell. It obligates you to recompense your victim in a future life. In fact, if one would thoroughly survey the literature, one would find MANY reasons -- some more persuasive or compelling to a modern audience than others -- but the fact that killing produces observable negative consequences does not cancel out that the reason this is the case is because the action itself is negative. It only buttresses that point, providing supporting evidence. > But then so do harsh speech, intoxication, and sexual impropiety. And if > any > of these actions did not have this consequence, they would not be wrong. "...*this* consequence"? A good illustration of the mire the demand for reduction to a singular case entails. See above. > Which leads us to upaya, and exemptions to the "universal" rule against > killing. This is what I find problematic, in regard to "buddhist warfare." Upaya is only one type of justification or license. It gets more complicated. > The attraction of Buddhism > is the metaphysics, and how that produces a Buddhist ethics. There are other attractions, even for us philosophers. Dan From rhayes at unm.edu Wed Jul 13 21:39:30 2011 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 21:39:30 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Non attached & mindful culinary triumphalism? In-Reply-To: <006001cc41b5$6501bb00$6400a8c0@Dan> References: <55658.1d9326ca.3b4f105b@aol.com> <64761B71-FE28-43DE-903B-248B2D4FA02A@unm.edu> <001601cc41ac$32c826a0$6400a8c0@Dan> <7E93C6DB-914E-4C26-BC92-D6283BD863EA@unm.edu> <006001cc41b5$6501bb00$6400a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: <1F46D0DE-9C82-46FB-94DF-3FF72C6F015C@unm.edu> On Jul 13, 2011, at 17:34, "Dan Lusthaus" wrote: > The issue, however, has been how Buddhists thought of it, not what we prefer or our baseline assumptions/conclusions/preferences. Actually, I was deliberately trying to change to a new topic. I should have changed the subject line. Sorry. Richard From rhayes at unm.edu Wed Jul 13 22:08:25 2011 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 22:08:25 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Non attached & mindful culinary triumphalism? In-Reply-To: <201107131448.01292.stroble@hawaii.edu> References: <55658.1d9326ca.3b4f105b@aol.com> <64761B71-FE28-43DE-903B-248B2D4FA02A@unm.edu> <001601cc41ac$32c826a0$6400a8c0@Dan> <201107131448.01292.stroble@hawaii.edu> Message-ID: On Jul 13, 2011, at 18:47, andy wrote: > The delightful thing about budda-l is the range of disciplines. That is also > the frustrating thing. Andy, you have just put your finger on what I find frustrating about being me. My first undergraduate career was in mathematics and creative writing, and my principal enthusiasm was for satire and comic writing (my hero was Tom Lehrer), as a result of which I am never sure when I'm being ironic. Suffice it to say tongue is rarely far from cheek. My second undergraduate career was in religious studies and philosophy. In graduate school I got swept up in linguistics, philosophy of language, philosophy of langage, and traditional Sanskrit grammar and Tibetan and Mongolian. Outside the academy I was practicing Buddhism in a really superficial way. When I got kicked out of graduate school?they wouldn't let me stay after I'd made the fatal blunder of earning a doctorate?I had to get a job, but I didn't know a damn thing and had no disciplinary focus. By some crazy fluke I got a job and could never figure out what the hell I was supposed to be teaching and had even less of an idea what I was supposed to be writing about. As a result, I write very long sentences in which I start out with the aim of telling a story, switch to being an amateur historian of ideas by the end of the first subordinate clause, move into epistemology by the time the verb comes along and end up with an adverbial flourish with a slight comparative religions flavor. I go to Quaker meeting to practice vipassan? and to Benedictine monasteries to practice Quakerism. It's all terribly confusing to me. Only Jim Peavler can make any sense of anything I say. Richard From stroble at hawaii.edu Wed Jul 13 22:41:41 2011 From: stroble at hawaii.edu (andy) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 18:41:41 -1000 Subject: [Buddha-l] Non attached & mindful culinary triumphalism? In-Reply-To: <22611_1310596556_4E1E1DCB_22611_4005_1_B25D891E-05EB-4EAF-80D2-C184F59BB144@unm.edu> References: <55658.1d9326ca.3b4f105b@aol.com> <201107131025.22362.stroble@hawaii.edu> <22611_1310596556_4E1E1DCB_22611_4005_1_B25D891E-05EB-4EAF-80D2-C184F59BB144@unm.edu> Message-ID: <201107131841.43046.stroble@hawaii.edu> Richard Hayes wrote: > On Jul 13, 2011, at 14:25 , andy wrote: > > So Richard, in regard to your project, are you not going to include the > > other main ethical theory, deontology? > > I am the only person I can find who has suggested that one might regard > Buddhist ethics as having a deontological dimension. People who write > about Buddhist ethics seem to be agreed that whatever else one might think > about Buddhist ethics, it is CLEARLY not deontological. So I guess a > deontologist kant be a Buddhist. > Thank you for not missing the set-up! I am disturbed, only slightly, by the point Eric brought up earlier, that there is no normative force behind the Buddhist rules. If you want to keep suffering, by all means keep at it. There is your free will. But, there is a sense in which Buddha proposes a teleological ethics, that claims to be non-defeasible. The Tathagata is he who has done what is to be done, which implies it is to be done. So virtue ethics, aimed at consequences, but these are not the usual consequences of happiness (a la Aristotle). So a consequentialist ethics, based on an omniscient insight, is equivalent to deontology? Kant says as much when he distinguishes hypothetical imperatives as rules of skill (if you want this, do this), and the rules of prudence (if you want to be happy, do this), with the difference being that where rules of skill are a priori but hypothetical, prudence is assumed to be a priori but the rules are a posteriori, or subject to doubt and experiment. Moral rules, the categorical imperative, is supposed to command uncategorically, but that leaves open the possiblity that if the rules of prudence were known rather than surmised, they would as well be categorical? Doing what is to be done, that is as close as I can get to making Buddhism deontological at this point. And rationality? Not sure what to make of that from a Buddhist perspective. Probably just me. -- James Andy Stroble From jehms at xs4all.nl Thu Jul 14 06:15:50 2011 From: jehms at xs4all.nl (Erik Hoogcarspel) Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 20:15:50 +0800 Subject: [Buddha-l] Non attached & mindful culinary triumphalism? In-Reply-To: <201107131841.43046.stroble@hawaii.edu> References: <55658.1d9326ca.3b4f105b@aol.com> <201107131025.22362.stroble@hawaii.edu> <22611_1310596556_4E1E1DCB_22611_4005_1_B25D891E-05EB-4EAF-80D2-C184F59BB144@unm.edu> <201107131841.43046.stroble@hawaii.edu> Message-ID: <4E1EDDF6.9070808@xs4all.nl> Hi Andy, the classical legend about the Buddha is that he found a solution for what he saw as the most fundamental human problem. He didn't claim to be intimate with the boss of the universe, nor to have found a universal set of rules. Later in Mahayana teachings there is a strong confidence in the assumption that eventually every living being will agree with the Buddha. But Buddhist prescriptions are only valid for Buddhists, those have have taken refuge and that is something you are free to chose. I sense some doubt in your comment about this freedom and if you look at Confucius and Mencius it is clear that you are not free to chose in their virtue ethics, because if you do not try to become a true gentleman you will go down in the ladder of status and become an outcast eventually. That is why radical Daoist revert to nature and leave society to dwell in solitude or live the life of an outcast. So if virtue ethics becomes a general duty, it loses it's individual freedom. Now the injunction of incest is not univesal either. Levi-Strauss discovered that in many cultures people just don't commit incest, because that's 'only for rabbits'. They never thought about explicit laws or regulions. So my conclusion is that in many cultures laws and injunctions are not top priority, but this may feel somewhat counter intuitive for someone who is brought up with these things. erik Op 14-07-11 12:41, andy schreef: > Richard Hayes wrote: >> On Jul 13, 2011, at 14:25 , andy wrote: >>> So Richard, in regard to your project, are you not going to include the >>> other main ethical theory, deontology? >> I am the only person I can find who has suggested that one might regard >> Buddhist ethics as having a deontological dimension. People who write >> about Buddhist ethics seem to be agreed that whatever else one might think >> about Buddhist ethics, it is CLEARLY not deontological. So I guess a >> deontologist kant be a Buddhist. >> > Thank you for not missing the set-up! I am disturbed, only slightly, by the > point Eric brought up earlier, that there is no normative force behind the > Buddhist rules. If you want to keep suffering, by all means keep at it. There > is your free will. But, there is a sense in which Buddha proposes a > teleological ethics, that claims to be non-defeasible. The Tathagata is he who > has done what is to be done, which implies it is to be done. So virtue > ethics, aimed at consequences, but these are not the usual consequences of > happiness (a la Aristotle). So a consequentialist ethics, based on an > omniscient insight, is equivalent to deontology? Kant says as much when he > distinguishes hypothetical imperatives as rules of skill (if you want this, do > this), and the rules of prudence (if you want to be happy, do this), with the > difference being that where rules of skill are a priori but hypothetical, > prudence is assumed to be a priori but the rules are a posteriori, or subject > to doubt and experiment. Moral rules, the categorical imperative, is supposed > to command uncategorically, but that leaves open the possiblity that if the > rules of prudence were known rather than surmised, they would as well be > categorical? Doing what is to be done, that is as close as I can get to > making Buddhism deontological at this point. And rationality? Not sure what > to make of that from a Buddhist perspective. Probably just me. From rhayes at unm.edu Thu Jul 14 09:48:32 2011 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 09:48:32 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Non attached & mindful culinary triumphalism? In-Reply-To: <201107131841.43046.stroble@hawaii.edu> References: <55658.1d9326ca.3b4f105b@aol.com> <201107131025.22362.stroble@hawaii.edu> <22611_1310596556_4E1E1DCB_22611_4005_1_B25D891E-05EB-4EAF-80D2-C184F59BB144@unm.edu> <201107131841.43046.stroble@hawaii.edu> Message-ID: On Jul 13, 2011, at 22:41 , andy wrote: > But, there is a sense in which Buddha proposes a > teleological ethics, that claims to be non-defeasible. The Tathagata is he who > has done what is to be done, which implies it is to be done. So virtue > ethics, aimed at consequences, but these are not the usual consequences of > happiness (a la Aristotle). So a consequentialist ethics, based on an > omniscient insight, is equivalent to deontology? There are two points in what you've said here that I'd like to respond to. First, the formula that is recited for any arhant (including the Buddha) is "done what was to be done." In the Sanskrit (or Pali) word translated as "what is/was to be done" there is an absolutely maddening systematic modal ambiguity. Every word of that form can mean what MUST be done or what CAN be done. Imagine how frustrating it is to encounter words that blur the distinction between possibility and necessity. This could account for why so many modal logicians feel they must commit suicide when they study Sanskrit. But already I digress. My point is that one can take "what is to be done" as a teleologicial necessity, but one needn't. One can also take it as a teleological option. There is a goal, to be sure, but it is not necessarily a goal for everyone. I prefer to see it (without anything stronger to back up my preference than sheer pluralistic prejudice on my part) as one goal among many that one may choose to pursue, and if one does choose to pursue that goal, then there are ways (note the plural) to achieve it. If one does choose that goal and manages to choose one of the many ways of achieving it, then one can be said to have "done what was to be done." Second, I don't think that the nirvana of Buddhists is too much different from the eudaemonia of Aristotle. Both involve having a maximally healthy psyche that is free from all the vices that result in dissatisfaction. I don't see any important differences between eudaemonia (sometimes translated, somewhat feebly, as happiness) and ku?ala-citta (healthy/competent/skillful mind). (Digression two: there is a most helpful article by our very own Lance Cousins on this topic. Cousins, L. S. ?Good Or Skilful? Kusala in Canon and Commentary.? Journal of Buddhist Ethics 3 (1996): 136?64. It's readily available on line at the JBE website, http://blogs.dickinson.edu/buddhistethics/) I know that there are Buddhists, and even some Western philosophers, who have cultivated a contempt for Aristotle and hate to see anything Buddhist associated with him, but I happen to find Aristotle very helpful in his articulation of ideas that seem to me to resonate strongly with our good friend the Buddha. On the whole, I'm much more comfortable comparing the Buddha with various Greek thinkers than with modern and post-modern philosophers from anywhere but Cambridge, Massachusetts. The third of my two points is that I think the jury is still out on whether or not claims made by the Buddha are non-defeasible. I have earned the eternal contempt of John Dunne for suggesting that one can (perhaps even must) read Dign?ga as a fallibilist but that one cannot easily see Dharmak?rti in that light; I see Dign?ga as being as strongly anti-dogmatic as I see Dharmak?rti as being dogmatic. As I read all the M?dhyamikas with whom I am familiar, they all seem to be robust fallibilists. But what about the Buddha himself? God only knows. There are at least as many Buddhas as there are Buddhists. My own prejudice leans toward a portrait of the Buddha as a laid back fallibilist, Pragmatist, relativist who is cool with pretty much anything, an ironist?in short, a sort of Richard Rorty without the paunch (except in Zen paintings, where the paunch remains intact). The fourth of my two points is that when I first started poking, in 1995 or so, into the question of whether to see Buddhist ethics as a version of deontology, virtue ethics or consequentialism, I was quickly struck by how very difficult it is to decide. A good case can be made for any of those positions. This led me to two tentative conclusions (a redundancy, since ALL my conclusions are tentative): 1) Buddhist doctrine is so diverse that it is probably as wrong-headed to characterize all Buddhist ethics as having the same flavor as it would be to characterize all European philosophers or all Muslim philosophers as having the same approach to ethics; 2) since pretty much everyone who thinks about ethics at all takes into consideration good character, the consequences of actions, purpose and reason, pretty much everyone can be seen as being in some sense a virtue ethicist, a consequentialist and a deontologist, so perhaps the distinctions are of limited heuristic value when one is trying to explain things in a philosophy class, but if one becomes to adamant about them, these meta-ethical categories (like most categories) become obstacles rather than ladders. Richard Hayes Department of Philosophy University of New Mexico Albuquerque, NM From rhayes at unm.edu Thu Jul 14 10:28:13 2011 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 10:28:13 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Non attached & mindful culinary triumphalism? In-Reply-To: <000801cc41d4$e596f6d0$6400a8c0@Dan> References: <55658.1d9326ca.3b4f105b@aol.com><64761B71-FE28-43DE-903B-248B2D4FA02A@unm.edu><001601cc41ac$32c826a0$6400a8c0@Dan> <201107131448.01292.stroble@hawaii.edu> <000801cc41d4$e596f6d0$6400a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: <433A3CD9-0539-409D-A00A-21BE5A9F94DC@unm.edu> On Jul 13, 2011, at 21:19 , Dan Lusthaus wrote: > Richard asserted that the fact that people BREAK rules indicates that > what rules prohibit are not "in themselves bad" (malum in se). The counter > case is that wherever one turns one finds such rules (with variation), and > that such behavior is treated as a crime, misdeed, an "ought not to." So > even if one grants that there are natural urges and appetites that drive > some (not all) people to break the rules, this is still everywhere perceived > and considered as a breaking of the rules. Ergo it is at least as "natural" > to insist on and impose such rules as it is to have urges to stray. Yes, that is another way to state exactly what I was trying to suggest. Yet another way of saying what I was trying to get at is that everything anyone does is in a sense natural. It is natural for people to be monogamous, but also natural for people to be polygamous or celibate (in the original narrow sense of being unmarried). It is natural for people to confine their sexual activity to the marriage(s) to which they have contracted, and it is natural for people to be adulterous. It is natural for people to be heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual. If people do X, then X is part of human nature. If some people do X and some do not do X, then both doing X and not doing X are part of human nature. Since one cannot both do X and not do X, it should be clear that having it in one's nature to do X (or to refrain from X) does not make it necessary that one do (or refrain from doing) X. As Dan rightly points it, having something as one's nature points only to a potentiality, not an actuality. I agree with Mencius on this. (I am, incidentally, also very much in agreement with Xunzi; contrary to the usual depiction of them as being diametrically opposed, I find they are in agreement on just about everything that they both saw as important.) Now given that people have a multiplicity of potentials to act, only some of which will ever be realized, I find it difficult to see how any of those potential actions can be called naturally evil (or malum in se). I find it problematic to impose the notion or good and evil onto nature. I know that most of us do it all the time, but my claim is that when we do so, we are doing so gratuitously and irrationally, that is, without any warrant in the form of facts about the world. Putnam's efforts to problematize the fact/value distinction notwithstanding, I still find myself stuck with the notion that it is useful to be mindful of the difference between statements of fact and statements of value. When one says a natural action is blameworthy, then one is stating one's own personal evaluation of something in nature, but one is saying nothing whatsoever about the facts of nature. It is not a fact of nature that homosexuality is disgusted; rather, it is a fact about some human beings that they get disgusted by homosexuality. (For "homosexuality", plug in your favorite virtue or vice, and for "disgusting" plug in an evaluative adjective of your choice.) As an historical point, I think it is unlikely that the Buddha or many of his Asian followers were as fastidious as most modern people are in being mindful of fact/value distinctions. From a modern (non-Putnamian) perspective, Buddhists tended to blur the distinction between fact and value, which means that they tended to see values as facts about the world. I imagine (and imagining is really all any of us can really do when interpreting the words of ancient writers) that ancient Buddhists believed that a careful observer could discover moral facts. At least some ancient Buddhists might have been shocked to hear someone say that what is really going on is that people have personal values that they project onto the natural world and then erroneously believe that they have discovered them in the natural world. My guess is that a lot of ancient Buddhists would have found nothing at all odd in George W. Bush's statement "The reason I find homosexuality disgusting is because it IS disgusting." (For the record, I'm not sure GWB ever said exactly that, but he did make statements of the same form as that.) Richard Hayes From stroble at hawaii.edu Thu Jul 14 16:59:09 2011 From: stroble at hawaii.edu (andy) Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 12:59:09 -1000 Subject: [Buddha-l] Non attached & mindful culinary triumphalism? In-Reply-To: <000801cc41d4$e596f6d0$6400a8c0@Dan> References: <55658.1d9326ca.3b4f105b@aol.com> <201107131448.01292.stroble@hawaii.edu> <000801cc41d4$e596f6d0$6400a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: <201107141259.11500.stroble@hawaii.edu> Dan wrote: > I see Andy took his vitamins today. Ok, let's dig in. > > It is in the nature of human culture . Ergo it is at least > as "natural" to insist on and impose such rules as it is to have urges to > stray. > "At least as natural" means that there is no basis for the preference. Richard's point (which I believe he has reinforced on his own), is that "natural" or "nature" is a code for idiosyncratic preference. And if that is all there is, we ought to at least be honest about it, like the English Emotivists. >> But that doesn't answer the > > question. What is wrong with it? > > The desire to want to pin things down univocally is admirable, but not > always practical and sometimes not feasible. As with the famous definition > (was it O.W. Holmes?) of pornography: "I know it when I see it," some > things are a bit elusive, retain some ambiguity and wiggling room, and yet > are sufficiently clear under most circumstances to allow one to act > appropriately in relation to them. > Potter Stewart, USSC. But the point is not that things are just obscure. When we know it, there is either something we know, or there is not. If we cannot articulate what it is we claim to know, there is a fair chance we are only expressing a irrational preference. > Why > homogenize the differences just to satisfy an urge for a univocal > universal? No urge. Certainly there are many things that come under a particular guideline, but like Justice Stewart, there is something that makes impropriety impropietious, if we can see it. And even the fact that lots of humans, lots of cultures, and lots of history all see the impropriety, does not make it any more clear _what_ this thing is that we see. The universal is hidden in this assumed consensus, all I am asking for is explication. > >In either case, following > > the Dao is allegedly better than not. The question is why? > > Because it works, and it is the dao, lit. the "way" things work. Why is it > better to put the horse before the cart? Because that is the dao of horse > carts. The Chinese are more direct and focused on the practical, pragmatic, > and utilitarian (in various mixes). The side-step to a universal justifier > is not a dance they found interesting or inviting. > Have you ever done woodwork? The Dao of woodsaws (single, not double-handed) is to cut on the push stroke and clear on the pull. Just the way things are. . . in the West. Japanese woodsaws cut on the pull stroke, which makes the blade straight, and allows for finer cuts, thinner sawblades, and so on. My point? Working is relative. And Japanese saws are better for cutting. > > Homo Ridens? Are you sure it is "healthy" humans who have this capacity? > > The fact that you would ask that makes me laugh. > Good, that means you must be healthy! > The point of Mencius' turn to the issue of basic human nature was precisely > to give the virtues touted by Confucians an ontological basis, which is why > the question of human-nature is the Chinese counterpart to the West's > concern with ontology and the existence of God, occupying a similar > ubiquitous, central position. And why Buddhism wasn't speaking (to) Chinese > until it developed the idea of buddha-nature as the Buddhist entry in that > unavoidable debate. Hmm, so there is a injection of Chinese morality in Chinese Buddhism? Why would this debate be unavoidable? > > The distinction drawn by Buddhists -- and apparently British law -- between > laws according to the nature of the act or according to conventional > consensus suggests that for some ontology and morality are not separate > domains, though morality includes an "artificial" as well as a "natural" > domain. > The distinction goes back to Roman law, were non-citizens were held to be liable under the ius gentium. I find Hugo Grotius to be useful, as a window into natural law thinking. > >But they do tend to be universal claims. > > That is the precise point when ethics degenerates into moralism, and when > the problems begin. Hmm, what is the difference, and what are the problems? These questions are only partially facietious. > > >When Buddhists say that killing is wrong, the implication is that it > > is always wrong, and wrong for anyone to do. > > Even Buddhists qualify this. The Skt passage from the Bodhisattvabhumi that > I recently posted stipulates under which conditions one SHOULD kill a > tyrant. The rules against killing are much stricter when applied to clerics > than to laypeople, and even less to rulers or soldiers. So your assumption > that an elusive "universal" -- applied equally to all once and for all -- > is entailed by Buddhists stating that killing is wrong is itself wrong. > > > Again, the question is "why?" > > Actually, it tends to be "which?" Dan! You ARE arguing in circles! Just a short while ago, when the Northern Coast of California was being oppressed by giant trees that just stood there, you were insisting that the intention or mental state of those who cut them down did not matter! 'Which' is a function of "why'. You many not agree with my analysis of which redwoods to take out, but that would only be because you do not have access to the intelligence that I do. I know a tyrant tree when I see one. > > > Now if our justification for such a prohibition is that it can have bad > > consequences, we have made it into a principle of prudence rather than > > morality, > > You are working toward a very narrow sense of morality. Careful you don't > end up straitjacketing yourself. Normative force, that's what I am interested in. What is it that requires an action be done? And more so, what is it that allows anyone to insist on the rightness or wrongness of any actions, especially to the point that they might think they are justified in using force to incapacitate or compel. Now I don't think that is a narrow sense of morality, just what it is, when I see it. -- James Andy Stroble, PhD Lecturer in Philosophy Department of Arts & Humanities Leeward Community College University of Hawaii From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Thu Jul 14 21:05:49 2011 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 23:05:49 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Non attached & mindful culinary triumphalism? References: <55658.1d9326ca.3b4f105b@aol.com><201107131448.01292.stroble@hawaii.edu><000801cc41d4$e596f6d0$6400a8c0@Dan> <201107141259.11500.stroble@hawaii.edu> Message-ID: <002801cc429c$1a2b52c0$6400a8c0@Dan> > "At least as natural" means that there is no basis for the preference. Hardly. Neither you nor Richard want to acknowledge a difference between an expression of a ethical nature, and an urge to violate it. This is because we've left the term "human nature" ambiguous. Let's stay with Mencius for the moment since this was ground well traversed by him 2400 years ago. His interlocutor, Gaozi (Kao Tzu), argues -- like Richard -- that Human Nature has no innate ethical directive, it will go whichever way conditions encourage. Water will flow to the right or the left, without preference. To which Mencius replied, water is not indifferent to up and down. Gaozi attempts then to define human nature by our appetites, viz. our appetites for food and sex. Before looking at Mencius' reply, let's observe that: (1) to say everyone has an appetite for food and sex is basically true. (2) Nonetheless, there are apparent countercases: anorexics, people who find sex "disgusting," etc. Such people are not viewed as expressions of unadulterated human nature, but are typically considered people who have deviated from their rightful nature. For cultures that esteem or celebrate celibacy, this can lead to some interesting issues. That people commit adultery is not 'nature,' the argument can also go, but a violation of nature, a distorted nature, hence the condemnation, and the rules against it. Mencius doesn't deny that such appetites are part of our nature, but, he replies, that fails to differentiate us from animals. We have human nature, and that means a higher nature as well, one which values certain principles above food and even life. It is that higher nature that makes us human, and which we need to cultivate. So even human nature is not a singular entity. To not do so condemns us to live like animals in an animal-like society, which would be a shame since we are capable of doing better. That, in a nutshell, is Mencius' argument. He doesn't deny that we are capable of messing up bad, and in fact is very concerned about such propensities. He relates the human mind/heart to human-nature (the character for 'nature' contains the 'heart/mind' radical, giving them quasi-cognate status), and laments that someone loses a dog and will spend months looking for it, while people lose their mind/hearts (i.e., disconnect from the higher nature) and never think to look for it. People lie, cheat, steal, kill, and commit all sorts of crimes -- and these are everywhere condemned as crimes, though many societies teach their citizens to accomodate themselves to such breaches, to accept and even pursue them. "No one ever said life was fair." "Good guys finish last." And in some cultures attempting to desist from all corruption can be tantamount to suicide. Yet, everyone knows that it is corrupt, and a "nicer" way should be available. As Mencius says, because a single glass of water won't put out a housefire, don't think that water doesn't extinguish fire. It takes a lot of ren (humankind-ness) to turn society around, but it is in our nature to pursue that, as is evident when all the compromising, corrupting influences are momentarily suspended. Mencius' famous example -- one sees a child falling in the well, and without a thought of whose child, social status, reward or punishment, praise or blame, etc., one immediately, instinctively grabs the child to save it. This example became the prototype for the Zen 'sudden awakening' when facing death stories. That shows our true 'original' nature, when not buried in compromises and aggrandizing concerns. That is pure ren, as it were. To attempt to place that on a parity with the cheater who knows he's cheating is simply cynical, and to not understand 'nature' in the Mencian sense. (I've now given a sense of one type of understanding of the idea of human nature.) > When we know it, there is either something we know, or there is not. Knowing is not an either/or. It's quite complex. Heidegger: "The original thinker doesn't know his own thought." (hence, we need to unpack and interpret it; also that's why people go to therapists). Often what we think we know turns out not to be the case, or not in the way we imagined it, and even those things we do know have multiple facets not all of which we may be aware of. >If we > cannot articulate what it is we claim to know, Then, if that is one of our students, we give them a lousy grade for being inarticulate. I often tell students that I grade them on what they've actually written, not what they thought they meant. There is nothing wrong with trying to pin things down -- there is something wrong in thinking that can be done definitively. Define "religion." > The universal is hidden in this > assumed consensus, all I am asking for is explication. Talk about pre-decided assumptions and values! > Have you ever done woodwork? Yes. >The Dao of woodsaws (single, not double-handed) > is to cut on the push stroke and clear on the pull. Just the way things > are. > . . in the West. Japanese woodsaws cut on the pull stroke, Both are the Dao of those types of saws. The Dao is not a fixed rule (saw in this direction only), but the manner in which things work, the way they do what they do. If you keep trying to reduce Dao to universal rules, you will be confused about which way to saw... > > Hmm, so there is a injection of Chinese morality in Chinese Buddhism? > Why would this debate be unavoidable? Morality and metaphysics. It was unavoidable because nature (xing) was the underlying ultimate concern of Chinese philosophy and religion, and unless Buddhism participated in that conversation it was meaningless. Need modern analogies? Look at all the demands buddha-lers have made in the last two decades for Buddhism to be 'relevant', 'meaningful,' have something to contribute. It has to play our games, offer something for our concerns. If it has ethics, they should be somewhere in the virtue, consequentialist, de-ontological, etc. grid -- speak to that, or else it's just ancient, irrelevant, confused mumbo jumbo. Right? They must be embracing and disclosing (or hiding) universals, right? Nevermind that their best and brightest devoted centuries to refuting the very idea of universals... they must have it anyway... unavoidable? >> >But they do tend to be universal claims. >> >> That is the precise point when ethics degenerates into moralism, and when >> the problems begin. > > Hmm, what is the difference, and what are the problems? These questions > are > only partially facietious. Some illustrations above. >> > Again, the question is "why?" >> >> Actually, it tends to be "which?" > > Dan! You ARE arguing in circles! Just a short while ago, when the > Northern > Coast of California was being oppressed by giant trees that just stood > there, > you were insisting that the intention or mental state of those who cut > them > down did not matter! 'Which' is a function of "why'. You many not > agree > with my analysis of which redwoods to take out, but that would only be > because > you do not have access to the intelligence that I do. I know a tyrant > tree > when I see one. I have no idea what you think you were trying to say here. "Which" is not "why", and detailing the varieties of consequences (which we were doing because you wanted to focus on consequences) does not negate anything that was said about the redwoods. If you can't tell a tyrant from a tree, you need to spend less time in universal studios. Dan From Kdorje at aol.com Thu Jul 14 23:19:42 2011 From: Kdorje at aol.com (Kdorje at aol.com) Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 01:19:42 EDT Subject: [Buddha-l] Non attached & mindful culinary triumphalism? Message-ID: I was once a practicing attorney in the US, hence a law school graduate. All sorts of arcana sticks to one's fingertips and just won't shed, don't you find? Best wishes, Konchog Dorje In a message dated 7/13/2011 12:18:52 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, vasubandhu at earthlink.net writes: > There is a distinction in law that seems to be the same. Crime malum in se > [and] crimes malum prohibitum, > Konchog Dorje Thanks, Konchog. Very interesting. This does indeed seem very similar. Are you, or have you been a law student, or do you just keep this sort of fascinating arcana on your fingertips? Dan _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From stroble at hawaii.edu Fri Jul 15 01:51:57 2011 From: stroble at hawaii.edu (andy) Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 21:51:57 -1000 Subject: [Buddha-l] Non attached & mindful culinary triumphalism? In-Reply-To: <4E1EDDF6.9070808@xs4all.nl> References: <55658.1d9326ca.3b4f105b@aol.com> <201107131841.43046.stroble@hawaii.edu> <4E1EDDF6.9070808@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <201107142151.59549.stroble@hawaii.edu> Erik wrote: > Hi Andy, > the classical legend about the Buddha is that he found a solution for > what he saw as the most fundamental human problem. He didn't claim to be > intimate with the boss of the universe, nor to have found a universal > set of rules. Later in Mahayana teachings there is a strong confidence > in the assumption that eventually every living being will agree with the > Buddha. But Buddhist prescriptions are only valid for Buddhists, those > have have taken refuge and that is something you are free to chose. That is the question, isn't it? Whether Buddha's solution is in fact correct. If it is, that is something that should influence people's choice. > I sense some doubt in your comment about this freedom and if you look at > Confucius and Mencius it is clear that you are not free to chose in > their virtue ethics, because if you do not try to become a true > gentleman you will go down in the ladder of status and become an outcast > eventually. That is why radical Daoist revert to nature and leave > society to dwell in solitude or live the life of an outcast. So if > virtue ethics becomes a general duty, it loses it's individual freedom. Social convention, loss of status, is not a definitive reason. The whole point of renunciation abandons all of that. > Now the injunction of incest is not univesal either. Levi-Strauss > discovered that in many cultures people just don't commit incest, > because that's 'only for rabbits'. They never thought about explicit > laws or regulions. > So my conclusion is that in many cultures laws and injunctions are not > top priority, but this may feel somewhat counter intuitive for someone > who is brought up with these things. > > erik Sorry for accidentally ending your name with a "c" in an earlier post! But yes, this is the difficulty with asserting any universal moral rules. The Ali'i or royal classes in ancient Hawai'i thought that incest was a very good thing. The question whether the Buddhist take on these things is true, or just complying with societal expectations for mendicants. Andy From stroble at hawaii.edu Fri Jul 15 03:04:02 2011 From: stroble at hawaii.edu (andy) Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 23:04:02 -1000 Subject: [Buddha-l] Non attached & mindful culinary triumphalism? In-Reply-To: <002801cc429c$1a2b52c0$6400a8c0@Dan> References: <55658.1d9326ca.3b4f105b@aol.com> <201107141259.11500.stroble@hawaii.edu> <002801cc429c$1a2b52c0$6400a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: <201107142304.03707.stroble@hawaii.edu> Dan wrote: >Andy wrote: > > "At least as natural" means that there is no basis for the preference. > > Hardly. Neither you nor Richard want to acknowledge a difference between an > expression of a ethical nature, and an urge to violate it. This is because > we've left the term "human nature" ambiguous. It just _is_ ambiguous! What is an expression of an ethical nature, other than rules which happen to be in place for unknown reasons in a particular culture? And then a violation could be just an alternative expression of an ethical nature. So how do we tell what is ethical and what is not, without some criteria? I was suggesting the Four Noble truths are a stab at such criteria. > > Let's stay with Mencius for the moment since this was ground well traversed > by him 2400 years ago. His interlocutor, Gaozi (Kao Tzu), argues -- like > Richard -- that Human Nature has no innate ethical directive, it will go > whichever way conditions encourage. Water will flow to the right or the > left, without preference. To which Mencius replied, water is not > indifferent to up and down. Gaozi attempts then to define human nature by > our appetites, viz. our appetites for food and sex. > > Before looking at Mencius' reply, let's observe that: > (1) to say everyone has an appetite for food and sex is basically true. > (2) Nonetheless, there are apparent countercases: anorexics, people who > find sex "disgusting," etc. Such people are not viewed as expressions of > unadulterated human nature, but are typically considered people who have > deviated from their rightful nature. For cultures that esteem or celebrate > celibacy, this can lead to some interesting issues. That people commit > adultery is not 'nature,' the argument can also go, but a violation of > nature, a distorted nature, hence the condemnation, and the rules against > it. Why are we discussing Confucianism on Buddha-l? OK, we'll go with it. Deviance requires something to deviate from, perversion is turning aside from what is right. Until we have an argument for what human nature is, it is somewhat difficult to accept opinions on what is a distortion. And we are not really talking appetites and desires here, but which ones are good, and why they are good. This is my problem with virtue ethics: it has to assume that there is an excellence of a kind, which means it makes presumptions about the kind to justify the excellence. Otherwise it just repeats the prejudice of a particular culture. > Mencius doesn't deny that such appetites are part of our nature, but, he > replies, that fails to differentiate us from animals. We have human nature, > and that means a higher nature as well, one which values certain principles > above food and even life. It is that higher nature that makes us human, and > which we need to cultivate. > > So even human nature is not a singular entity. > > To not do so condemns us to live like animals in an animal-like society, > which would be a shame since we are capable of doing better. That, in a > nutshell, is Mencius' argument. > What is this better of which you speak? I think Mark Twain may have had something going when he points out that humans may not be the higher animals. And again, what does this have to do with Buddhist ethics? > > >> > Again, the question is "why?" > >> > >> Actually, it tends to be "which?" > > > > Dan! You ARE arguing in circles! Just a short while ago, when the > > Northern > > Coast of California was being oppressed by giant trees that just stood > > there, > > you were insisting that the intention or mental state of those who cut > > them > > down did not matter! 'Which' is a function of "why'. You many not > > agree > > with my analysis of which redwoods to take out, but that would only be > > because > > you do not have access to the intelligence that I do. I know a tyrant > > tree > > when I see one. > > I have no idea what you think you were trying to say here. "Which" is not > "why", and detailing the varieties of consequences (which we were doing > because you wanted to focus on consequences) does not negate anything that > was said about the redwoods. > > If you can't tell a tyrant from a tree, you need to spend less time in > universal studios. > > Dan You don't see it? Those trees are dangerous! I tend to find a lot of presumption lately that some beings deserve to be killed. That is the "which". I was just offering my own hypothetical targeting, which is meant to be ridiculous. I mean, how could a Sequoia be a threat to us? (See, that's exactly what they want us to think!). But that is the point: without a "why", the "which" is arbitrary. -- James Andy Stroble, PhD Lecturer in Philosophy Department of Arts & Humanities Leeward Community College University of Hawaii Adjunct Faculty Diplomatic and Military Studies Hawaii Pacific University _________________ "The cyber world has grown out of control. State and national law enforcement mechanisms are not equipped to deal with the rapidly evolving threat. The complexity of information systems has far exceeded the ability to secure them, while reliance on these systems has only increased. HBGary has an intimate understanding of this problem; We know that understanding the attacker and his methods is the only way to defeat him. This is the core strength of HBGary and why our technology and services outperform the competition. To us, it's personal. And we would have gotten away with it, if it wasn't for those meddling kids!!!" February, 2011 From jehms at xs4all.nl Fri Jul 15 07:02:26 2011 From: jehms at xs4all.nl (Erik Hoogcarspel) Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 21:02:26 +0800 Subject: [Buddha-l] Non attached & mindful culinary triumphalism? In-Reply-To: <201107142151.59549.stroble@hawaii.edu> References: <55658.1d9326ca.3b4f105b@aol.com> <201107131841.43046.stroble@hawaii.edu> <4E1EDDF6.9070808@xs4all.nl> <201107142151.59549.stroble@hawaii.edu> Message-ID: <4E203A62.70306@xs4all.nl> Op 15-07-11 15:51, andy schreef: > > yes, this is the difficulty with asserting any universal moral rules. > The Ali'i > or royal classes in ancient Hawai'i thought that incest was a very good thing. The concepts of crime and misdemeanor are a direct consequence of man being a zo-on politicon and every society needs rules and punishments. These do not have to be part of an ethical system, although some idea of how one has to relate to others and society as a whole are necessary. We have examples in hinduism where one is advised for insance to be a vaisnava from the outside, but inwardly a tantric. > The question whether the Buddhist take on these things is true, or just > complying with societal expectations for mendicants. > Something that has not come up yet is that the final jusitfication of virtue ethics is the examplary person. Why do I do this? Because the guru would have acted this way in such a situation. She is my beacon. Here is where the refuge comes in. This is in principle a free and unjustifiable act of the will. erik From rhayes at unm.edu Fri Jul 15 09:57:20 2011 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 09:57:20 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Non attached & mindful culinary triumphalism? In-Reply-To: <4E203A62.70306@xs4all.nl> References: <55658.1d9326ca.3b4f105b@aol.com> <201107131841.43046.stroble@hawaii.edu> <4E1EDDF6.9070808@xs4all.nl> <201107142151.59549.stroble@hawaii.edu> <4E203A62.70306@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <555B557D-5BA0-4B69-8E0B-71706D2A6689@unm.edu> On Jul 15, 2011, at 07:02 , Erik Hoogcarspel wrote: > Something that has not come up yet is that the final jusitfication of > virtue ethics is the examplary person. Why do I do this? Because the > guru would have acted this way in such a situation. She is my beacon. I agree completely with Erik on this point. That's because he is my beacon. Richard From rhayes at unm.edu Mon Jul 18 14:06:28 2011 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 14:06:28 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] MARYSVILLE: American Buddhism facing generational shift Message-ID: As a purveyor of what some disparagingly call Buddhism-lite (Buddhism without rebirth) and non-commital Buddhism (which replaces the Four Noble Truths with Some Pretty-good Working Hypotheses, and the ten precepts with the tentative suggestions), I found the following item mildly interesting. http://www.appeal-democrat.com/articles/generational-108402-shift-american.html Richard From djessop at nas.net Mon Jul 18 16:08:39 2011 From: djessop at nas.net (djessop at nas.net) Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 18:08:39 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] MARYSVILLE: American Buddhism facing generational shift In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Richard for posting this link. Is any particular day of the week especially significant to Buddhists? Cheers, Deborah On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 14:06:28 -0600 Richard Hayes wrote: > http://www.appeal-democrat.com/articles/generational-108402-shift-american.html > > Richard From dmahinda at yahoo.com Mon Jul 18 17:32:02 2011 From: dmahinda at yahoo.com (Mahinda Deegalle) Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 23:32:02 +0000 Subject: [Buddha-l] MARYSVILLE: American Buddhism facing generationalshift In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1796843974-1311031921-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-375712575-@b14.c9.bise7.blackberry> Full moon. Mahinda Deegalle Sent using BlackBerry? from Orange -----Original Message----- From: Sender: buddha-l-bounces at mailman.swcp.com Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 18:08:39 To: Buddhist discussion forum Reply-To: Buddhist discussion forum Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] MARYSVILLE: American Buddhism facing generational shift Thanks Richard for posting this link. Is any particular day of the week especially significant to Buddhists? Cheers, Deborah On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 14:06:28 -0600 Richard Hayes wrote: > http://www.appeal-democrat.com/articles/generational-108402-shift-american.html > > Richard _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From rhayes at unm.edu Mon Jul 18 17:36:12 2011 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 17:36:12 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] MARYSVILLE: American Buddhism facing generational shift In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2473052E-D0B3-4968-B795-FAE7706F676B@unm.edu> On Jul 18, 2011, at 16:08 , wrote: > Is any particular day of the week especially significant > to Buddhists? It is mighty tempting to be a smart Aleck and say that the only significant day of the week is today, but I'll withstand the hardships associated with restraint. Now that you raise the question, Deborah, I realize I have no idea how ancient Indians thought about days of the week or whether they even named them. I'm not even sure there was such a concept as a week. There was the concept of the fortnight, the period between the new moon and the full moon, and in Indian Buddhism (as in Indian culture in general), the full moon day and new moon day were days for doing something that passed as sacred. This display of astonishing ignorance on my part is calculated to bring all manner of knowledgeable people out of their lurking mode to inform us of what we could both easily learn by consulting Doctor Google. But let them do the heavy lifting, I say. While they are doing the hard work, I'll mention a quaint habit that Quakers have (aside from the quaint habit of butchering English grammar by saying things like "What does thee want?") Quakers hated the idea of days named after pagan gods and months named after Roman emperors and Latin numbers, so they refused to use those names and referred to the days of the week as First Day, Second Day and so on, and referred to the months as First Month (which originally meant March but eventually became January, to everyone's great inconvenience). Written this Second Day, the eighteenth of Seventh Month (this being the third First Day of Seventh Month by latter day reckoning or the Fifth Month by the old reckoning), Friend Richard From randall.bernard.jones at gmail.com Mon Jul 18 18:07:30 2011 From: randall.bernard.jones at gmail.com (Randall Jones) Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 19:07:30 -0500 Subject: [Buddha-l] MARYSVILLE: American Buddhism facing generational shift In-Reply-To: <2473052E-D0B3-4968-B795-FAE7706F676B@unm.edu> References: <2473052E-D0B3-4968-B795-FAE7706F676B@unm.edu> Message-ID: <4e24cac8.634dec0a.3fdf.ffffff7e@mx.google.com> In Thai Buddhism also the half moons in between. Randall Richard Hayes wrote: >... in Indian Buddhism (as in Indian culture in general), the full >moon day and new moon day were days for doing something that passed as sacred. From smith at wheelwrightassoc.com Mon Jul 18 18:39:27 2011 From: smith at wheelwrightassoc.com (Timothy Smith) Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 17:39:27 -0700 Subject: [Buddha-l] NYT article apropos our recent discussion of redwoods, meat and values. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5E1887BB-E66D-4270-9FFD-8F1D9F72203D@wheelwrightassoc.com> http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/17/the-sacred-and-the-humane/?hp Timothy Smith Office/Mobile 831.624.8138 Fax 831.659-5112 www.wheelwrightassoc.com On Jul 18, 2011, at 1:06 PM, Richard Hayes wrote: > As a purveyor of what some disparagingly call Buddhism-lite (Buddhism without rebirth) and non-commital Buddhism (which replaces the Four Noble Truths with Some Pretty-good Working Hypotheses, and the ten precepts with the tentative suggestions), I found the following item mildly interesting. > > http://www.appeal-democrat.com/articles/generational-108402-shift-american.html > > Richard > > > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l > From jkirk at spro.net Mon Jul 18 20:04:12 2011 From: jkirk at spro.net (JKirkpatrick) Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 20:04:12 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] MARYSVILLE: American Buddhism facing generational shift In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: None (or damn few) of the other traditions that once were respected in this country have survived, so why would Buddhism survive as it was when the swans came to the lake? From bogus@does.not.exist.com Thu Jul 14 11:49:22 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 17:49:22 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: ...he and his colleagues have built a reputation for successfully bringing Buddhist practices into juvenile detention centers - a sign of the social activism that young Buddhists tie to their meditation practice. JK: Why is this bad? or why should this kind of practice be rejected by anyone? "What attracts people is relevance," he said. "Youth is suffering. These are prime suffering years, but I need it in my language." JK: He's so right. Youth is probably the most suffering time of any life because youth has meager defenses. Weik said he understood the concerns about the future of Buddhism, but he said the teachings have always had multiple expressions in different cultures. JK: Well then why must the Weiks wear the traditional Japanese robes which will create certain understandings and misunderstandings among the youth they wish to attract! The article also says most western Buddhists are white. Statistically maybe so--but it should also have noted the widespread across the country campaigns to get Buddhist meditation into prisons, where the majority are not white. Joanna --------------------------------------- As a purveyor of what some disparagingly call Buddhism-lite (Buddhism without rebirth) and non-commital Buddhism (which replaces the Four Noble Truths with Some Pretty-good Working Hypotheses, and the ten precepts with the tentative suggestions), I found the following item mildly interesting. http://www.appeal-democrat.com/articles/generational-108402-shift -american.html Richard _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From rhayes at unm.edu Mon Jul 18 21:58:12 2011 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 21:58:12 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] NYT article apropos our recent discussion of redwoods, meat and values. In-Reply-To: <5E1887BB-E66D-4270-9FFD-8F1D9F72203D@wheelwrightassoc.com> References: <5E1887BB-E66D-4270-9FFD-8F1D9F72203D@wheelwrightassoc.com> Message-ID: <1737F49E-786D-4F71-986B-3C8966EA8E5A@unm.edu> On Jul 18, 2011, at 18:39 , Timothy Smith wrote: > http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/17/the-sacred-and-the-humane/?hp Interesting essay. Somewhat similar ideas to some expressed in that article appeared in the July 4 blog on the Green Tea Party (a libertarian socialist environmentalist party on whose ticket I am running for president of the USA in 2012, my hope being to be the first president elected without setting foot outside my home town and without raising so much as a nickel in campaign funds). As with everything I write, I have no idea whether I really believe any of it. http://dayamati.blogspot.com/2011/07/green-tea-party-policy-on-national.html On another matter of practical reason, do any of you have any unfounded emotion-based convictions to share on the matter of whether it is acceptable to download books from a website registered on the Polynesian Island state of Niue? The site http://library.nu/ has some 65000 electronic reproductions of books, including quite a number of academic titles that are too expensive for anyone living on an academic salary to buy. The claim is that the site is legal (because apparently almost everything is legal in Niue). But is it moral? For that matter, is commercial publishing moral? Is placing any restrictions on the dissemination of intellectual property moral? Should all writing be available for free on the Internet? Just wondering. Name withheld by request From alex at chagchen.org Tue Jul 19 00:12:27 2011 From: alex at chagchen.org (Alex Wilding) Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 08:12:27 +0200 Subject: [Buddha-l] Weeks and westerners In-Reply-To: <2473052E-D0B3-4968-B795-FAE7706F676B@unm.edu> References: <2473052E-D0B3-4968-B795-FAE7706F676B@unm.edu> Message-ID: <003701cc45da$d83857e0$88a907a0$@org> Tibet has a seven-day week whose names are clearly parallel to the western week, but it had little importance beside the dominant lunar calendar. I have been told, but could be wrong, that this week has existed for quite long, and has not just been imported for the convenience of living in the "modern world". Several lunar days are important - full and new, of course, but also tenth and twenty-fifth. On ethnicity, is Australia part of the Western world? Are we talking culturally western? (I hope so, otherwise most of Europe will be eastern, which grates on my sensibilities.) If so, I'd guess the majority of Buddhists there are yellowish. AW -----Original Message----- From: buddha-l-bounces at mailman.swcp.com [mailto:buddha-l-bounces at mailman.swcp.com] On Behalf Of Richard Hayes Sent: Tuesday, 19 July 2011 1:36 AM To: Buddhist discussion forum Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] MARYSVILLE: American Buddhism facing generational shift On Jul 18, 2011, at 16:08 , wrote: > Is any particular day of the week especially significant > to Buddhists? It is mighty tempting to be a smart Aleck and say that the only significant day of the week is today, but I'll withstand the hardships associated with restraint. Now that you raise the question, Deborah, I realize I have no idea how ancient Indians thought about days of the week or whether they even named them. I'm not even sure there was such a concept as a week. There was the concept of the fortnight, the period between the new moon and the full moon, and in Indian Buddhism (as in Indian culture in general), the full moon day and new moon day were days for doing something that passed as sacred. From gouin.me at gmail.com Tue Jul 19 00:56:45 2011 From: gouin.me at gmail.com (Margaret Gouin) Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 08:56:45 +0200 Subject: [Buddha-l] Using (or not using) Library.nu Message-ID: On 19 July 2011 05:58, Richard Hayes wrote: > On another matter of practical reason, do any of you have any unfounded > emotion-based convictions to share on the matter of whether it is acceptable > to download books from a website registered on the Polynesian Island state > of Niue? The site http://library.nu/ has some 65000 electronic > reproductions of books... > This issue of unlicensed downloads has come under discussion recently with regard to the Buddha Torrents (http://buddhisttorrents.blogspot.com/) site: see http://americanbuddhist.blogspot.com/2011/07/stealing-sharing-precepts-wisdom.html and subsequent posts. Library.nu used to be gigapedia.com; yes lots of illegal books. I've occasionally downloaded electronic copies of books I already own, for the convenience of carrying some of my library in my netbook. I have moral conflicts over academic pricing: why should a publisher charge over US$100 for an ebook? or even for a hardback, come to that? How free should knowledge be? A vexed question in many ways. -- Margaret Gouin http://independent.academia.edu/ad3b From jehms at xs4all.nl Tue Jul 19 06:55:56 2011 From: jehms at xs4all.nl (Erik Hoogcarspel) Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 20:55:56 +0800 Subject: [Buddha-l] MARYSVILLE: American Buddhism facing generational shift In-Reply-To: <2473052E-D0B3-4968-B795-FAE7706F676B@unm.edu> References: <2473052E-D0B3-4968-B795-FAE7706F676B@unm.edu> Message-ID: <4E257EDC.9040904@xs4all.nl> Op 19-07-11 07:36, Richard Hayes schreef: > While they are doing the hard work, I'll mention a quaint habit that > Quakers have (aside from the quaint habit of butchering English > grammar by saying things like "What does thee want?") Quakers hated > the idea of days named after pagan gods and months named after Roman > emperors and Latin numbers, so they refused to use those names and > referred to the days of the week as First Day, Second Day and so on, > and referred to the months as First Month (which originally meant > March but eventually became January, to everyone's great inconvenience). > Written this Second Day, the eighteenth of Seventh Month (this being the third First Day of Seventh Month by latter day reckoning or the Fifth Month by the old reckoning), > Friend Richard Friend Richard, it shall give thee great enjoyment to learn that all Chinese people have adopted this peculiar method of calculating days, beit that they have chosen to use the word 'week' in stead of 'day', They must have been instructed by a friend. So I'm writing this on the first of the week, in the seventh month. And it giveth me great pleasure to read that all those young friends are fooling around with Buddhism. The more tastes the more consumption. Friend Erik From jehms at xs4all.nl Tue Jul 19 07:14:54 2011 From: jehms at xs4all.nl (Erik Hoogcarspel) Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 21:14:54 +0800 Subject: [Buddha-l] NYT article apropos our recent discussion of redwoods, meat and values. In-Reply-To: <1737F49E-786D-4F71-986B-3C8966EA8E5A@unm.edu> References: <5E1887BB-E66D-4270-9FFD-8F1D9F72203D@wheelwrightassoc.com> <1737F49E-786D-4F71-986B-3C8966EA8E5A@unm.edu> Message-ID: <4E25834E.3090201@xs4all.nl> Op 19-07-11 11:58, Richard Hayes schreef: > On another matter of practical reason, do any of you have any > unfounded emotion-based convictions to share on the matter of whether > it is acceptable to download books from a website registered on the > Polynesian Island state of Niue? The site http://library.nu/ has some > 65000 electronic reproductions of books, including quite a number of > academic titles that are too expensive for anyone living on an > academic salary to buy. The claim is that the site is legal (because > apparently almost everything is legal in Niue). But is it moral? For > that matter, is commercial publishing moral? Is placing any > restrictions on the dissemination of intellectual property moral? > Should all writing be available for free on the Internet? > Just wondering. > Well Wonderperson, I personally am a great believer in dAna and I am not very much inspired by the copyright industry. There are all sorts of institutions who calculate the downloads and claim that this is exactly the loss of the authors and distributors, ignoring the fact that most people who download the copy could never afford the original (which sometimes for mysterious reasons can amount to $400,- and more). And since the authors are generally wrting their work by using copyright free material I think it is not logical that they should be rewarded for the rest of their lifetime for gathering all those im- and explicit quotes. Capitalism and ownership are good for greengrocers, but not for philosophers. You can quote me on this, it is free. INFINITELY SECONDHAND (as Huxley used to call himself) From rhayes at unm.edu Tue Jul 19 07:26:40 2011 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 07:26:40 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Using (or not using) Library.nu In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <67088CE3-73F4-439E-8409-E367FDA87A9C@unm.edu> On Jul 19, 2011, at 0:56, Margaret Gouin wrote: > Library.nu used to be gigapedia.com; yes lots of illegal books. I've > occasionally downloaded electronic copies of books I already own, for the > convenience of carrying some of my library in my netbook. I have done the same and drawn the line there. Once in a while I have downloaded a PDF to distribute to a class electronically, but only of something I already own and want to save myself the tedium of scanning. (Part of the craziness of budget cuts at a state university is that higher-paid faculty now do more of the work that lower-paid staff used to do before they were laid off in the name of balancing the state budget to create jobs.) I may download a whole book and then use my electronic scissors to cut out the one chapter I'd like for them to read and post it on line, which seems about the same as the old-fashioned method of putting a book on reserve in the library and assigning a chapter. Not that students read what's assigned, but that's another story for another day. Richard From james.blumenthal at oregonstate.edu Tue Jul 19 08:09:02 2011 From: james.blumenthal at oregonstate.edu (Blumenthal, James) Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 07:09:02 -0700 Subject: [Buddha-l] NYT article apropos our recent discussion of redwoods, meat and values. In-Reply-To: <1737F49E-786D-4F71-986B-3C8966EA8E5A@unm.edu> References: <5E1887BB-E66D-4270-9FFD-8F1D9F72203D@wheelwrightassoc.com>, <1737F49E-786D-4F71-986B-3C8966EA8E5A@unm.edu> Message-ID: <010B704E8DA0D94D9F5C81B08045B3DB116AB79A40@EXCH2.nws.oregonstate.edu> On another matter of practical reason, do any of you have any unfounded emotion-based convictions to share on the matter of whether it is acceptable to download books from a website registered on the Polynesian Island state of Niue? The site http://library.nu/ has some 65000 electronic reproductions of books, including quite a number of academic titles that are too expensive for anyone living on an academic salary to buy. The claim is that the site is legal (because apparently almost everything is legal in Niue). But is it moral? For that matter, is commercial publishing moral? Is placing any restrictions on the dissemination of intellectual property moral? Should all writing be available for free on the Internet? Just wondering. Name withheld by request _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l Just out of curiosity I went to the Niue site and put "Madhyamaka" in the search. I was shocked to find my first book came up as the first free download. What's up with that? They have probably cost me $5.71 in royalties! Jim Blumenthal James Blumenthal Philosophy Department Oregon State University 102-A Hovland Hall Corvallis, OR 97331-3902 From danterosati at gmail.com Tue Jul 19 09:26:07 2011 From: danterosati at gmail.com (Dante Rosati) Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 11:26:07 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Using (or not using) Library.nu In-Reply-To: <67088CE3-73F4-439E-8409-E367FDA87A9C@unm.edu> References: <67088CE3-73F4-439E-8409-E367FDA87A9C@unm.edu> Message-ID: what would be the difference between downloading a book from this or any of the many other similar sources, and taking a book out from a library? is it only the same if you delete the pdf of the book after two weeks? or what about borrowing a book from a friend? is it ok to download the pdf from the person who is offering it if you "give it back" to him after a reasonable amount of time? and I'm not sure why its ok to download a pdf of a book you own, and then distribute it (or parts of it) to others who do not own the book, as Prof. Hayes does for his students? musical scores have a "do not copy" notice, with an icon of a xerox machine with a slash through it, and noone has ever paid any attention to it, certainly least of all in any library I've ever been in, all of which have xerox machines that are made extensive use of. On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 9:26 AM, Richard Hayes wrote: > On Jul 19, 2011, at 0:56, Margaret Gouin wrote: > >> Library.nu used to be gigapedia.com; yes lots of illegal books. I've >> occasionally downloaded electronic copies of books I already own, for the >> convenience of carrying some of my library in my netbook. > > I have done the same and drawn the line there. Once in a while I have downloaded a PDF to distribute to a class electronically, but only of something I already own and want to save myself the tedium of scanning. (Part of the craziness of budget cuts at a state university is that higher-paid faculty now do more of the work that lower-paid staff used to do before they were laid off in the name of balancing the state budget to create jobs.) I may download a whole book and then use my electronic scissors to cut out the one chapter I'd like for them to read and post it on line, which seems about the same as the old-fashioned method of putting a book on reserve in the library and assigning a chapter. Not that students read what's assigned, but that's another story for another day. > > Richard > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l > From jkirk at spro.net Tue Jul 19 09:33:53 2011 From: jkirk at spro.net (JKirkpatrick) Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 09:33:53 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Using (or not using) Library.nu In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 'Library.nu used to be gigapedia.com .' Ah yes, I began to get the picture when I registered with a name that came back as already a user, it was my old gigapedia username. Joanna ------------------------------------- On Behalf Of Margaret Gouin Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 12:57 AM On 19 July 2011 05:58, Richard Hayes wrote: > On another matter of practical reason, do any of you have any > unfounded emotion-based convictions to share on the matter of whether > it is acceptable to download books from a website registered on the > Polynesian Island state of Niue? The site http://library.nu/ has some > 65000 electronic reproductions of books... > This issue of unlicensed downloads has come under discussion recently with regard to the Buddha Torrents (http://buddhisttorrents.blogspot.com/) site: see http://americanbuddhist.blogspot.com/2011/07/stealing-sharing-pre cepts-wisdom.html and subsequent posts. Library.nu used to be gigapedia.com; yes lots of illegal books. I've occasionally downloaded electronic copies of books I already own, for the convenience of carrying some of my library in my netbook. I have moral conflicts over academic pricing: why should a publisher charge over US$100 for an ebook? or even for a hardback, come to that? How free should knowledge be? A vexed question in many ways. -- Margaret Gouin http://independent.academia.edu/ad3b _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From jkirk at spro.net Tue Jul 19 09:54:57 2011 From: jkirk at spro.net (JKirkpatrick) Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 09:54:57 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Using (or not using) Library.nu In-Reply-To: <67088CE3-73F4-439E-8409-E367FDA87A9C@unm.edu> References: <67088CE3-73F4-439E-8409-E367FDA87A9C@unm.edu> Message-ID: <5DBF2911F6704DBCB51A617ACCF6380C@OPTIPLEX> I may download a whole book and then use my electronic scissors to cut out the one chapter I'd like for them to read and post it on line, which seems about the same as the old-fashioned method of putting a book on reserve in the library and assigning a chapter. Not that students read what's assigned, but that's another story for another day. Richard __________________ This routine beats what used to happen when I was in grad school: finding copies of expensive books in the UC Lowie Library with whole chapters razored out. Joanna From horowitz at chass.utoronto.ca Tue Jul 19 10:02:50 2011 From: horowitz at chass.utoronto.ca (Gad Horowitz) Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 12:02:50 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] MARYSVILLE: American Buddhism facing generationalshift References: <2473052E-D0B3-4968-B795-FAE7706F676B@unm.edu> Message-ID: <500FD336D3E2489B921ABED9CA9DAA0B@utor34931c0aec> Perhaps the sapient Quaker knew that God's own language, Hebrew ( though now appropriated by the evil Zionists) names the days likewise--first, second...up to Shabbat. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Hayes" To: "Buddhist discussion forum" Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 7:36 PM Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] MARYSVILLE: American Buddhism facing generationalshift > On Jul 18, 2011, at 16:08 , wrote: > >> Is any particular day of the week especially significant >> to Buddhists? > > It is mighty tempting to be a smart Aleck and say that the only > significant day of the week is today, but I'll withstand the hardships > associated with restraint. Now that you raise the question, Deborah, I > realize I have no idea how ancient Indians thought about days of the week > or whether they even named them. I'm not even sure there was such a > concept as a week. There was the concept of the fortnight, the period > between the new moon and the full moon, and in Indian Buddhism (as in > Indian culture in general), the full moon day and new moon day were days > for doing something that passed as sacred. > > This display of astonishing ignorance on my part is calculated to bring > all manner of knowledgeable people out of their lurking mode to inform us > of what we could both easily learn by consulting Doctor Google. But let > them do the heavy lifting, I say. > > While they are doing the hard work, I'll mention a quaint habit that > Quakers have (aside from the quaint habit of butchering English grammar by > saying things like "What does thee want?") Quakers hated the idea of days > named after pagan gods and months named after Roman emperors and Latin > numbers, so they refused to use those names and referred to the days of > the week as First Day, Second Day and so on, and referred to the months as > First Month (which originally meant March but eventually became January, > to everyone's great inconvenience). > > Written this Second Day, the eighteenth of Seventh Month (this being the > third First Day of Seventh Month by latter day reckoning or the Fifth > Month by the old reckoning), > Friend Richard > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l > From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Tue Jul 19 10:04:53 2011 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 12:04:53 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] MARYSVILLE: American Buddhism facing generationalshift References: <2473052E-D0B3-4968-B795-FAE7706F676B@unm.edu> Message-ID: <001c01cc462d$99100ba0$6400a8c0@Dan> >Quakers hated the idea of days named after pagan gods and months named >after Roman emperors and Latin numbers, so they refused to use those names >and referred to the days of the week as First Day, Second Day and so on, >and referred to the months as First Month (which originally meant March but >eventually became January, to everyone's great inconvenience). Assigning the days of the days of the week numbers instead of names (except the seventh day, which was named Shabbath -- "resting", lit. "sitting") is Biblical, and a practice still followed in Israel and on Jewish calendars. Yom Rishon ("First Day") corresponds to Sunday, Yom Sheini (Second Day) to Monday, etc. The concept of the seven-day week and (one day) weekend (off from work) is also biblical, linked to the Shabbath idea. On the seventh day, everybody, including one's animals, is supposed to rest, desist from work. The two-day weekend was invented in New York City, as a compromise. To observe Jewish sabbath, Jews closed their stores and refrained from business on Friday nights and Saturdays (until after sundown), while Christians closed their shops on Sunday. The Jewish stores were open on Sunday, so, everyone only being off work on Sundays (workdays were longer back then) had that day alone to do serious shopping and they would go to the only stores and businesses open, the Jewish stores. The Christian businesses cried fowl, unfair business practices, and tried to pass a law forbidding Jewish shops from doing business on Sundays. The Jews replied that since they are already closed on Saturday, if they were forced to close on Sundays, that would be two days of no business against the Christians only one day of no business, which would be even more unfair. When the smoke settled, the compromise was that all stores and businesses would henceforth close on Saturday AND Sunday. People got a two-day weekend released from work. Of course, business is business, so soon shops opened on both days, and now one can go shopping all weekend! As for India, the lunar calendar treats the month as consisting of 30 days, and breaks the month into roughly two segments of 15 days each, going from Full moon to New Moon to Full moon. So special days tended to happen on the 15th or 1st. The discrepancy between the lunar year and solar year -- along with the fact that lunar months are not always exactly 30 days -- engendered the seven day week (14 day intervals). Buddhists retained those customs as they brought Indic sensibilities to China, etc. The Chinese used to have very elaborate systems for naming months and years, based on a few ideas of calendrical cycles, though no weekend, until modern times, when they adopted the "first month, second day" -- and the year of the "dynasty" in Taiwan (the "Republican Period" begins in 1911/12, so this would be "Year 100." Mainland simply adopted the secularized western calendar. The first Chinese month used to be mid-February, but these days new years day is Jan. 1st in most of East Asia. They count year first, then month, then day, so today is Year 100 Month 7 Day 19 in Taiwan, and Year 2011 Month 7 Day 19 in Mainland China (and Japan). Based on various numerological ideas, there are auspicious and inauspicious days, and a very popular type of daily calendar (one page for each day) marks in great detail the auspicious and inauspicious aspects of that day for each of the Chinese zodiacs. For more on how time, calendars, etc. developed, a free download from http://library.nu/ will tell you everything you need to know (plus!): David Kelley and Eugene Milone, _Exploring Ancient Skies: A Survey of Ancient and Cultural Astronomy_, Springer, 2011 (Second Edition) Dan From karp at uw.edu.pl Tue Jul 19 10:28:19 2011 From: karp at uw.edu.pl (Artur Karp) Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 18:28:19 +0200 Subject: [Buddha-l] Using (or not using) Library.nu In-Reply-To: <5DBF2911F6704DBCB51A617ACCF6380C@OPTIPLEX> References: <67088CE3-73F4-439E-8409-E367FDA87A9C@unm.edu> <5DBF2911F6704DBCB51A617ACCF6380C@OPTIPLEX> Message-ID: > whole chapters razored out Hey --- I never suspected Americans could be such barbarians. :( In this country people would rather steal books. A softer kind of appropriation. At least such books would after some time surface in some second-hand bookshop, with the owner's stamps carefully removed. In some cases - razored out. A basic difference between communism and capitalism showing itself in the book-lovers' use of razor-blades? Artur From drbob at comcast.net Tue Jul 19 10:48:32 2011 From: drbob at comcast.net (bob Woolery) Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 09:48:32 -0700 Subject: [Buddha-l] value in academic publication In-Reply-To: <010B704E8DA0D94D9F5C81B08045B3DB116AB79A40@EXCH2.nws.oregonstate.edu> References: <5E1887BB-E66D-4270-9FFD-8F1D9F72203D@wheelwrightassoc.com>, <1737F49E-786D-4F71-986B-3C8966EA8E5A@unm.edu> <010B704E8DA0D94D9F5C81B08045B3DB116AB79A40@EXCH2.nws.oregonstate.edu> Message-ID: <61AB3788B9084BB4B864377E71977ED1@BOB> It seems to me that an academic publisher is adding paper and distribution to the intellectual property and its validation, both of which appear to be paid in prestige, but not money. Electronic publication should have broken the logjam, and made academic publication no more expensive than website hosting. Manuscripts of proported original contributions are offered free, or more often, with the promise of a bribe (page charges), and AFAIK, reviewing peers are at best given only nominal compensation. So the underlying value is free, professional validation is cheap, and if published only on the web, paper, binding, and distribution disappear. It seems that the publishers are making a profitable enterprise almost solely on the backs of underpaid academics who, curiously, are also the sole market for these goods. Could academics follow the lead of the original United Artists in movies, and band together to revolutionize journal and text publishing?? The price of access might be one accepted article or ten peer reviews or $50. per year. Bob Woolery, DC stateoftheartchiro.com miraclechiro.com 326 deAnza dr. Vallejo, CA 94589 707 557 5471 From jkirk at spro.net Tue Jul 19 12:32:21 2011 From: jkirk at spro.net (JKirkpatrick) Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 12:32:21 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Using (or not using) Library.nu In-Reply-To: References: <67088CE3-73F4-439E-8409-E367FDA87A9C@unm.edu><5DBF2911F6704DBCB51A617ACCF6380C@OPTIPLEX> Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 10:28 AM > whole chapters razored out Hey --- I never suspected Americans could be such barbarians. :( In this country people would rather steal books. A softer kind of appropriation. At least such books would after some time surface in some second-hand bookshop, with the owner's stamps carefully removed. In some cases - razored out. A basic difference between communism and capitalism showing itself in the book-lovers' use of razor-blades? Artur ------------------------------------ 'A basic difference between communism and capitalism showing itself in the book-lovers' use of razor-blades?' Hm--interesting question :) At most univ. libraries in those days it wasn't easy to steal books. It's easier now, as the moral fibre of the entire planet is approaching senility if not there already. Joanna From jkirk at spro.net Tue Jul 19 13:13:09 2011 From: jkirk at spro.net (JKirkpatrick) Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 13:13:09 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] MARYSVILLE: American Buddhism facinggenerationalshift In-Reply-To: <001c01cc462d$99100ba0$6400a8c0@Dan> References: <2473052E-D0B3-4968-B795-FAE7706F676B@unm.edu> <001c01cc462d$99100ba0$6400a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: 'and a very popular type of daily calendar (one page for each day) marks in great detail the auspicious and inauspicious aspects of that day for each of the Chinese zodiacs.' The Indians have these, too, in all local languages. & astro variations. Indispensable for having a good day. However, lots (maybe even most) of Chinese still celebrate Chinese new Year at the correct times, also in Vietnam. Joanna ----------- -----Original Message----- From: buddha-l-bounces at mailman.swcp.com [mailto:buddha-l-bounces at mailman.swcp.com] On Behalf Of Dan Lusthaus Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 10:05 AM To: Buddhist discussion forum Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] MARYSVILLE: American Buddhism facinggenerationalshift >Quakers hated the idea of days named after pagan gods and months named >after Roman emperors and Latin numbers, so they refused to use those >names and referred to the days of the week as First Day, Second Day and >so on, and referred to the months as First Month (which originally >meant March but eventually became January, to everyone's great inconvenience). Assigning the days of the days of the week numbers instead of names (except the seventh day, which was named Shabbath -- "resting", lit. "sitting") is Biblical, and a practice still followed in Israel and on Jewish calendars. Yom Rishon ("First Day") corresponds to Sunday, Yom Sheini (Second Day) to Monday, etc. The concept of the seven-day week and (one day) weekend (off from work) is also biblical, linked to the Shabbath idea. On the seventh day, everybody, including one's animals, is supposed to rest, desist from work. The two-day weekend was invented in New York City, as a compromise. To observe Jewish sabbath, Jews closed their stores and refrained from business on Friday nights and Saturdays (until after sundown), while Christians closed their shops on Sunday. The Jewish stores were open on Sunday, so, everyone only being off work on Sundays (workdays were longer back then) had that day alone to do serious shopping and they would go to the only stores and businesses open, the Jewish stores. The Christian businesses cried fowl, unfair business practices, and tried to pass a law forbidding Jewish shops from doing business on Sundays. The Jews replied that since they are already closed on Saturday, if they were forced to close on Sundays, that would be two days of no business against the Christians only one day of no business, which would be even more unfair. When the smoke settled, the compromise was that all stores and businesses would henceforth close on Saturday AND Sunday. People got a two-day weekend released from work. Of course, business is business, so soon shops opened on both days, and now one can go shopping all weekend! As for India, the lunar calendar treats the month as consisting of 30 days, and breaks the month into roughly two segments of 15 days each, going from Full moon to New Moon to Full moon. So special days tended to happen on the 15th or 1st. The discrepancy between the lunar year and solar year -- along with the fact that lunar months are not always exactly 30 days -- engendered the seven day week (14 day intervals). Buddhists retained those customs as they brought Indic sensibilities to China, etc. The Chinese used to have very elaborate systems for naming months and years, based on a few ideas of calendrical cycles, though no weekend, until modern times, when they adopted the "first month, second day" -- and the year of the "dynasty" in Taiwan (the "Republican Period" begins in 1911/12, so this would be "Year 100." Mainland simply adopted the secularized western calendar. The first Chinese month used to be mid-February, but these days new years day is Jan. 1st in most of East Asia. They count year first, then month, then day, so today is Year 100 Month 7 Day 19 in Taiwan, and Year 2011 Month 7 Day 19 in Mainland China (and Japan). Based on various numerological ideas, there are auspicious and inauspicious days, and a very popular type of daily calendar (one page for each day) marks in great detail the auspicious and inauspicious aspects of that day for each of the Chinese zodiacs. For more on how time, calendars, etc. developed, a free download from http://library.nu/ will tell you everything you need to know (plus!): David Kelley and Eugene Milone, _Exploring Ancient Skies: A Survey of Ancient and Cultural Astronomy_, Springer, 2011 (Second Edition) Dan _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From aryacitta at hotmail.com Tue Jul 19 13:56:36 2011 From: aryacitta at hotmail.com (David Living) Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 19:56:36 +0000 Subject: [Buddha-l] New Generation Buddhism In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: >Richard's item: >Amid the grey hair and muted clothes of the attendees, the Dharma Punx stood out, with their tattoo-covered arms >and T-shirts the color of traffic cones. Sounds great to me. Reminds me of life in Glasgow in the early 80's.... but then that's old generation stuff! Aryacitta/Dave Living From rhayes at unm.edu Tue Jul 19 16:55:12 2011 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 16:55:12 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] MARYSVILLE: American Buddhism facing generationalshift In-Reply-To: <500FD336D3E2489B921ABED9CA9DAA0B@utor34931c0aec> References: <2473052E-D0B3-4968-B795-FAE7706F676B@unm.edu> <500FD336D3E2489B921ABED9CA9DAA0B@utor34931c0aec> Message-ID: <07383987-641A-4C81-9F31-38DC73C99B9C@unm.edu> On Jul 19, 2011, at 10:02 , Gad Horowitz wrote: > Perhaps the sapient Quaker knew that God's own language, Hebrew ( though now > appropriated by the evil Zionists) names the days likewise--first, > second...up to Shabbat. Ya-ta-he, I had no idea about that, Gad, and probably the early Quakers also had no idea. They almost prode (if that is the past tense of "pride") themselves on not knowing Hebrew, Greek or Latin?some of them could barely read or write English?so it's unlikely they wittingly borrowed the idea from Hebrew. Since they got everything they knew by direct revelation from the Holy Ghost, however, which no doubt used Hebrew conventions as it crammed holy ideas into the thick skulls of northern English shoemakers and hatters, it is obvious that Hebrew was the ultimate source of their quaint habit. I have to admit that all along I have been laboring under the delusion that God's own language is Sanskrit. Thanks for that correction, although it saddens me to learn I have devoted my life to learning the wrong languages. And to think I was planning to learn Navajo, on the advice of a fellow down the hall who assures me that that is God's own language. H?go?ne?, Richard From geoff.zinderdine at gmail.com Tue Jul 19 20:31:05 2011 From: geoff.zinderdine at gmail.com (Geoff Zinderdine) Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 22:31:05 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Using (or not using) Library.nu In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > > This issue of unlicensed downloads has come under discussion recently with > regard to the Buddha Torrents (http://buddhisttorrents.blogspot.com/) > site: > see > > > http://americanbuddhist.blogspot.com/2011/07/stealing-sharing-precepts-wisdom.html > > and subsequent posts. > > Library.nu used to be gigapedia.com; yes lots of illegal books. I've > occasionally downloaded electronic copies of books I already own, for the > convenience of carrying some of my library in my netbook. I have moral > conflicts over academic pricing: why should a publisher charge over US$100 > for an ebook? or even for a hardback, come to that? How free should > knowledge be? > > A vexed question in many ways. > > -- > Margaret Gouin > Personally I think this is a strictly legal matter. I see no possible way to construe the buddhist stricture against taking what is not given as pertaining to this. If someone has a PDF of a book and they make me a copy, they may have broken the law but no one has been deprived of an object which they own. There are more of that object in the world. If we say this deprives the author of revenue they might otherwise receive, that may indeed be true in a functional way but not in terms of taking what is not given. You can not steal something that hasn't come into being yet. Frankly this was the common method in Tibet for students to obtain copies, except they needed to write out books longhand. Technology has changed the distribution model, just as Gutenberg's invention democratized knowledge. Authors and publishers can either adapt to the new model or become extinct. With a laptop and a website, any author can write, produce and distribute high quality books without requiring a publishing house. Of course this means that there is more rubbish in print now than their ever has been, but that is not the point of our discussion. Publishing houses add little value today and trying to badger us into considering a resource to be artificially scarce is not changing anything. Either they will find a new way to monetize their role or something else will take their place. Personally, I download and use whatever I like. If it is a good book, I will usually buy a hard copy to support the author and because I generally prefer reading a book. I can tell you that I feel no pang of guilt about doing something that anyone could do by going into the stacks of any major library now for years. YMMV. Mimeographically yours, Geoff From rhayes at unm.edu Tue Jul 19 21:39:12 2011 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 21:39:12 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Using (or not using) Library.nu In-Reply-To: References: <67088CE3-73F4-439E-8409-E367FDA87A9C@unm.edu> Message-ID: <9643562D-5896-4E2D-AFDE-67FAFAB80B86@unm.edu> On Jul 19, 2011, at 09:26 , Dante Rosati wrote: > what would be the difference between downloading a book from this or > any of the many other similar sources, and taking a book out from a > library? When I take a book out of the library, no one else can use the book until I return it. Kindle users can now lend a Kindle book to a friend for two weeks, during which time the lender cannot open it, just as a lender cannot consult a book that has been lent out to a friend. > and I'm not sure why its ok to download a pdf of a book you own, and > then distribute it (or parts of it) to others who do not own the book, > as Prof. Hayes does for his students? There are legal guidelines that professors are supposed to adhere to. I'm not defending them, but I do obey them. (The Kantian in me dies hard!) The guidelines place a limit on how much of a physical book can be scanned and placed on reserve. It's something like 20%. So if I have a 200-page book, I can photocopy or electronically scan no more than 40 pages to make available to students in my class. If I want to have students read more than that, then I am supposed to request the students to buy the book. It makes no difference whether the photocopied or scanned book is one that I own or that I placed on reserve from the library collection. > musical scores have a "do not copy" notice, with an icon of a xerox > machine with a slash through it, and noone has ever paid any attention > to it, certainly least of all in any library I've ever been in, all of > which have xerox machines that are made extensive use of. You have perhaps just given an example of a piece of behavior that illustrates the malaise of the society in which you live. Richard From bshmr at aol.com Sat Jul 23 12:51:01 2011 From: bshmr at aol.com (Richard Basham) Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2011 12:51:01 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Another Reason for Living Message-ID: <1311447061.26257.4.camel@aims110> Devotees and non-, More for bored (or threatened) scholars to learn and, as a TV advert puts it, a reason for living (or staffing). Richard Basham Home > Asia Pacific > South Asia > India Arunachal to introduce Bhoti in Buddhist-inhabited areas TNN Jul 19, 2011 ITANAGAR, India -- Arunachal Pradesh is all set to introduce Bhoti - one of the richest ancient languages of the world - as a subject in schools across Buddhist-inhabited areas in four districts from the next academic session. The subject will be introduced in all Tawang and West Kameng district schools, including Tuting in Upper Siang and Menchuka in West Siang district. The initiative has been taken up by the department of Karmik and Adhyatmik Affairs (DoKA) in association with the directorate of school elementary education. ... http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php?id=42,10331,0,0,1,0 From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Sun Jul 24 17:54:17 2011 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2011 19:54:17 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] MARYSVILLE: American Buddhism facinggenerationalshift References: <2473052E-D0B3-4968-B795-FAE7706F676B@unm.edu><001c01cc462d$99100ba0$6400a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: <005001cc4a5d$00296ab0$6600a8c0@Dan> I'm off to a conference in Capetown, S.A., and will be traveling without computer (as usual), so I'll be offline until next month -- don't be alarmed if I don't respond. ----- Original Message ----- From: "JKirkpatrick" To: "'Buddhist discussion forum'" Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 3:13 PM Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] MARYSVILLE: American Buddhism facinggenerationalshift > 'and a very popular type of daily calendar (one page for each > day) marks in great detail the auspicious and inauspicious > aspects of that day for each of the Chinese zodiacs.' > > The Indians have these, too, in all local languages. & > astro variations. Indispensable for having a good day. > > However, lots (maybe even most) of Chinese still > celebrate Chinese new Year at the correct times, also in > Vietnam. > > Joanna > > ----------- > > > -----Original Message----- > From: buddha-l-bounces at mailman.swcp.com > [mailto:buddha-l-bounces at mailman.swcp.com] On Behalf Of Dan > Lusthaus > Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 10:05 AM > To: Buddhist discussion forum > Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] MARYSVILLE: American Buddhism > facinggenerationalshift > >>Quakers hated the idea of days named after pagan gods and months > named >>after Roman emperors and Latin numbers, so they refused to use > those >>names and referred to the days of the week as First Day, Second > Day and >>so on, and referred to the months as First Month (which > originally >>meant March but eventually became January, to everyone's great > inconvenience). > > Assigning the days of the days of the week numbers instead of > names (except the seventh day, which was named Shabbath -- > "resting", lit. "sitting") is Biblical, and a practice still > followed in Israel and on Jewish calendars. > Yom Rishon ("First Day") corresponds to Sunday, Yom Sheini > (Second Day) to Monday, etc. > > The concept of the seven-day week and (one day) weekend (off from > work) is also biblical, linked to the Shabbath idea. On the > seventh day, everybody, including one's animals, is supposed to > rest, desist from work. The two-day weekend was invented in New > York City, as a compromise. To observe Jewish sabbath, Jews > closed their stores and refrained from business on Friday nights > and Saturdays (until after sundown), while Christians closed > their shops on Sunday. The Jewish stores were open on Sunday, so, > everyone only being off work on Sundays (workdays were longer > back then) had that day alone to do serious shopping and they > would go to the only stores and businesses open, the Jewish > stores. The Christian businesses cried fowl, unfair business > practices, and tried to pass a law forbidding Jewish shops from > doing business on Sundays. The Jews replied that since they are > already closed on Saturday, if they were forced to close on > Sundays, that would be two days of no business against the > Christians only one day of no business, which would be even more > unfair. When the smoke settled, the compromise was that all > stores and businesses would henceforth close on Saturday AND > Sunday. People got a two-day weekend released from work. Of > course, business is business, so soon shops opened on both days, > and now one can go shopping all weekend! > > As for India, the lunar calendar treats the month as consisting > of 30 days, and breaks the month into roughly two segments of 15 > days each, going from Full moon to New Moon to Full moon. So > special days tended to happen on the 15th or 1st. The discrepancy > between the lunar year and solar year -- along with the fact that > lunar months are not always exactly 30 days -- engendered the > seven day week (14 day intervals). Buddhists retained those > customs as they brought Indic sensibilities to China, etc. > > The Chinese used to have very elaborate systems for naming months > and years, based on a few ideas of calendrical cycles, though no > weekend, until modern times, when they adopted the "first month, > second day" -- and the year of the "dynasty" in Taiwan (the > "Republican Period" begins in 1911/12, so this would be "Year > 100." Mainland simply adopted the secularized western calendar. > The first Chinese month used to be mid-February, but these days > new years day is Jan. 1st in most of East Asia. They count year > first, then month, then day, so today is Year 100 Month 7 Day 19 > in Taiwan, and Year > 2011 Month 7 Day 19 in Mainland China (and Japan). Based on > various numerological ideas, there are auspicious and > inauspicious days, and a very popular type of daily calendar (one > page for each day) marks in great detail the auspicious and > inauspicious aspects of that day for each of the Chinese zodiacs. > > For more on how time, calendars, etc. developed, a free download > from http://library.nu/ will tell you everything you need to know > (plus!): > David Kelley and Eugene Milone, _Exploring Ancient Skies: A > Survey of Ancient and Cultural Astronomy_, Springer, 2011 (Second > Edition) > > Dan > > > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l > > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l > From bogus@does.not.exist.com Thu Jul 14 11:49:22 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 17:49:22 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: When East Met West Under the Buddha's Gaze Stephen Chernin/Agence France-Presse - Getty Images A Buddhist monk looked at a 3rd century Emaciated Siddhartha statue at the Asia Society Museum in New York. By HOLLAND COTTER Published: August 10, 2011 After what seemed like an endless run of geopolitical roadblocks, "The Buddhist Heritage of Pakistan: Art of Gandhara" has finally come, six months late, from Pakistan to Asia Society. Is the show worth all the diplomatic headaches it caused? With its images of bruiser bodhisattvas, polycultural goddesses and occasional flights into stratosphere splendor, it is. That all but a handful of the 75 sculptures are from museums in Lahore and Karachi is in itself remarkable. Any effort to borrow ancient art from South Asia is fraught, even in the best of times. For an entire show of loans to make the trip, and in a period when Pakistan and the United States are barely on speaking terms, is miraculous. (Without the persistent effort of Pakistan's ambassador to the United Nations, Abdullah Hussain Haroon, the exhibition would almost certainly never have happened.) So the show has a cliffhanger back story as an attraction, and some monumental work, like the fantastic relief called "Vision of a Buddha's Paradise." (Dated to the fourth century A.D., it's a kind of flash-mob version of heaven.) -- the rest, including photos at http://tinyurl.com/3pxjz48 Slideshow at http://tinyurl.com/3e324ul Dan From bogus@does.not.exist.com Thu Jul 14 11:49:22 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 17:49:22 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: When East Met West Under the Buddha's Gaze Stephen Chernin/Agence France-Presse - Getty Images A Buddhist monk looked at a 3rd century Emaciated Siddhartha statue at the Asia Society Museum in New York. By HOLLAND COTTER Published: August 10, 2011 After what seemed like an endless run of geopolitical roadblocks, "The Buddhist Heritage of Pakistan: Art of Gandhara" has finally come, six months late, from Pakistan to Asia Society. Is the show worth all the diplomatic headaches it caused? With its images of bruiser bodhisattvas, polycultural goddesses and occasional flights into stratosphere splendor, it is. That all but a handful of the 75 sculptures are from museums in Lahore and Karachi is in itself remarkable. Any effort to borrow ancient art from South Asia is fraught, even in the best of times. For an entire show of loans to make the trip, and in a period when Pakistan and the United States are barely on speaking terms, is miraculous. (Without the persistent effort of Pakistan's ambassador to the United Nations, Abdullah Hussain Haroon, the exhibition would almost certainly never have happened.) So the show has a cliffhanger back story as an attraction, and some monumental work, like the fantastic relief called "Vision of a Buddha's Paradise." (Dated to the fourth century A.D., it's a kind of flash-mob version of heaven.) -- the rest, including photos at http://tinyurl.com/3pxjz48 Slideshow at http://tinyurl.com/3e324ul Dan _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1392 / Virus Database: 1520/3827 - Release Date: 08/11/11 From bogus@does.not.exist.com Thu Jul 14 11:49:22 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 17:49:22 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: translation of part of Kuiji's report for how Xuanzang acquired Dharmapala's commentary on the Trimsika: -- At that time, there was a layperson, Hs??an-chien ?????? (lit. ???profound/mysterious mirror???!? Taish?? gives the name as ??????) who could recognize the difference between phoenix and pheasant feathers, and could easily track the footprints of a unicorn [on land] or a dragon hidden on the sea bottom (i.e., he could see that Dharmap??la was special, though ordinary to look at). He put whatever he had of value at [Dharmap??la???s] disposal. His sincerity and honesty grew ever deeper through the years. Bodhisattva [Dharmap??la] guided him through the many doctrines and answered [all his questions] with this commentary. Then he commanded him, saying: ???After I die, from whomever comes to observe [me], take one tael of gold. Use your ability for discerning spiritual talents to recognize that special one who will be able to teach and understand [this commentary]???. The final end of that Profound Guide (i.e., Dharmap??la) gradually drew near. The Bodhisattva???s fame rose in India, and one heard about his treatises and interpretations in other lands as well. Who, with any sort of spiritual sensitivity, could fail to cherish his magnificence? [Since] if one hears it in the morning, one can die in the evening [fulfilled], who would be too stingy [to offer] gold and jewels [to behold him]? [After he died, the place] was bustling with the thoroughfare of hordes coming to see the Worthy, and soon valuables were piled as high as the Five Sacred Mountains. A steady line of spectators streamed in from the five regions of India [in such mass] as had never before been seen. The Great Master [Hs??an-tsang] visited all the sacred places, and he had the natural gift for knowing the genuine from the false. [When he arrived at Dharmap??la???s shrine, he said,] ???This lacks even a trace of spirituality and is utterly sacrilegious. How could you leave [Buddhist] teachings so open to ridicule???? Upon hearing such marvelous reasoning [the layman ] humbly approached and listened further [to Hs??an-tsang]. The layman, recalling the previous sage???s [i.e., Dharmap??la???s] last words, [thought] ???Now this Worthy must be the right one!??? So he gave [Hs??an-tsang] this ???humble??? text along with [a copy of] Dharmap??la???s Commentary to the Pa??caskandha-prak??ra???a. -- Dan From bogus@does.not.exist.com Thu Jul 14 11:49:22 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 17:49:22 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: Pro-Tibetan groups are criticizing the Chinese for condemning three monks who helped a 16 yr old monk burn himself (he died the next day). Am I alone in finding all this side-taking ethically complex? Dan Full article (minus photos) below: --- Tibetan monks get stiff prison terms in burning death Chinese officials sentence three Tibetan monks as accessories to murder for having helped another monk burn himself to death in a political protest. The sentences of 10, 11 and 13 years are condemned by Tibetan exile organizations and international human rights groups. By Barbara Demick, Los Angeles Times August 30, 2011, 11:37 a.m. Reporting from Beijing??? China has sentenced three Tibetan monks as accessories to murder for having helped another monk burn himself to death in a political protest. In the closely watched case in Sichuan province, Drongdru, the uncle of the monk who committed suicide, was ordered imprisoned for 11 years for "intentional homicide" in hiding the young monk, Phuntsog, and preventing him from getting medical treatment. Two other monks were sentenced to 10 and 13 years in prison after a separate trial Tuesday in which they were accused of "plotting, instigating and assisting" in the self-immolation of the 16-year-old monk, according to Tibetan exile groups. "This is a whole new turn in the way the Chinese state deals with protest. We haven't seen this serpentine use of the law before," said Robert Barnett, a Tibet expert at Columbia University. He predicted that the stiff prison sentences for the three monks at Sichuan's restive Kirti monastery will only exacerbate tensions. "This is going to be seen by Tibetans as a manipulation of the law to intimidate people further." The prison sentences were condemned Tuesday by the Tibetan Center for Human Rights and Democracy, run by Tibetan exiles in India, as well as by international human rights groups. Phuntsog set himself on fire in mid-March and was hidden inside the monastery by fellow monks to prevent him from being taken by the police. He died the next day. The death triggered six weeks of the most intense clashes between Chinese and Tibetans since riots in the Tibetan capital of Lhasa in March 2008. At the end, more than 300 monks were seized from the monastery and Tibetan exiles alleged that two villagers were killed trying to prevent police from taking the monks. Self-immolations by Tibetan monks had been relatively rare as the Dalai Lama, their spiritual leader, condemns the practice, but they have not ceased. On Aug. 15, a 29-year-old monk from Nyitso monastery doused himself with gasoline and burned to death outside local government buildings, also in Sichuan province. The monk, Tsewang Norbu, had been distributing pamphlets at the time, calling for the return of the Dalai Lama. Tibetan exiles blame tensions at the monasteries on persecution by Chinese authorities. Since 2008, monks have been rounded up repeatedly and forced to attend "patriotic education" sessions in which they are ordered to denounce the Dalai Lama and pledge their allegiance to China. In the monasteries where monks have killed themselves, authorities have also cut off utilities as a means of applying pressure. barbara.demick at latimes.com From bogus@does.not.exist.com Thu Jul 14 11:49:22 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 17:49:22 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: Buddhist intellectual discourse owes its development to a dynamic interplay between primary source materials and subsequent interpretation, yet scholarship on Indian Buddhism has long neglected to privilege one crucial series of texts. Commentaries on Buddhist scriptures, particularly the s??tras, offer rich insights into the complex relationship between Buddhist intellectual practices and the norms that inform???and are informed by???them. Evaluating these commentaries in detail for the first time, Richard F. Nance revisits???and rewrites???the critical history of Buddhist thought, including its unique conception of doctrinal transmission. Attributed to such luminaries as N??g??rjuna, Vasubandhu, Dign??ga, and ????ntideva, scriptural commentaries have long played an important role in the monastic and philosophical life of Indian Buddhism. Nance reads these texts against the social and cultural conditions of their making, establishing a solid historical basis for the interpretation of key beliefs and doctrines. He also underscores areas of contention, in which scholars debate what it means to speak for, and as, a Buddha. Throughout these texts, Buddhist commentators struggle to deduce and characterize the speech of Buddhas and teach others how to convey and interpret its meaning. At the same time, they demonstrate the fundamental dilemma of trying to speak on behalf of Buddhas. Nance also investigates the notion of ???right speech??? as articulated by Buddhist texts and follows ideas about teaching as imagined through the common figure of a Buddhist preacher. He notes the use of epistemological concepts in scriptural interpretation and the protocols guiding the composition of scriptural commentary, and provides translations of three commentarial guides to better clarify the normative assumptions organizing these works. "Deftly engaging Indian Buddhist texts that represent a wide range of genres and intellectual disciplines, Richard Nance???s nuanced and beautifully written book attends carefully to the ways in which Buddhist intellectuals variously elaborated and exemplified the norms (interpretive, epistemic, pedagogical, and moral) meant to determine which acts of speech and writing ought to count as authoritatively Buddhist. Nance???s sensitive readings are guided throughout by a sophisticated concern???of great timeliness for the fields of religious studies???with the question of how religiously normative rhetoric affects history. Refuting the idea that we can sharply distinguish questions of what historical Buddhists ???actually did??? from normative accounts of what they ought to have done, Nance compellingly shows how Indian Buddhist commentators and other intellectuals authored texts that at once transmitted and constituted a tradition???while showing, too, the problem with thinking about their intellectual activity in only one of these ways. This important book should be read not only by students of Buddhist thought and history but also by students of religious studies who aim to overcome the facile dichotomy of ???theory??? and ???practice.???" ??? Dan Arnold, Divinity School at the University of Chicago, and author of _Buddhists, Brahmins, and Belief: Epistemology in Indian and Buddhist Philosophy_ and _Brains, Buddhas, and Believing: The Problem of Intentionality in Classical Buddhist and Cognitive-Scientific Philosophy of Mind_ From bogus@does.not.exist.com Thu Jul 14 11:49:22 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 17:49:22 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: <> Prapod Assavavirulhakarn is dean of the Faculty of Arts at Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand, where he is also assistant professor and head of the Department of Eastern Languages. He is co-author of _Past Lives of the Buddha: Wat Si Chum???Art, Architecture and Inscriptions_. Regards, Artur Karp From bogus@does.not.exist.com Thu Jul 14 11:49:22 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 17:49:22 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: ???? ??OpenOffice will not be dead - in the worst case, ???? ??there could be a different license model in my opinion Apache is big enough, that any ever released OO version will be available on the official OO download page for a "really" reasonable time. What the 'better integration' of LibreOffice into Ubuntu and the version management of Ubuntu, as well which 'pre installed' Ubuntu versions to choose for a laptop, i would recommend: ???? ??first make sure that your Ubuntu version is a version with 'long time support' ???? ??(marked in the version overview as "LTS" e.g. '10.04 LTS' ???? ?? ???? ??the desktop version is fair enough for any user, who does not want ???? ??to run a 7*24 hour web server (what you normally would do on a ???? ??desktop machine) ???? ?? ???? ??don't do any update to an intermediate version ???? ?? ???? ??don't update the 'version' of your Ubuntu online - just install the fixes ???? ??for your system and the software you use ???? ?? ???? ??(although it is recommended by Ubuntu to update always to the 'newest' ???? ??version online - this resulted for a desktop machine of friends in a ???? ??system what didn't boot ???? ?? ???? ??trying to fix the system and setting up a 'fresh machine' and to restore ???? ??the data backup took more time than ???? ?? ???? ??backup data - setting up from a installation medium (DVD) - restore data backup) ???? ?? ???? ??*never* - really *never* install *any* updates, if you have to do time critical ???? ??mission on your machine - this 'rule' is valid for 'any' operating system ???? ?? ???? ??there is always a way to install "third party" software (either commercial ???? ??license or under one of the "free" license models as long as your operating ???? ??system is supported by this software) ???? ?? ???? ??this is - as far as i know - true especially for OO on newer versions of Ubuntu ???? ?? As a resume: "be smart enough to read the manuals and to maintain your operating system by yourself" - or get advice from some friend, who has proven to be able to run a 'clean' machine for a reasonable amount of time - Ralf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubuntu_%28operating_system%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ubuntu_releases From bogus@does.not.exist.com Thu Jul 14 11:49:22 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 17:49:22 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: Rabbit to gain the Cat. Regards Kate -----Original Message----- From: buddha-l-bounces at mailman.swcp.com [mailto:buddha-l-bounces at mailman.swcp.com] On Behalf Of Jo Sent: Friday, 30 December 2011 5:44 PM To: 'Buddhist discussion forum' Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] New Buddhist Topic--Buddhism and Cats However, in Vietnam tradition the cat made it to the zodiac. They are very aware of their cat substituting for the Chinese pig. On Behalf Of Kate Marshall Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2011 2:53 PM Interesting enough the cat also misses out when the Jade King assigns twelve animals to the twelve Earthly Branches of Chinese astrology. In this instance, the cat did receive an invitation to attend the ceremony. He was tricked by the rat into not attending and the pig was chosen in the cat?s place. Regards Kate -----Original Message----- From: buddha-l-bounces at mailman.swcp.com [mailto:buddha-l-bounces at mailman.swcp.com] On Behalf Of Katherine Masis Sent: Thursday, 29 December 2011 2:40 PM To: buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com Subject: [Buddha-l] New Buddhist Topic--Buddhism and Cats This is a genuine topic I have wanted to pursue.? Apologies if it has already been discussed, just refer me to the year and I'll look for the thread. ? Several years ago, I heard that "the only animal that was not invited to the Buddha's Parinirvana was the cat."? This statement was accompanied by all the usual stereotypes about cats: they're mean, treacherous, etc., which is why they were excluded from the guest list.? Where in the world did that statement come from?? And who wrote out the invitations? ? Katherine Masis P.S.? I live with 3 lovely, sweet cats: Selma, Estrella and Vicente. _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From bogus@does.not.exist.com Thu Jul 14 11:49:22 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 17:49:22 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: Rabbit to gain the Cat. Regards Kate -----Original Message----- From: buddha-l-bounces at mailman.swcp.com [mailto:buddha-l-bounces at mailman.swcp.com] On Behalf Of Jo Sent: Friday, 30 December 2011 5:44 PM To: 'Buddhist discussion forum' Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] New Buddhist Topic--Buddhism and Cats However, in Vietnam tradition the cat made it to the zodiac. They are very aware of their cat substituting for the Chinese pig. On Behalf Of Kate Marshall Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2011 2:53 PM Interesting enough the cat also misses out when the Jade King assigns twelve animals to the twelve Earthly Branches of Chinese astrology. In this instance, the cat did receive an invitation to attend the ceremony. He was tricked by the rat into not attending and the pig was chosen in the cat?s place. Regards Kate -----Original Message----- From: buddha-l-bounces at mailman.swcp.com [mailto:buddha-l-bounces at mailman.swcp.com] On Behalf Of Katherine Masis Sent: Thursday, 29 December 2011 2:40 PM To: buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com Subject: [Buddha-l] New Buddhist Topic--Buddhism and Cats This is a genuine topic I have wanted to pursue.? Apologies if it has already been discussed, just refer me to the year and I'll look for the thread. ? Several years ago, I heard that "the only animal that was not invited to the Buddha's Parinirvana was the cat."? This statement was accompanied by all the usual stereotypes about cats: they're mean, treacherous, etc., which is why they were excluded from the guest list.? Where in the world did that statement come from?? And who wrote out the invitations? ? Katherine Masis P.S.? I live with 3 lovely, sweet cats: Selma, Estrella and Vicente. _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From bogus@does.not.exist.com Thu Jul 14 11:49:22 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 17:49:22 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: censor or dominate me in this world. Your demand is naked, lacking rationale, more typical of tyrants than educators. I imagine this is obvious to most on this list. So: Hey, dude, instead of attempting to be my jailer, try some buddhist practice or something benign to reduce the suffering in life. On The Other Hand (OTOH), IF you wish, preserve tradition (unchanging, habituated self), in this case, keeping the fallacious retorts flowing. The consequences will not change. Richard Basham From bogus@does.not.exist.com Thu Jul 14 11:49:22 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 17:49:22 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: (I read this just yesterday in a book by Uchiyama Roshi, then found the above version online.) cheers Sally On 23 January 2012 14:03, Dan Lusthaus wrote: > > > So: Hey, dude, instead of attempting to be my jailer, > > Trying to give advice about not giving advice? You don't get how mirrors > work, do you? Your twisted animus is evident to everyone reading your > messages. Knock yourself out. > From bogus@does.not.exist.com Thu Jul 14 11:49:22 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 17:49:22 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: Conservatives paint self-indulgent liberals as insufferably absent on urgent national issues, while liberals say fear-mongering conservatives are fixated on exaggerated dangers to the country. A new study from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln suggests there are biological truths to such broad brushstrokes. ... The study, funded in part by the National Science Foundation, is in a forthcoming edition of the journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B and was authored by Dodd, Hibbing and Smith, as well as UNL's Amanda Balzer, Carly Jacobs and Michael Gruszczynski. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-01/uon-tbo010412.php