[Buddha-l] Moment of individuation

[curt]

In "Entry Into the Inconceivable" Thomas Cleary
puts forth an very interesting idea that I think is
directly applicable to this discussion. I will paraphrase
since I don't have it right in front of me, but he says
that looking at things from multiple perspectives is
actually considered a "practice" in Hua Yen Buddhism.
To be honest I don't even recall of Cleary says that
this "practice" has a direct scriptural basis in the Avatamsaka
(which I have only read bits and pieces of) or in some other
Sutra(s) or if it is his own extrapolation.

Whatever scriptural basis it might have, this idea of
cultivating multiple points of view sounds like a good
idea to me. And it also sounds like it is in agreement with
the general Buddhist approach of focussing on the alleviation
of suffering and the promotion of happiness, rather than on
absolute, abstract, metaphysical "truth".

In reference to the "soul" question - clearly there can be
problems with any point of view. Insistence on a separate,
non-physical soul can lead to a dualistic view that pits
the body against the soul. I would even go so far as to
suggest that perhaps the statement that "matter itself does not
function" is already going too far (in my opinion) down that
dualistic road. One can both embrace the idea of non-physical
entities, like the soul, but at the same time not necessarily view
matter as inherently dead and lifeless "by itself". My favorite
example of a more "balanced" view is that found in the Hermetic
text the "Poimandres", in which matter and soul fall in love with
each other - resulting in the human species.

- Curt

Richard P. Hayes wrote:

>On Wed, 2005-04-13 at 20:15 -0400, Stanley J. Ziobro II wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Matter itself does not function; just look at a stone.  Whatever it is
>>that brings about life, movement, growth, psychic functioning, and
>>intelligence is an organizing principle that cannot be reduced to chemical
>>bonds, etc.  With regard to your second statement, I take that to be your
>>opinion.
>>    
>>
>
>Surely when dealing with these questions, we are all dealing only with
>opinions, for the evidence is inconclusive. Why is it less an opinion to
>say that matter itself does not function than to say that some kinds of
>matter do function without anything but mechanical principles? Just look
>at a human (or an amoeba's) body for examples of things that are
>regarded by many as nothing but matter arranged in special ways through
>random mutations.
>
>When we have no means of solving an issue using reason, then the best
>strategy, I think, might be to follow the advice of William James. Let
>each of us believe what we are able, given our social conditioning, and
>let each of us acknowledge that others have other conditioning than our
>own. To use James's terms, what is a living hypothesis for some is not a
>living hypothesis for others.
>
>Now I believe I'll go take a walk.
>
>  
>