[Buddha-l] Re: Multi-cause vs single-cause

[Stanley J. Ziobro II]

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005, Richard P. Hayes wrote:

> On Tue, 2005-03-15 at 14:28 -0500, Stanley J. Ziobro II wrote:
>
> > Do you, Joanna (and Richard), object to God talk per se or to certain
> > usages thereof?
>
> Speaking only for myself, I have no objection to any kind of talk,
> provided it ends when all the points have been made. The only sort of
> discussion that begins to strike me as fruitless is that in which one or
> more parties seem determined to get the last word and begin to repeat
> themselves.

I cannot help but agree with you here, Richard.

> > It seems to me that the sort of God talk objected to (at least by
> > Richard) is that utilized by his beloved right-wing brothers and
> > sisters.
>
> Any sort of fundamentalism or dogmatism grates on my nerves. These days
> I am receiving e-mails from a forum of student socialists (since I
> agreed to be their faculty sponsor), and I find it just about the most
> irritating stuff I have ever read. Although I may be a little left of
> center (especially in a country such as the USA, which is, by
> international standards, pretty far right of center), I really cannot
> stomach left-wing sloganeering and triumphalism any more than I can
> stomach the same sort of rhetoric from the right. Moreover, I admire a
> number of commentators who are far enough to my right that I almost need
> a telescope to see them.

Again, yes.  Any sort of reductionism that limits one's cognitional
horizons soley to a series or set of propositions (the known known)
places severe limits to human authenticity.

> On religious matters, I think quite a few readers of buddha-l would find
> that I am as ready to pounce on Buddhist blind faith as on any other
> flavor--probably more ready to pounce on Buddhist blind faith than any
> other flavor. (I am, after all, the author of a talk entitled "No faith,
> please, we're Buddhists," which is packaged with three other items in a
> thing called "A Buddhist's reflections on religious conversion," which
> can be downloaded for your delectation from
> http://www.unm.edu/~rhayes/conversion.pdf )

I've noticed.  Thanks for the URL.

> > But what of God talk that is concerned with perceptions of reality,
> > and the like?
>
> There are few people in the world whom I admire as much as Swami
> Vivekananda and George Fox. It is difficult to read a paragraph by
> either one of them that does not contain several references to God, and
> it never bothers me in the least. I also love reading Saint Augustine,
> the desert fathers, and such poets as Kabir and Rumi. And, as you
> probably know, I very much admire Jim Wallis. Intelligence and sincerity
> in God-talk, or any other kind of talk, is always welcome here. But some
> discourse, even here on buddha-l, does fall a little short on both those
> virtues, and one does occasionally sense a certain amount of
> poseurishness and obsessiveness.

I haven't read anything by George Fox or Jim Wallis, and I've read little of
Swami Vivekananda, but the others you mention are familiar to me.  I've
recently been giving talks to a small group on the _Historia Monachorum_
and have attempted to impress upon them the implications of the monastic
ascetical effort.  The sheer humanity of these Fathers and their
attainments are incitements to greater practice and openess to the Other.

> > I'd hate to think the same sort of bigotry of which the right-wing God
> > talkers are accused is being transposed and manifesting itself here.
>
> So far I have not seen any evidence of that sort of bigotry here, but if
> it does manifest, be sure it will earn the author thereof the right to
> be moderated and to have at least some messages rejected by our team of
> keen-sighted but fair-minded moderators.

You've understood my remarks in the spirit in which I made them.

Regards,

Stan Ziobro