[Buddha-l] Claude Anshin Thomas/ approaches to "nonduality"

[curt]

It looked like fun. It was fun. I offer no other excuse or explanation.
Reading his book is fun, too, btw. He was another New Mexican,
wan't he? Or maybe I'm mixing him up with someone else. I came
across him because I realized that I had never read a book with the
word "Ontology" in the title (well - his has it in the sub-title). And
I wanted to read a book about ontology in which the author actually
bothers to explain how the word will be used in the book. Halbfass
gives the best overview of what ontology is, where it comes from,
and why its interesting that I have ever read (not that I've read that
many - but I've read a few).

But, Richard, are you trying to say that I shouldn't ask these kinds of
questions? Should we simply accept the superficial blather that tries
to put the words "Buddhism" and "peace" next to each other without
ever bothering to explain what the supposed connection is? Isn't that
a lot like what Dick Cheney does with "Iraq" and "9-11"? Shouldn't
Buddha-l demand to know where Buddhists have been hiding their
supposed insights into a more peaceful world for the last 2500 years,
and why these insights have never actually been put into practice in
societies where Buddhism is a major influence?

- Curt

Richard P. Hayes wrote:

>On Tue, 2005-05-10 at 10:45 -0400, curt wrote:
>
>  
>
>>I can blame Wilmelm Halbfass in part for this post. I am reading his
>>"On Being and What There Is" right now. He makes a regular
>>habit (at least in the opening chapters) of constructing complete
>>paragraphs out of questions. It looked like fun - so I thought I
>>would try it.
>>    
>>
>
>Why? What effect did it have on you? Did you find it difficult to pose
>questions without fishing for a hoped-for answer? Do you think perhaps
>all posts to buddha-l should consist only of questions? Would it give
>buddha-l a kinder and gentler tone? Would buddha-l still be buddha-l if
>it were not filled with abrasive posts?
>
>  
>