[Buddha-l] David Loy

[Jamie Hubbard]

Richard Hayes wrote:
> Loy is just about the only person I have read who has convinced me (for a 
> minute or two) that there might actually be something of value in 
> non-dualism. 
David is indeed a great fellow, wonderful writer, and persuasive critic, 
but I have to say that I disagree on this one-- perhaps my aversion to 
non-duality just runs deeper than yours, Richard, but I found the 
various non-dualities that he treated in his book seemed to merge 
together in a way that made them "all one." And, like the famous joke 
about the DL asking the hot dog vendor to "make him one with 
everything," I just don't find that very appealing. I also don't think 
that the hot-dog vendor joke should perhaps be put in the mouth of 
Ramakrishna or somebody other than the DL.

I also find his critiques of current culture, institutions, and "lack" 
unconvincing and somehow looking to the past as free of these problems 
of our time-- like Hershock's _Reinventing the Wheel_ critique of 
technology, I just don't think it works as a Buddhist critique. The 
Buddha identified the roots of dis-ease as greed, hatred, and ignorance 
a long, long time ago, and I really don't feel that much has changed in 
all these years. The critique of current culture, technology, 
globalization, capitalism, whatever is great and close to my own 
politics, but I just don't see that it has the sort of Buddhist currency 
with which David wishes to spin it. As I said, I doubt that the world 
has any more suffering than it did in the Buddha's time-- after all, he 
did identify *all* conditioned things as dukkha, no?

Jamie
> He is a good stylist and writes thought-provoking material. AND, 
> as if that isn't enough, I'm pretty sure he knows how to spell Ken Wilber's 
> name, even though he seems to resist temptations to actually write sentences 
> in which the name "Wilber" appears. (My spelling checker is beeping and 
> blinking ferociously, in a cybernetic counterpart of a caterwaul. It demands 
> that I change "Wilber" to "Wilbur." But without Ken's permission, how dare I 
> comply? If I change the spelling, the terrorists will have won.)
>
>