[Buddha-l] Re: Aama do.sa I

[Dan Lusthaus]

Joy,

As you have redefined "surrender," it would seem you mean something more
like "let be" (e.g., Heidegger's Gelassenheit -- perhaps you are
uncomfortable with possible associations to laissez-faire, which has taken
on capitalist connotations?) than what is normally meant by surrender.
Letting be has its virtues, but sometimes one has to take control and direct
things. Letting be -- aside from passivity problems, which are
significant -- can also become very unethical, and an excuse for not doing
what needs to be done. The ethical position would be a middle way -- that
is, by analysis, figure out when, where, how to direct one's action, and
when, where, how to desist. Too many missionaries is a problem; letting
dangerous trends increase and intensify is also a problem. Knowing when,
where, how and why to intercede, rather than interfere, requires analysis.

> > Huayan only pretends to disagree by deferring the gradual -- Sudden
> >Enlightenment is *followed* by Gradual Practice.
>
> Yes, I somehow agree with that, although I wouldn't use the word gradual,
because that suggests an increase of some kind. I see it more as
maintenance, centeredness, but then without the notion of holding onto
something.

I thought you might.


> > Actual
> >enlightenment is a long way off for them, anuttara-samyak-sambodhi,
> >somewhere in the infinite kalpa future. But, tautologically, they
believe,
> >to enter the path is already to be guaranteed the end, so the telos is
> >already present.
>
> Which procures some peace and rest so one can walk the path placidly.

Maybe. Or maybe it just becomes a transcendental justifier for doing what
one does with complacency, assigning it greater scope and import and
righteousness than it deserves. In order to be complacent. And
self-justified.

> >We already do, and it is not perfect.
>
> But then nothing is, sabbam dukkham. This self-realising tautological idea
of imperfection may hurt you...

The order is reversed. We are not (or should not) be talking about original
sin here, or some other silly idea -- which puts the telos in the past (how
confused is that?). Pain, suffering, dukkha, discomfort, etc., are physical,
emotional, mental, etc. indicators that things are not right. Pollution
doesn't disappear because I surrender to it, or let it be. Complacency and
compliency don't clean the air, water, food, and mental garbage. One fixes
what is broken -- rather than looking around for things that are fine and
tinkering and modifying with them until one breaks them. There are plenty of
broken things around in need of fixing.

 >"Mourir pour des idées, d'accord, mais de mort lente" (Georges Brassens).

This had me laughing out loud! And the slower, the better!


> Aha, I see an agreement. Effort stands in the way of figuring out things.
I imagined that your figuring out was will-driven and with effort, but here
you seem to suggest another possibility.

Again, middle way. Some things require more effort than others. There are
least resistance-producing ways of trying to get things done (what the
Daoists called wuwei), but Buddhists do encourage viirya -- heroic,
energetic effort. Since you admire the Vimalakirti, it might be useful to
consider that it usually had a companion volume, which almost all the
Chinese translators of the Vimalakirti also translated (the earliest Chinese
versions of both are no longer extant), and which Lamotte also translated:
The "Suura.mgamasamaadhi-suutra (not to be confused with the tantra-tinged
Chinese pseudepigraphic text with a similar title), which Lamotte translates
as La Concentration de la march héroïque. Does "heroic progress" make you
uncomfortable? Can you imagine a version of that which does not imply Onward
Christian Soldiers (I will omit our updated Godwin reference) and progresses
in a different way, in a different direction?


> Perhaps he ought to have said the spiritual life, considering what I wrote
earlier about religion and spirituality. Religion always gets caught up with
politics.

I don't think changing the word alters anything. James' definition remains
objectionable.

Dan