[Buddha-l] Acting on emptiness

[Franz Metcalf]

Dear List,

Richard Nance lets Buddhism, or at least Richard Hayes, off the hook  
perhaps too easily. Let me quote Richard N. quoting Richard H. and  
commenting:

>> That answer also seems inadequate, since universal love can be  
>> based on things other than an awareness of emptiness
>
> Inadequate for what purpose, exactly? Determining the extent of a
> person's Buddhist realization, perhaps. But an answer like that makes
> it sound as though the issue comes down to a perceived need to mark
> terrain as Buddhist; I assume that such territorial pissing isn't the
> sort of rationale you had in mind.

I would not make such an assumption--at least about Buddhism the  
religion. In fact, I'm tempted to say Buddhism *must* attempt to  
distinguish wholesome behavior growing from understanding ultimate  
truth from wholesome behavior growing from universal love (and any  
other source). It must do so precisely to define its territory and  
thus support its needfulness. If knowing ultimate truth--and knowing  
it through the mediation of Buddhist conceptions--is not the sine qua  
non of such behavior, then what is the need for Buddhism? The current  
Dalai Lama starts sliding down this slippery slope when he says all  
that is needful is to be happy as possible, not to accomplish this  
through Buddhism.

Perhaps Nāgārjuna and Garfield and Hayes and Nance would agree (as  
would I), but 2500 years of Buddhist institutional tradition argues  
against taking such a position. Without the preservation of the  
tradition and the physical institutions, how will Buddhism help folks  
(even those in other traditions) toward compassion and fearlessness?  
And without the preservation of exclusive truth claims, how will the  
institutions survive?

As for the two truths themselves, here's from Saraha’s Dohakoṣa:

      Those who believe in existence are dumb as cows.
      Those who don’t are even dumber.

Franz