[Buddha-l] Acting on emptiness
Franz Metcalf
franz at mind2mind.net
Tue Oct 21 11:04:49 MDT 2008
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
More information about the buddha-l
mailing list