From rhayes at unm.edu Tue Jun 1 09:51:09 2010 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2010 09:51:09 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Emptiness and not being able to imagine dying [confused] In-Reply-To: <4C0459A1.1060902@roadrunner.com> References: <312538.43427.qm@web86607.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <4C0459A1.1060902@roadrunner.com> Message-ID: <8E4CF4FA-BEDD-41B1-8112-D7283C83CE95@unm.edu> On May 31, 2010, at 18:51, Bob Zeuschner wrote: > I guess I'm not clear about what you are asking. You have said here in a clear and diplomatic way pretty much exactly what my experience with this thread has been. Thanks for seeking clarification. Perhaps clarity will emerge. Dick From lemmett at talk21.com Tue Jun 1 10:25:27 2010 From: lemmett at talk21.com (lemmett at talk21.com) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2010 16:25:27 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [Buddha-l] Bot being able to imagine annihilation [confused] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <927793.41201.qm@web86605.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Well my motivation is that I think that there is especially good reason to think that people can't be annihilated from the inside.? My question, is whether this is non Buddhist and if not what else does the Buddha say about phenomenological annihilation. I am interested in an answer from any form of Buddhism; so that's whether there is agreement on the issue or who disagrees with who. That might appear confusing again so I'll add what I think I already know Buddhists believe about annihilation. The Buddha argued against annihilation but it is not clear (to me) if this was just because of the presuppositions of annihilationists or whether I am right and phenomenological mortality is inconceivable. He gave a four fold negation of his existence after death but again I don't understand whether this means I am right and phenomenological mortality is inconceivable or even if it does or does not occur. I hope that is clearer. From lemmett at talk21.com Tue Jun 1 10:26:22 2010 From: lemmett at talk21.com (lemmett at talk21.com) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2010 16:26:22 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [Buddha-l] Not being able to imagine annihilation [confused] In-Reply-To: <8E4CF4FA-BEDD-41B1-8112-D7283C83CE95@unm.edu> Message-ID: <354615.4099.qm@web86606.mail.ird.yahoo.com> >> Is there no conceivable alternative to the tetralemma or just no?? >> alternative at all? >According to Nagarjuna, the four alternatives cover all possible?? >answers that can be given to a question. >> If the latter I just don't understand >So tell me in what ways your life would be improved if you did?? >understand. >> unless I accept that there is no tathagata that dies... >Perhaps there is no tathagata. So how can something that does not?? exist die? >Think of presuppositional failure. It may help take some of the?? mystery out of the enigma. >Remember this: Buddhism is incompatible with mystery. If you find this?? mysterious, you're not yet thinking as a Buddhist. I do understand what is meant by a presuppositional failure but the only presupposition that I can think of that might be wrong is that in fact there is no tathagata that dies. However this seems very mysterious and so I wanted to think more like a Buddhist about this. From rhayes at unm.edu Tue Jun 1 10:58:38 2010 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2010 10:58:38 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Bot being able to imagine annihilation [confused] In-Reply-To: <927793.41201.qm@web86605.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <927793.41201.qm@web86605.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <38063A00-7E6B-4247-96BC-910A45716F29@unm.edu> On Jun 1, 2010, at 10:25 AM, lemmett at talk21.com wrote: > That might appear confusing again so I'll add what I think I already know Buddhists believe about annihilation. The Buddha argued against annihilation but it is not clear (to me) if this was just because of the presuppositions of annihilationists or whether I am right and phenomenological mortality is inconceivable. The former. The Buddha said that there are two views that are not at all helpful in eradicating eliminable forms of discontent. One view is that the self is annihilated at death (or in nirvana). The ohter is that the self continues to exist after death (or in nirvana). This claim about the unhelpfulness of those views can be interpreted in several ways. One way is to emphasis that no matter what one's view about personal survival may be, one experience of life as unsatisfactory will remain unchanged. Since views about such things are not the root cause of discontent, one's time is better spent in dealing with those matters that are the root causes of one's discontent. So on this reading, the question of annihilation continued existence is simply irrelevant. A second way is to emphasis that both lemmas presuppose that there is a self in the first place. But if that presupposition is false, then neither of the two alternatives can be true, just as if I do not eat meat, it cannot be true that I will continue to eat meat and it cannot be true that I will stop eating meat. One contemporary Buddhist author who has favored this interpretation is Thich Nhat Hanh, who has said words to this effect: enlightenment (or nirvana) is not annihilating the self, but discovering that there never was a self to be annihilated. > He gave a four fold negation of his existence after death but again I don't understand whether this means I am right and phenomenological mortality is inconceivable or even if it does or does not occur. The four lemmas are choices of what might happen if there is a tathagata in the first place. If there is no such entity, then all questions about what happens to that entity at death have no answer. N?g?rjuna used the tetralemma for all kinds of possible positions one might take about what happens to things or about relations among things. What all those positions have in common is that they presuppose that things have essential natures. His position, of course, is that things do not have essential natures, and therefore nothing can truthfully be said about them. It's as if he is saying that every proposition is a sentence that has a predicate but no subject. I have no idea at all what phenomenological mortality means. I am guessing it may have something to do with whether anyone can imagine oneself to be non-existent. This is a version of Freud's observation that it is impossible to imagine oneself as having died and entered into oblivion, because it is logically impossible to imagine oneself as a being that has no capacity to imagine or think. (Freud was deeply indebted to Descartes on this matter.) So if your claim is that one cannot imagine oneself nonexistent and cannot therefore imagine oneself as having attained nirvana (if nirvana is a kind of total absence of further consciousness) and therefore cannot aspire to nirvana (because one cannot aspire to that of which one cannot conceive), then you are in the company of Descartes and Freud. Whether you regard that as good company or bad is a matter of taste. But I am just making a wild guess at what you might mean by phenomenological mortality. Being a philosopher, I would much rather make wild guesses than actually know answers. As you probably know, answers kill philosophy. That notwithstanding, I invite you to tell what what you actually mean by phenomenological mortality and to explain what on earth that has to do with Buddhism in any of its forms. Richard Hayes Department of Philosophy University of New Mexico From rhayes at unm.edu Tue Jun 1 11:01:50 2010 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2010 11:01:50 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Not being able to imagine annihilation [confused] In-Reply-To: <354615.4099.qm@web86606.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <354615.4099.qm@web86606.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <642B4098-909D-4BE6-B4F7-4B181B192E39@unm.edu> On Jun 1, 2010, at 10:26 AM, lemmett at talk21.com wrote: > I do understand what is meant by a presuppositional failure but the only presupposition that I can think of that might be wrong is that in fact there is no tathagata that dies. The presupposition is that there is a tathagata at all. Once that presupposition is challenged, then all questions about whether he continues to exist or stops existing are unanswerable. Have you stopped burning Buddhist sutras yet? Richard Hayes Department of Philosophy University of New Mexico From rhayes at unm.edu Tue Jun 1 11:35:48 2010 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2010 11:35:48 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Bot being able to imagine annihilation [confused] In-Reply-To: <22544_1275411640_4C053CB6_22544_30_1_38063A00-7E6B-4247-96BC-910A45716F29@unm.edu> References: <927793.41201.qm@web86605.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <22544_1275411640_4C053CB6_22544_30_1_38063A00-7E6B-4247-96BC-910A45716F29@unm.edu> Message-ID: On Jun 1, 2010, at 10:58 AM, Richard Hayes wrote: > One way is to emphasis that no matter what one's view about personal survival may be, one's experience of life as unsatisfactory will remain unchanged. Since views about such things are not the root cause of discontent, one's time is better spent in dealing with those matters that are the root causes of one's discontent. So on this reading, the question of annihilation continued existence is simply irrelevant. In his lectures on pragmatism, William James conjectures that having views about what happens after death probably do have some bearing on the quality of one's life. He supposed that believing in continued existence probably gives people more hope than the materialistic belief that when the body can no longer support consciousness, consciousness stops and there is no longer any recollection of one's life. Of course, James was smart enough to know that what was true of his own temperament was not necessarily true of other people, so he realized that some people might find greater comfort in the prospects of oblivion than in the prospects of continued existence. Being one of those people who find the prospect of total oblivion deeply comforting and the prospect of continued existence quite horrible to contemplate, I naturally have an emotional as well as an intellectual attachment to materialist, and this attachment has strongly predisposed me to view nirvana as, well, total oblivion. My claim is that this is NOT annihilation of a self, but simply the cessation of consciousness (which, obviously, I do not see as the self). So I claim to be hewing the middle path on the grounds that I interpret the two extremes (the self is annihilated and the self continues) as being grounded in a presupposition that fails. I'm not sure what a phenomenologist would make of my position. As an atheist, I am inclined to say "Only God knows." I do know what many of my fellow Buddhists make of my position. It's not a pretty picture. Richard Hayes Department of Philosophy University of New Mexico From jkirk at spro.net Tue Jun 1 11:58:33 2010 From: jkirk at spro.net (JKirkpatrick) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2010 11:58:33 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Bot being able to imagine annihilation [confused] In-Reply-To: References: <927793.41201.qm@web86605.mail.ird.yahoo.com><22544_1275411640_4C053CB6_22544_30_1_38063A00-7E6B-4247-96BC-910A45716F29@unm.edu> Message-ID: <1E5D1BB46EE845F1937ADC498F9912D4@OPTIPLEX> "In his lectures on pragmatism, William James conjectures that having views about what happens after death probably do have some bearing on the quality of one's life. He supposed that believing in continued existence probably gives people more hope..." Here's another way of having views about what happens after death as a motivator to feeling hopeful, if not James's view: if one thinks of post one's own death, one might want to think beforehand about mending fences, and leaving one's library, for the benefit of others still alive rather than thinking, Oh goody---it's not going to end for me, after all. Yay. Joanna _____________________________________ On Jun 1, 2010, at 10:58 AM, Richard Hayes wrote: > One way is to emphasis that no matter what one's view about personal survival may be, one's experience of life as unsatisfactory will remain unchanged. Since views about such things are not the root cause of discontent, one's time is better spent in dealing with those matters that are the root causes of one's discontent. So on this reading, the question of annihilation continued existence is simply irrelevant. In his lectures on pragmatism, William James conjectures that having views about what happens after death probably do have some bearing on the quality of one's life. He supposed that believing in continued existence probably gives people more hope than the materialistic belief that when the body can no longer support consciousness, consciousness stops and there is no longer any recollection of one's life. Of course, James was smart enough to know that what was true of his own temperament was not necessarily true of other people, so he realized that some people might find greater comfort in the prospects of oblivion than in the prospects of continued existence. Being one of those people who find the prospect of total oblivion deeply comforting and the prospect of continued existence quite horrible to contemplate, I naturally have an emotional as well as an intellectual attachment to materialist, and this attachment has strongly predisposed me to view nirvana as, well, total oblivion. My claim is that this is NOT annihilation of a self, but simply the cessation of consciousness (which, obviously, I do not see as the self). So I claim to be hewing the middle path on the grounds that I interpret the two extremes (the self is annihilated and the self continues) as being grounded in a presupposition that fails. I'm not sure what a phenomenologist would make of my position. As an atheist, I am inclined to say "Only God knows." I do know what many of my fellow Buddhists make of my position. It's not a pretty picture. Richard Hayes Department of Philosophy University of New Mexico _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From lemmett at talk21.com Tue Jun 1 12:06:16 2010 From: lemmett at talk21.com (lemmett at talk21.com) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2010 18:06:16 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [Buddha-l] Bot being able to imagine annihilation [confused] In-Reply-To: <38063A00-7E6B-4247-96BC-910A45716F29@unm.edu> Message-ID: <983370.95583.qm@web86602.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Thank you for these considered replies Richard Hayes! >>I have no idea at all what phenomenological mortality means. I am guessing it may have something to do with whether anyone can imagine oneself to be non-existent. This is a version of Freud's observation that it is impossible to imagine oneself as having died and entered into oblivion, because it is logically impossible to imagine oneself as a being that has no capacity to imagine or think. Yes I do mean exactly this, I think; though am not sure because the end of the last sentence above seems weaker than it should be, seeing as one can just say that one doesn't imagine oneself as a "being" if one has been annihilated. >>you are in the company of Descartes and Freud. Whether you regard that as good company or bad is a matter of taste.? I suppose so; anyway their opinion does sound important enough not to be cursorily dismissed. >>explain what on earth that has to do with Buddhism in any of its forms. The fact that it's not obvious is somewhat worrying... As I said before the idea does seem slightly religious and I would pick Buddhism to be the religion that is most concerned with annihilation, as you seem to say yourself. Thanks again so much for the reply, I will spend some time digesting them and maybe then I can check with the list about some of the most important points you have made!! From rbzeuschner at roadrunner.com Tue Jun 1 13:25:54 2010 From: rbzeuschner at roadrunner.com (Bob Zeuschner) Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2010 12:25:54 -0700 Subject: [Buddha-l] Bot being able to imagine annihilation [confused] In-Reply-To: <983370.95583.qm@web86602.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <983370.95583.qm@web86602.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4C055EC2.9060909@roadrunner.com> I've been teaching about Buddhism for about 35 years, and I do not recall ever using the term "annihilation" in my lectures. I do explain that "Nirvana" is to "blow out" or "extinguish" the flames of egoistic possessiveness, anger/hatred, and ignorance/confusion. There is no _atman_ which continues after death, but popular Buddhism certainly finds a continuous flowing process continuing after the death of this body. I prefer the Buddha's silence concerning the issue of what happens to the arhant after death, or the parable of the poisoned arrow. Personally, I'm more a Taoist on the issue. Personal ego stops, but rejoins the ever-flowing Tao. No individual life after death. Bob On 6/1/2010 11:06 AM, lemmett at talk21.com wrote: > The fact that it's not obvious is somewhat worrying... As I said before the idea does seem slightly religious and I would pick Buddhism to be the religion that is most concerned with annihilation, as you seem to say yourself. > Thanks again so much for the reply, I will spend some time digesting them and maybe then I can check with the list about some of the most important points you have made!! > From Jackhat1 at aol.com Tue Jun 1 13:30:04 2010 From: Jackhat1 at aol.com (Jackhat1 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2010 15:30:04 EDT Subject: [Buddha-l] Bot being able to imagine annihilation [confused] Message-ID: <4573a.755d5209.3936b9bc@aol.com> In a message dated 6/1/2010 2:26:09 P.M. Central Daylight Time, rbzeuschner at roadrunner.com writes: I prefer the Buddha's silence concerning the issue of what happens to the arhant after death, or the parable of the poisoned arrow. Personally, I'm more a Taoist on the issue. Personal ego stops, but rejoins the ever-flowing Tao. No individual life after death. == I like Thich Nhat Hanh's explanation. We are like figures of clay. After death the clay is squeezed flat and a new figure made. jack From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Wed Jun 2 01:50:25 2010 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2010 03:50:25 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Not being able to imagine annihilation [confused] References: <354615.4099.qm@web86606.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <642B4098-909D-4BE6-B4F7-4B181B192E39@unm.edu> Message-ID: <003e01cb0228$43de4a60$2101a8c0@Dan> > The presupposition is that there is a tathagata at all. Once that > presupposition is challenged, then all questions about whether he > continues to exist or stops existing are unanswerable. > Richard Hayes That's an unhelpful dodge -- historically, doctrinally, and philosophically misleading. The historico-doctrinal reason the avyakata questions take the Tathagata as their example is simple. Since the view of rebirth was virtually ubiquitous at the time among anyone who would be exposed to such suttas, such questions about the "continuity" post-death of individuals never involved annihilationalism, as would be the case in a culture like ours that does not unquestioningly embrace the idea of rebirth. So the question of what happens after *final* death only arises in the case of a Tathagata who, by Buddhist definition, is the one no longer subject to recycling in samsara. What happens when he dies, thus, becomes a seemingly serious question. Buddha doesn't deny he is a tathagata. That is not the fiction causing the trouble. The fiction is the notion of self. Luke is trying to figure out whether Buddhism condones continuity of some sort after death -- and if so, then whether the avyakata questions are a plea for ineffability rather than rejection of annhilationalism simplicitur. Citing William James, or quasi-Daoist mergings with the universe, etc., don't help, except to show that many people who take Buddhism seriously on many other matters remain uncomfortable with Buddhist ideas about death and final deaths. They are in good company, since Buddhist doctrinal history demonstrates that Buddhists themselves were as well, and never could quite suppress eternalistic urges (since none of them would even consider annhilationalism an option, there was no extended response to that -- little did they know what 19th-20th c. Europeans and Americans would do with Buddhist ideas of nirvana). There is a reason that Buddhists have to be constantly reminded of how deeply entrenched and pernicious atma-drsti really is. Dan From rhayes at unm.edu Wed Jun 2 09:55:25 2010 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2010 09:55:25 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Not being able to imagine annihilation [confused] In-Reply-To: <003e01cb0228$43de4a60$2101a8c0@Dan> References: <354615.4099.qm@web86606.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <642B4098-909D-4BE6-B4F7-4B181B192E39@unm.edu> <003e01cb0228$43de4a60$2101a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: <083C6736-F255-465C-B44F-63FE02FEE6A0@unm.edu> On Jun 2, 2010, at 1:50 AM, Dan Lusthaus wrote: >> The presupposition is that there is a tathagata at all. Once that >> presupposition is challenged, then all questions about whether he >> continues to exist or stops existing are unanswerable. >> Richard Hayes > > That's an unhelpful dodge -- historically, doctrinally, and philosophically > misleading. It is not a dodge at all. It is one of the standard ways of interpreting the avy?k?ta (unanswered) questions. All that need be said is that the discussion of the tath?gata is a metonymy for all human beings who have attained nirv??a and therefore eliminated the root causes of further rebirth. I thought that was so obvious to the buddha-l readership that it went without saying, but it never hurts to make something explicit. > Luke is trying to figure out whether Buddhism condones continuity of some > sort after death -- and if so, then whether the avyakata questions are a > plea for ineffability rather than rejection of annhilationalism simplicitur. I think we all pretty much understood that, since that is what Luke said himself. But thank you for providing a summary of his questions. > Citing William James, or quasi-Daoist mergings with the universe, etc., > don't help Let's let Luke be the one to decide how helpful he has found the discussions that his questions have generated. Richard From a.fort at tcu.edu Wed Jun 2 11:04:01 2010 From: a.fort at tcu.edu (Fort, Andrew) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2010 12:04:01 -0500 Subject: [Buddha-l] Belated response re jivanmukti In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I have been "out of station" and am just now catching up with things not demanding an immediate response. I have been called out of lurkerhood (lurkerdom?) by Richard's reference: "Sangharakshita has allegedly said that Jack Kornfield should stop calling himself a Buddhist, because Kornfield has said that nirvana as traditionally understood is impossible. (By the way, the Nyaya school held the same view. Andy Fort, I believe can tell us more about jivanmukti and its deniers in classical India. But will he?)" Anyone interested in this matter (a small crew, to be sure) can look at the introduction to my book "Jivanmukti in Transformation." Liberation is knowing the self (atman) is brahman, and not the body, but the body can continue post-knowledge due to ignorance from a special kind of karma (prarabdha) which started pre-jnana and continues until fully used up, like the momentum of an already launched arrow or a whirling potter's wheel now abandoned continues for a time. An ever more baroque debate continued in Advaita about the exact nature of this trace, or impression of the trace, of ignorance. Perhaps more interesting, and another demonstration of impermanence, is that I tried to share a paragraph from my files of the book, but discovered that since I wrote it (c. 1997) in WordPerfect, I can't access the files any more (or at least not without a lot of effort). Thank goodness for print! Andy Andrew O. Fort, Professor of Religion TCU Box 298100, Fort Worth TX 76129 a.fort at tcu.edu, 817-257-6448 http://personal.tcu.edu/afort From rhayes at unm.edu Wed Jun 2 11:23:27 2010 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2010 11:23:27 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Belated response re jivanmukti In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Jun 2, 2010, at 11:04 AM, Fort, Andrew wrote: > Perhaps more interesting, and another demonstration of impermanence, is that I tried to share a paragraph from my files of the book, but discovered that since I wrote it (c. 1997) in WordPerfect, I can't access the files any more (or at least not without a lot of effort). Ah! Another wonderful example of how computers help us save time. And, as an extra bonus, they seem to give us all attention deficiency disorder for free. (I hope I speak only for myself, but anecdotal evidence suggests that others are similarly afflicted by their computers.) Anyway, thank you for coming out of lurkerhood, Andy. It just goes to show that lurkerity is not a permanent condition and thus is not a svabh?va. Richard From jmp at peavler.org Wed Jun 2 11:44:04 2010 From: jmp at peavler.org (Jim Peavler) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2010 11:44:04 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Conservative (Copyright and copywriters) In-Reply-To: References: <4BFE6E6F.3010803@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5351273E-71D7-4CAC-BD7A-226CE81BA3E6@peavler.org> On May 27, 2010, at 7:46 AM, Richard Hayes wrote: > > My guess is that if any academics were publishing books that brought in as much money as "Avatar" (the movie) or "Thriller" (the album), book publishers would be more aggressive. But let's face it, no matter how good Jan Westerhoff's latest book may be, it is not going to give Michael Jackson's estate a run for its money. > > I'd say more, but the storm troopers are out in the yard with a bullhorn saying something like "We know you're in there, Shrubface. Come out with your hands tied behind your back, your ankles tied together and a noose around your neck!" I would hate to disturb your outlaw reverie, but, if I am not mistaken, the poor miserable, downtrodden author usually owns the copyright if he hasn't sold it to the publisher for a hamburger and a bottle of beer or similar consideration. From jkirk at spro.net Wed Jun 2 15:25:09 2010 From: jkirk at spro.net (JKirkpatrick) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2010 15:25:09 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Conservative (Copyright and copywriters) In-Reply-To: <5351273E-71D7-4CAC-BD7A-226CE81BA3E6@peavler.org> References: <4BFE6E6F.3010803@gmail.com> <5351273E-71D7-4CAC-BD7A-226CE81BA3E6@peavler.org> Message-ID: On May 27, 2010, at 7:46 AM, Richard Hayes wrote: > > My guess is that if any academics were publishing books that brought in as much money as "Avatar" (the movie) or "Thriller" (the album), book publishers would be more aggressive. But let's face it, no matter how good Jan Westerhoff's latest book may be, it is not going to give Michael Jackson's estate a run for its money. > > I'd say more, but the storm troopers are out in the yard with a bullhorn saying something like "We know you're in there, Shrubface. Come out with your hands tied behind your back, your ankles tied together and a noose around your neck!" Jim: I would hate to disturb your outlaw reverie, but, if I am not mistaken, the poor miserable, downtrodden author usually owns the copyright if he hasn't sold it to the publisher for a hamburger and a bottle of beer or similar consideration. JK: True--but in my case my publisher owns distribution rights, so theoretically if I made copies of my work and distributed them myself they could come after me. They aren't selling any more, far as I know, so one of these days I'll try asking for my dist. rights back. From jmp at peavler.org Wed Jun 2 15:51:31 2010 From: jmp at peavler.org (Jim Peavler) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2010 15:51:31 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Conservative (Copyright and copywriters) In-Reply-To: References: <4BFE6E6F.3010803@gmail.com> <5351273E-71D7-4CAC-BD7A-226CE81BA3E6@peavler.org> Message-ID: On Jun 2, 2010, at 3:25 PM, JKirkpatrick wrote: > JK: > True--but in my case my publisher owns distribution rights, so > theoretically if I made copies of my work and distributed them > myself they could come after me. They aren't selling any more, > far as I know, so one of these days I'll try asking for my dist. > rights back. Or at least demand your hamburger and bottle of beer. From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Thu Jun 3 02:09:57 2010 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2010 04:09:57 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Conservative (Copyright and copywriters) References: <4BFE6E6F.3010803@gmail.com><5351273E-71D7-4CAC-BD7A-226CE81BA3E6@peavler.org> Message-ID: <005901cb02f4$2879ae50$2101a8c0@Dan> Jim, Joanna's right on this one: > JK: > True--but in my case my publisher owns distribution rights, The publisher puts the author's name on the copyright page after the encircled "c", but they own all the practical rights to it. The money goes to them (and often no royalties go to the author until a certain critical mass of volumes has been sold, a number set high enough by the bean counters who devise such things so that authors will rarely see a penny), they are the ones who grant or deny permission to "copy" from the work -- so the author holds the copyright in name only. The pulishers have all the rights concerning making copies. An author can request of the publisher that it turn the rights over in full, which it is not under any obligation to do, though (and many authors don't know this), the law tends to support such requests once a book has gone into second printing or beyond, so publishers tend to yield. But such a request involves a somewhat formal procedure and the good will of the publisher. Publishers are scam artists. Dan From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Thu Jun 3 02:10:07 2010 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2010 04:10:07 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Not being able to imagine annihilation [confused] References: <354615.4099.qm@web86606.mail.ird.yahoo.com><642B4098-909D-4BE6-B4F7-4B181B192E39@unm.edu><003e01cb0228$43de4a60$2101a8c0@Dan> <083C6736-F255-465C-B44F-63FE02FEE6A0@unm.edu> Message-ID: <006001cb02f4$2e19a720$2101a8c0@Dan> Richard: >>> The presupposition is that there is a tathagata at all. Once that >>> presupposition is challenged,[...] >>> Richard Hayes Dan: >> That's an unhelpful dodge -- historically, doctrinally, and >> philosophically >> misleading. Richard: > It is not a dodge at all. It is one of the standard ways of interpreting > the avy?k?ta (unanswered) questions. Really? Questioning whether there is such a thing as a Tathagata? Can you cite some "standard" sources for this? I suggested bringing in non-Buddhist sources to explicate an answer to a question about what *Buddhism* says is not helpful because they confuse the matter; one might conflate a non-Buddhist position with a Buddhist position. There may or may not be a single "Buddhist" position on the question of final death -- but in the context of the avyakata questions and the eternalism vs annihilationalism dichotomy, there is general agreement between different Buddhist schools. I found it interesting that several of the folks responding to Luke's inquiry showed themselves to be uncomfortable with, or unaccepting of the actual "standard" Buddhist responses, feeling it necessary to bring in tirthika notions. That's not a criticism of those folks, but an observation that perhaps the Buddhist ideas on the subject are in need of some examination, since people today do not find them attractive or convincing. OR, people are so steeped in atma-drsti that when Buddhism challenges them on this at a personal rather than impersonal intellectual level, they run for edifying alternatives, as Buddhists in the past have done. Interesting. Dan From stroble at hawaii.edu Thu Jun 3 02:34:43 2010 From: stroble at hawaii.edu (andy) Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2010 22:34:43 -1000 Subject: [Buddha-l] Not being able to imagine annihilation [confused] In-Reply-To: <006001cb02f4$2e19a720$2101a8c0@Dan> References: <354615.4099.qm@web86606.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <083C6736-F255-465C-B44F-63FE02FEE6A0@unm.edu> <006001cb02f4$2e19a720$2101a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: <201006022234.45739.stroble@hawaii.edu> On Wednesday 02 June 2010 10:10:07 pm Dan Lusthaus wrote: > Richard: > >>> The presupposition is that there is a tathagata at all. Once that > >>> presupposition is challenged,[...] > >>> Richard Hayes > > Dan: > >> That's an unhelpful dodge -- historically, doctrinally, and > >> philosophically > >> misleading. > > Richard: > > It is not a dodge at all. It is one of the standard ways of interpreting > > the avy?k?ta (unanswered) questions. > > Really? Questioning whether there is such a thing as a Tathagata? Can you > cite some "standard" sources for this? I thought that was standard, from where ever the avyakrta occur. > > I suggested bringing in non-Buddhist sources to explicate an answer to a > question about what *Buddhism* says is not helpful because they confuse the > matter; one might conflate a non-Buddhist position with a Buddhist > position. There may or may not be a single "Buddhist" position on the > question of final death -- but in the context of the avyakata questions > and the eternalism vs annihilationalism dichotomy, there is general > agreement between different Buddhist schools. This is to misunderstand, so far as I understand them, the two positions. They are not about the existance of something in the afterlife, but the existence of anything at all. Buddhism says that it is not the case that phenomenal reality is nothing. OK, that's good. But it is also the case that phenomenal reality is not anything. That is, it does not have a self-nature (sva-bhava? pardon my attempts at either sanscrit or pali), and so there is no residual trace after extinction (the wither the tathagata goes), except karma. So our original interlocutor's question is, I think, like the questioner of the avyakrta, not helpful. So I will shut up. > > I found it interesting that several of the folks responding to Luke's > inquiry showed themselves to be uncomfortable with, or unaccepting of the > actual "standard" Buddhist responses, feeling it necessary to bring in > tirthika notions. That's not a criticism of those folks, but an observation > that perhaps the Buddhist ideas on the subject are in need of some > examination, since people today do not find them attractive or convincing. > OR, people are so steeped in atma-drsti that when Buddhism challenges them > on this at a personal rather than impersonal intellectual level, they run > for edifying alternatives, as Buddhists in the past have done. > > Interesting. > > Dan > Since Dan has accused me of the reificatation of nirvana before (and yes, it hurt!) I want to assert the truth that there is no tathagata, and there is one, and both and neither and any other combination logicians can come up with. But that is not the point, has never been the point, and if you think it is, you should find one of those mystical religions, because Richard is right. (And Dan, too) > _______________________________________________ -- James Andy Stroble, PhD Lecturer in Philosophy Department of Arts & Humanities Leeward Community College University of Hawaii Adjunct Faculty Diplomatic and Military Studies Hawaii Pacific University _________________ "The amount of violence at the disposal of any given country may soon not be a reliable indication of the country's strength or a reliable guarantee against destruction by a substantially smaller and weaker power." --Hannah Arendt From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Thu Jun 3 04:11:31 2010 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2010 06:11:31 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Not being able to imagine annihilation [confused] References: <354615.4099.qm@web86606.mail.ird.yahoo.com><083C6736-F255-465C-B44F-63FE02FEE6A0@unm.edu><006001cb02f4$2e19a720$2101a8c0@Dan> <201006022234.45739.stroble@hawaii.edu> Message-ID: <00a501cb0305$23b3d920$2101a8c0@Dan> Dan: >> Really? Questioning whether there is such a thing as a Tathagata? Can you >> cite some "standard" sources for this? Andy: > I thought that was standard, from where ever the avyakrta occur. If you think so, then the same request goes to you. Can you cite a "standard" source? Avyakata (Skt Avyakrta) means "indeterminate". The world is eternal, not eternal, both, neither; the Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both, neither; etc. That there is a world is not what is indeterminate. Neither is the facticity of Tathagatas (it was a Tathagata who refused to select a determinate, definitive position from those alternatives, which is why the refusal is significant for Buddhists). >> I suggested bringing in non-Buddhist sources to explicate an answer to a >> question about what *Buddhism* says is not helpful because they confuse >> the >> matter; one might conflate a non-Buddhist position with a Buddhist >> position. There may or may not be a single "Buddhist" position on the >> question of final death -- but in the context of the avyakata questions >> and the eternalism vs annihilationalism dichotomy, there is general >> agreement between different Buddhist schools. > > This is to misunderstand, so far as I understand them, the two positions. > They are not about the existance of something in the afterlife, but the > existence of anything at all. That is a misunderstanding, explicitly precluded by the neither/nor option. > phenomenal reality [...] does not have a self-nature > so there is no > residual trace after extinction (the wither the tathagata goes), except > karma. No trace of what? It might be clearer if "phenomenal reality" were discussed in relation to "The world is eternal, etc." set of alternatives rather than the Tathagata set. They are related, but not identical sets, and not substitutable for each other. Also, Tathagata's do not generate karma, and once the karma left over from previous lives is exhausted, that is Parinirvana, or so "standard" Buddhist doctrine says. Attributing permanent selfhood, and hence eternal continuance, to a Tathagata would be an error -- agreed. That is not the same as denying there are such things as Tathagatas, or "The presupposition is that there is a tathagata at all." How a Tathagata is understood to be, and what can accurately be predicated of him is at issue. It is a "self" that a Buddhist will say (as Richard pointed out) cannot be either eternal or annihilated, since it doesn't exist: what doesn't exist cannot go on forever, nor can it be transformed from an existent to a nonexistent. Unless one mistakes a Tathagata for a self, or attributes such a self to a Tathagata, the facticity of a Tathagata is not at issue, nor is the facticity of a phenomenal world. What one imagines the Tathagata to be, or the world to be, is at issue. Big difference. > Since Dan has accused me of the reificatation of nirvana before (and yes, > it > hurt!) Sorry to cause pain. >I want to assert the truth that there is no tathagata, and there is > one, and both and neither and any other combination logicians can come up > with. That would be great if you were a Jain instead of trying to think Buddhistically (classical expression of anekantavada). Not being Jains, that's not how the Indian Buddhists used the tetralemma. >because Richard is > right. (And Dan, too) The both/and option (one of the four untenable options) is the Jain baseline, not the Buddhist baseline, which considers all four untenable. Is there any difference that you can see between embracing all four (and then considering them besides the point) and finding all four untenable? Dan From stroble at hawaii.edu Thu Jun 3 04:21:54 2010 From: stroble at hawaii.edu (andy) Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2010 00:21:54 -1000 Subject: [Buddha-l] Not being able to imagine annihilation [confused] In-Reply-To: <00a501cb0305$23b3d920$2101a8c0@Dan> References: <354615.4099.qm@web86606.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <201006022234.45739.stroble@hawaii.edu> <00a501cb0305$23b3d920$2101a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: <201006030021.56543.stroble@hawaii.edu> On Thursday 03 June 2010 12:11:31 am Dan Lusthaus wrote: > The both/and option (one of the four untenable options) is the Jain > baseline, not the Buddhist baseline, which considers all four untenable. > > Is there any difference that you can see between embracing all four (and > then considering them besides the point) and finding all four untenable? > > Dan No. So can I be Buddhist? -- James Andy Stroble, PhD Lecturer in Philosophy Department of Arts & Humanities Leeward Community College University of Hawaii Adjunct Faculty Diplomatic and Military Studies Hawaii Pacific University _________________ "The amount of violence at the disposal of any given country may soon not be a reliable indication of the country's strength or a reliable guarantee against destruction by a substantially smaller and weaker power." --Hannah Arendt From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Thu Jun 3 04:57:26 2010 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2010 06:57:26 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Not being able to imagine annihilation [confused] References: <354615.4099.qm@web86606.mail.ird.yahoo.com><201006022234.45739.stroble@hawaii.edu><00a501cb0305$23b3d920$2101a8c0@Dan> <201006030021.56543.stroble@hawaii.edu> Message-ID: <00b001cb030b$8dc850b0$2101a8c0@Dan> >So can I be Buddhist? Svabhavically speaking? Which "I" wants to be what? Dan From stroble at hawaii.edu Thu Jun 3 05:06:14 2010 From: stroble at hawaii.edu (andy) Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2010 01:06:14 -1000 Subject: [Buddha-l] Not being able to imagine annihilation [confused] In-Reply-To: <00b001cb030b$8dc850b0$2101a8c0@Dan> References: <354615.4099.qm@web86606.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <201006030021.56543.stroble@hawaii.edu> <00b001cb030b$8dc850b0$2101a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: <201006030106.16499.stroble@hawaii.edu> On Thursday 03 June 2010 12:57:26 am Dan Lusthaus wrote: > >So can I be Buddhist? > > Svabhavically speaking? Which "I" wants to be what? > > Dan Point taken. As to our original inquirer, if he still is following this, I would recommend the Aggivacchagotta Sutta. If I knew which way the fire has gone, I would probably know which I wants to be Buddhist. But then I would be disqualified for believing in Nirvana. As it is, I think it is a palm stump. We have quite a few of those in Hawaii. -- James Andy Stroble, PhD Lecturer in Philosophy Department of Arts & Humanities Leeward Community College University of Hawaii Adjunct Faculty Diplomatic and Military Studies Hawaii Pacific University _________________ "The amount of violence at the disposal of any given country may soon not be a reliable indication of the country's strength or a reliable guarantee against destruction by a substantially smaller and weaker power." --Hannah Arendt From mb.schiekel at arcor.de Thu Jun 3 06:21:56 2010 From: mb.schiekel at arcor.de (M.B. Schiekel) Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2010 14:21:56 +0200 Subject: [Buddha-l] old Wordperfect files In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C079E64.9050103@arcor.de> Am 02.06.2010 19:04, schrieb Fort, Andrew: > Perhaps more interesting, and another demonstration of impermanence, > is that I tried to share a paragraph from my files of the book, but > discovered that since I wrote it (c. 1997) in WordPerfect, I can't > access the files any more (or at least not without a lot of effort). Dear Andy, with (free) OpenOffice I can import my old Wordperfect files without any problems, see: http://www.openoffice.org/ in metta, bernhard -- http://www.mb-schiekel.de/ From drbob at comcast.net Thu Jun 3 06:29:14 2010 From: drbob at comcast.net (Bob Woolery) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2010 05:29:14 -0700 Subject: [Buddha-l] Conservative (Copyright and copywriters) In-Reply-To: <005901cb02f4$2879ae50$2101a8c0@Dan> References: <4BFE6E6F.3010803@gmail.com><5351273E-71D7-4CAC-BD7A-226CE81BA3E6@peavler.org> <005901cb02f4$2879ae50$2101a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: <06EDBE306F184076A645CD6C1216E195@garage> Considerable discussion of copyright alternatives, as well as a (copyright) free movie are to be found at sitasingstheblues.com. GNU for software, and copyleft are two important alternatives. Enjoy! Bob Woolery, DC 326 deAnza dr Vallejo, CA 94589 www.stateoftheartchiro.com (707)557 5471 -----Original Message----- From: buddha-l-bounces at mailman.swcp.com [mailto:buddha-l-bounces at mailman.swcp.com] On Behalf Of Dan Lusthaus Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2010 1:10 AM To: Buddhist discussion forum Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] Conservative (Copyright and copywriters) Jim, Joanna's right on this one: > JK: > True--but in my case my publisher owns distribution rights, The publisher puts the author's name on the copyright page after the encircled "c", but they own all the practical rights to it. The money goes to them (and often no royalties go to the author until a certain critical mass of volumes has been sold, a number set high enough by the bean counters who devise such things so that authors will rarely see a penny), they are the ones who grant or deny permission to "copy" from the work -- so the author holds the copyright in name only. The pulishers have all the rights concerning making copies. An author can request of the publisher that it turn the rights over in full, which it is not under any obligation to do, though (and many authors don't know this), the law tends to support such requests once a book has gone into second printing or beyond, so publishers tend to yield. But such a request involves a somewhat formal procedure and the good will of the publisher. Publishers are scam artists. Dan _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From Jackhat1 at aol.com Thu Jun 3 08:08:03 2010 From: Jackhat1 at aol.com (Jackhat1 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2010 10:08:03 EDT Subject: [Buddha-l] old Wordperfect files Message-ID: <405b.2d204429.39391143@aol.com> > Perhaps more interesting, and another demonstration of impermanence, > is that I tried to share a paragraph from my files of the book, but > discovered that since I wrote it (c. 1997) in WordPerfect, I can't > access the files any more (or at least not without a lot of effort). === If you are using Word, Microsoft has a free download that lets you translate Wordperfect files. jack From jkirk at spro.net Thu Jun 3 08:50:52 2010 From: jkirk at spro.net (JKirkpatrick) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2010 08:50:52 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Conservative (Copyright and copywriters) In-Reply-To: <005901cb02f4$2879ae50$2101a8c0@Dan> References: <4BFE6E6F.3010803@gmail.com><5351273E-71D7-4CAC-BD7A-226CE81BA3E6@peavler.org> <005901cb02f4$2879ae50$2101a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: Jim, Joanna's right on this one: > JK: > True--but in my case my publisher owns distribution rights, The publisher puts the author's name on the copyright page after the encircled "c", but they own all the practical rights to it. The money goes to them (and often no royalties go to the author until a certain critical mass of volumes has been sold, a number set high enough by the bean counters who devise such things so that authors will rarely see a penny), they are the ones who grant or deny permission to "copy" from the work -- so the author holds the copyright in name only. The pulishers have all the rights concerning making copies. An author can request of the publisher that it turn the rights over in full, which it is not under any obligation to do, though (and many authors don't know this), the law tends to support such requests once a book has gone into second printing or beyond, so publishers tend to yield. But such a request involves a somewhat formal procedure and the good will of the publisher. Publishers are scam artists. Dan ___________ Scam artists indeed. I did get a better royalty percentage of sales than their usual because I produced the whole thing--they only distribute it (AND they did a lousy job of marketing, most of which I did). I went with a decent academic publisher (instead of self-publishing via my website) because I wanted the "street cred", as one of my correspondents put it once. I wanted it even more because having taught for 27 years at an institution that emphasised nannying the students and teaching (rather than emphasising publishing)-- and also during most of those years being afflicted with chronic joint disease causing pain and exhaustion-- it was only after retirement, moving to a city with medical resources, and having the time, that I was able to produce my research in useable form and acquire some of that street cred. But as the man said, statisfactions are a mixed bag. Joanna From gary.gach at gmail.com Thu Jun 3 09:12:27 2010 From: gary.gach at gmail.com (Gary Gach) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2010 08:12:27 -0700 Subject: [Buddha-l] Conservative (Copyright and copywriters) Message-ID: You might not but I find it interesting how 3 (three) of books with my name on them are largely available online for free at ... http://books.google.com (search under my name ... or try your own) ... one of these three is very much in print (but is a translation: does Mr. Google honestly think that lets him off the copyright hook, since that's actually multiple copyrights -- the author's and the translators' and the publisher's ) ... one of which is in print (but in short print runs) ... and one in a newer edition (the 1st edition of which somebody revalorized into a downloadable eboook without asking) ... ... "limited preview" google calls it ... " ? pre-view ? " ... ? of coming attractions ? ... "limited" but exactly what limitations ... ... here's another example, (please, don't slay the messenger here ? I'm just saying) ... : ...http://alturl.com/fk64 ... Gary Gach http://www.patheos.com/Religion-Portals/Buddhist.html http://buddhistchannel.tv http://word.to From jkirk at spro.net Thu Jun 3 09:26:46 2010 From: jkirk at spro.net (JKirkpatrick) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2010 09:26:46 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Conservative (Copyright and copywriters) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46601320CAA547B68A937B2A98B4BADC@OPTIPLEX> Google says this, comment anyone?: http://books.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=43729&topic= 9259&hl=en ----------------------------------------- You might not but I find it interesting how 3 (three) of books with my name on them are largely available online for free at ... http://books.google.com (search under my name ... or try your own) ... one of these three is very much in print (but is a translation: does Mr. Google honestly think that lets him off the copyright hook, since that's actually multiple copyrights -- the author's and the translators' and the publisher's ) ... one of which is in print (but in short print runs) ... and one in a newer edition (the 1st edition of which somebody revalorized into a downloadable eboook without asking) ... ... "limited preview" google calls it ... " ? pre-view ? " ... ? of coming attractions ? ... "limited" but exactly what limitations ... ... here's another example, (please, don't slay the messenger here ? I'm just saying) ... : ...http://alturl.com/fk64 ... Gary Gach http://www.patheos.com/Religion-Portals/Buddhist.html http://buddhistchannel.tv http://word.to _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From lemmett at talk21.com Thu Jun 3 09:50:39 2010 From: lemmett at talk21.com (lemmett at talk21.com) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2010 15:50:39 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [Buddha-l] Not being able to imagine annihilation [confused] In-Reply-To: <201006030106.16499.stroble@hawaii.edu> Message-ID: <710067.7326.qm@web86605.mail.ird.yahoo.com> >As to our original inquirer, if he still is following this, I would recommend the Aggivacchagotta Sutta. Yes I am still trying to follow this thread, sorry I did not reply sooner I was being cowardly. >>Being one of those people who find the prospect of total oblivion deeply comforting and the prospect of continued existence quite horrible to contemplate, I naturally have an emotional as well as an intellectual attachment to materialist, and this attachment has strongly predisposed me to view nirvana as, well, total oblivion. My claim is that this is NOT annihilation of a self, but simply the cessation of consciousness (which, obviously, I do not see as the self). So I claim to be hewing the middle path on the grounds that I interpret the two extremes (the self is annihilated and the self continues) as being grounded in a presupposition that fails. Sorry if I'm going over old ground but is this a correct way of understanding the lemma, that one can posit the existence or non existence of consciousness? >>>I have no idea at all what phenomenological mortality means. I am guessing it may have something to do with whether anyone can imagine oneself to be non-existent. This is a version of Freud's observation that it is impossible to imagine oneself as having died and entered into oblivion, because it is logically impossible to imagine oneself as a being that has no capacity to imagine or think. (Freud was deeply indebted to Descartes on this matter.) Where does Freud or Descartes talk about this and is there a contemporary commentary on this view - I don't know of anything like that? >>>>Luke is trying to figure out whether Buddhism condones continuity of some?sort after death -- and if so, then whether the avyakata questions are a?plea for ineffability rather than rejection of annhilationalism simplicitur.? So is it that the avyakata questions just affirm anatta and not that death (of the tathagata) is ineffable or anything about consciousness conceived differently to a self? Doctor / Professor Hayes: would it concern you or change your view of nirvana (as oblivion) if you thought that it is impossible to imagine death from the inside? If it were the case would it change how the avyakata questions themselves are interpreted, or is it irrelevant to Buddhist thought - which stays silent on whether consciousness without a self is annihilated? That covers my main concern with these emails. Thanks again - I have no doctoral degree so appreciate the kindness of the list. Luke From a.fort at tcu.edu Thu Jun 3 12:36:08 2010 From: a.fort at tcu.edu (Fort, Andrew) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2010 13:36:08 -0500 Subject: [Buddha-l] old Wordperfect files In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Thanks for the suggestions for recovering them. Andy From franz at mind2mind.net Thu Jun 3 14:21:36 2010 From: franz at mind2mind.net (Franz Metcalf) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2010 13:21:36 -0700 Subject: [Buddha-l] Conservative and liberal Buddhists In-Reply-To: References: <4BFE6E6F.3010803@gmail.com> <1632EC2371DC6849B1A97EF0B28B970AAD3A6A65BC@MAILSERVER1.hscnet.hsc.usf.edu> <847A9C1D-0B64-4494-A267-F17CA5D243D7@unm.edu> <4C000F83.9030408@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <068F08A4-C8A4-43D3-A2CC-E910865172B1@mind2mind.net> Margaret et al., You wrote two things I'd like to touch on. > Online journals such as JBE and JGB show that it can be different. As buddha'l's resident representative of the JGB, I thank you. Now, more important: > I've just started the process of trying to pull an article from a > publication (very prestigious) that is already three years late in > appearing because I'd rather get the article out there than wait > (indefinitely) for it to appear (maybe) in a big multivolume > collection (which will be so expensive that I anticipate very few > people or even libraries will buy it). Good for you! My first published piece (other than books reviews) was a chapter in Continuum's _Buddhist Spirituality II_, edited by Paul Swanson at Nanzan. I recall that in the process of polishing that chapter I called up Robert Buswell, who was by then a tenured professor at UCLA. He answered some questions and asked me where my chapter was going to appear. I told him and he laughed out loud. He then said he himself had a chapter in the same collection, written when he was still a grad student at least six or eight years earlier! When I told Paul Swanson this story he was mercifully and comically reluctant to name names or cite reasons; he was just deeply grateful the thing was at last going to be done. Another year later it was. Perhaps most importantly, please consider the JGB as a venue for publishing your article. Yes, we are not so prestigious, but I do believe we are pretty widely read. And we can get your article through peer review and published on our site in a matter of a few months at the *longest*. Good wishes, Franz (Writing from the perspective of) Review Editor, Journal of Global Buddhism http://www.globalbuddhism.org From rhayes at unm.edu Thu Jun 3 14:49:31 2010 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2010 14:49:31 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Conservative and liberal Buddhists In-Reply-To: <068F08A4-C8A4-43D3-A2CC-E910865172B1@mind2mind.net> References: <4BFE6E6F.3010803@gmail.com> <1632EC2371DC6849B1A97EF0B28B970AAD3A6A65BC@MAILSERVER1.hscnet.hsc.usf.edu> <847A9C1D-0B64-4494-A267-F17CA5D243D7@unm.edu> <4C000F83.9030408@xs4all.nl> <068F08A4-C8A4-43D3-A2CC-E910865172B1@mind2mind.net> Message-ID: <79D6F10F-9374-4CFC-974F-729CDF67053B@unm.edu> On Jun 3, 2010, at 2:21 PM, Franz Metcalf wrote: > Good for you! My first published piece (other than books reviews) was > a chapter in Continuum's _Buddhist Spirituality II_, edited by Paul > Swanson at Nanzan. I recall that in the process of polishing that > chapter I called up Robert Buswell, who was by then a tenured > professor at UCLA. He answered some questions and asked me where my > chapter was going to appear. I told him and he laughed out loud. He > then said he himself had a chapter in the same collection, written > when he was still a grad student at least six or eight years earlier! The first contribution I ever made to an encyclopedia was submitted in 1986 or so to Karl Potter for a volume in his Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies. For about five years I listed the articles on my CV as forthcoming, but they persisted in not coming forth. Eventually I removed them and assumed the project had been abandoned and would never appear in print. Then in 2003 I got notice that the volume was about to go to press, just 17 years after the deadline for submissions. By then I wished I had written on the Perfection of Patience. Richard From jkirk at spro.net Thu Jun 3 15:29:28 2010 From: jkirk at spro.net (JKirkpatrick) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2010 15:29:28 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Conservative and liberal Buddhists In-Reply-To: <068F08A4-C8A4-43D3-A2CC-E910865172B1@mind2mind.net> References: <4BFE6E6F.3010803@gmail.com><1632EC2371DC6849B1A97EF0B28B970AAD3A6A65BC@MAILSERVER1.hscnet.hsc.usf.edu><847A9C1D-0B64-4494-A267-F17CA5D243D7@unm.edu><4C000F83.9030408@xs4all.nl> <068F08A4-C8A4-43D3-A2CC-E910865172B1@mind2mind.net> Message-ID: <1F293F7CF9C642A3A51999C1783BC85B@OPTIPLEX> I'd just add to this story of the 'perils of pauline-pubs', that a UK colleague in Middle Eastern art history who published with Continuum much regretted that she had done. JK ____________________________________________ Margaret et al., You wrote two things I'd like to touch on. > Online journals such as JBE and JGB show that it can be different. As buddha'l's resident representative of the JGB, I thank you. Now, more important: > I've just started the process of trying to pull an article from a > publication (very prestigious) that is already three years late in > appearing because I'd rather get the article out there than wait > (indefinitely) for it to appear (maybe) in a big multivolume > collection (which will be so expensive that I anticipate very few > people or even libraries will buy it). Good for you! My first published piece (other than books reviews) was a chapter in Continuum's _Buddhist Spirituality II_, edited by Paul Swanson at Nanzan. I recall that in the process of polishing that chapter I called up Robert Buswell, who was by then a tenured professor at UCLA. He answered some questions and asked me where my chapter was going to appear. I told him and he laughed out loud. He then said he himself had a chapter in the same collection, written when he was still a grad student at least six or eight years earlier! When I told Paul Swanson this story he was mercifully and comically reluctant to name names or cite reasons; he was just deeply grateful the thing was at last going to be done. Another year later it was. Perhaps most importantly, please consider the JGB as a venue for publishing your article. Yes, we are not so prestigious, but I do believe we are pretty widely read. And we can get your article through peer review and published on our site in a matter of a few months at the *longest*. Good wishes, Franz (Writing from the perspective of) Review Editor, Journal of Global Buddhism http://www.globalbuddhism.org _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From drbob at comcast.net Thu Jun 3 20:30:27 2010 From: drbob at comcast.net (Bob Woolery) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2010 19:30:27 -0700 Subject: [Buddha-l] Conservative (Copyright and copywriters) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3EE5B7E39D8143F79867ADD0C4B12EA1@garage> I don't know that 12 pages plus TOC is largely available, but reading them led me to think of you as a lucid and helpful writer. I suspect that sales of the complete idiot's guide have been increased by having a fairly extensive section available for free. Bob Woolery, DC 326 deAnza dr Vallejo, CA 94589 www.stateoftheartchiro.com (707)557 5471 -----Original Message----- From: buddha-l-bounces at mailman.swcp.com [mailto:buddha-l-bounces at mailman.swcp.com] On Behalf Of Gary Gach Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2010 8:12 AM To: buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com Subject: [Buddha-l] Conservative (Copyright and copywriters) You might not but I find it interesting how 3 (three) of books with my name on them are largely available online for free at ... http://books.google.com (search under my name ... or try your own) ... one of these three is very much in print (but is a translation: does Mr. Google honestly think that lets him off the copyright hook, since that's actually multiple copyrights -- the author's and the translators' and the publisher's ) ... one of which is in print (but in short print runs) ... and one in a newer edition (the 1st edition of which somebody revalorized into a downloadable eboook without asking) ... ... "limited preview" google calls it ... " ? pre-view ? " ... ? of coming attractions ? ... "limited" but exactly what limitations ... ... here's another example, (please, don't slay the messenger here ? I'm just saying) ... : ...http://alturl.com/fk64 ... Gary Gach http://www.patheos.com/Religion-Portals/Buddhist.html http://buddhistchannel.tv http://word.to _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From jkirk at spro.net Thu Jun 3 22:08:55 2010 From: jkirk at spro.net (JKirkpatrick) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2010 22:08:55 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Conservative (Copyright and copywriters) In-Reply-To: <3EE5B7E39D8143F79867ADD0C4B12EA1@garage> References: <3EE5B7E39D8143F79867ADD0C4B12EA1@garage> Message-ID: <6A29C079D1B444509FDC540C02984B1B@OPTIPLEX> Worked for me------------after reading some of the google pages I just bought a copy via amazon.com. JK ================= I don't know that 12 pages plus TOC is largely available, but reading them led me to think of you as a lucid and helpful writer. I suspect that sales of the complete idiot's guide have been increased by having a fairly extensive section available for free. Bob Woolery, DC 326 deAnza dr Vallejo, CA 94589 www.stateoftheartchiro.com (707)557 5471 -----Original Message----- From: buddha-l-bounces at mailman.swcp.com [mailto:buddha-l-bounces at mailman.swcp.com] On Behalf Of Gary Gach Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2010 8:12 AM To: buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com Subject: [Buddha-l] Conservative (Copyright and copywriters) You might not but I find it interesting how 3 (three) of books with my name on them are largely available online for free at ... http://books.google.com (search under my name ... or try your own) ... one of these three is very much in print (but is a translation: does Mr. Google honestly think that lets him off the copyright hook, since that's actually multiple copyrights -- the author's and the translators' and the publisher's ) ... one of which is in print (but in short print runs) ... and one in a newer edition (the 1st edition of which somebody revalorized into a downloadable eboook without asking) ... ... "limited preview" google calls it ... " ? pre-view ? " ... ? of coming attractions ? ... "limited" but exactly what limitations ... ... here's another example, (please, don't slay the messenger here ? I'm just saying) ... : ...http://alturl.com/fk64 ... Gary Gach http://www.patheos.com/Religion-Portals/Buddhist.html http://buddhistchannel.tv http://word.to _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From mb.schiekel at arcor.de Fri Jun 4 11:03:49 2010 From: mb.schiekel at arcor.de (M.B. Schiekel) Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2010 19:03:49 +0200 Subject: [Buddha-l] Shiguseiganmon - Bodhisattva Vows In-Reply-To: <239ABDA2-9BE3-402B-AA1B-0B24F9E9279C@unm.edu> References: <4BD5D609.6050709@arcor.de> <005601cae572$15e28680$2101a8c0@Dan> <4BD5E7E1.2010604@arcor.de> <00ac01cae577$cf6a0060$2101a8c0@Dan> <239ABDA2-9BE3-402B-AA1B-0B24F9E9279C@unm.edu> Message-ID: <4C0931F5.3080109@arcor.de> Am 27.04.2010 17:43, schrieb Richard Hayes: >>> Shiguseiganmon - Bodhisattva Vows >>> 3. were there ancestors of this form in Sanskrit? >> >> Good question. I imagine so, but not sure. Anyone? > This was discussed a while back. Check the archives. As I recall, the > consensus that emerged was that the vows were written by Tiantai > Zhiyi and had no Sanskrit basis. Dear Richard, thank you for your answer. Concerning the point "Check the archives" - how to do that? I didn't found a search function in the buddha-l archive. Thank you very much. Kind regards, bernhard -- http://www.mb-schiekel.de/ GPG-Key available: GnuPG-2.0.12 From rhayes at unm.edu Fri Jun 4 13:47:53 2010 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2010 13:47:53 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Shiguseiganmon - Bodhisattva Vows In-Reply-To: <4C0931F5.3080109@arcor.de> References: <4BD5D609.6050709@arcor.de> <005601cae572$15e28680$2101a8c0@Dan> <4BD5E7E1.2010604@arcor.de> <00ac01cae577$cf6a0060$2101a8c0@Dan> <239ABDA2-9BE3-402B-AA1B-0B24F9E9279C@unm.edu> <4C0931F5.3080109@arcor.de> Message-ID: <05C9A2D1-6879-437F-BD58-E61CD1B110BD@unm.edu> On Jun 4, 2010, at 11:03 AM, M.B. Schiekel wrote: > Concerning the point "Check the archives" - > how to do that? I didn't found a search function in the buddha-l archive. Thank you for bringing that to my attention. Now that I look more closely, I see that there is no search function. Let me look into whether there is a search function available that I can set up from the administrator's page. If not, it may be necessary to download all the gzipped archives and search them using search engines one's own computer. That is what I usually do. Dan Lusthaus has sometimes advised people to search the archives; perhaps he has discovered a more elegant method that the one I have described. Richard From lemmett at talk21.com Fri Jun 4 17:04:26 2010 From: lemmett at talk21.com (lemmett at talk21.com) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2010 23:04:26 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [Buddha-l] Being left alone to quietly die In-Reply-To: <710067.7326.qm@web86605.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <846345.53687.qm@web86608.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Freud did think that we can't imagine our own deaths because we have to smuggle in ourselves as observers that imagine it. I'm not sure I think that is much more than an observation though - not an argument. Merleau-Ponty says something similar that "neither my birth nor my death can appear to me as my experiences..." in the Phenomenology of Perception and Derrida says something similar in Aporias. More interesting still is that Goethe agreed and may have concluded he was immortal. >>>>Luke is trying to figure out whether Buddhism condones continuity of some?sort after death -- and if so, then whether the avyakata questions are a?plea for ineffability rather than rejection of annhilationalism simplicitur.? >So is it that the avyakata questions just affirm anatta and not that death (of the tathagata) is ineffable or anything about consciousness conceived differently to a self? From jehms at xs4all.nl Sat Jun 5 01:33:48 2010 From: jehms at xs4all.nl (Erik Hoogcarspel) Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2010 09:33:48 +0200 Subject: [Buddha-l] Being left alone to quietly die In-Reply-To: <846345.53687.qm@web86608.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <846345.53687.qm@web86608.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4C09FDDC.9080701@xs4all.nl> Op 05-06-10 01:04, lemmett at talk21.com schreef: > Freud did think that we can't imagine our own deaths because we have to smuggle in ourselves as observers that imagine it. I'm not sure I think that is much more than an observation though - not an argument. Merleau-Ponty says something similar that "neither my birth nor my death can appear to me as my experiences..." in the Phenomenology of Perception and Derrida says something similar in Aporias. More interesting still is that Goethe agreed and may have concluded he was immortal. > > Great, those quotes, I bet you can find just as much quotes for the opposite. What's the use? Do you even understand what they mean? The authors in question may just be wrong or they may mean something different, or, as in the case of Merleau-Ponty, the translation may be shaky. The problem is in the conception of the I. Sartre once wrote a short story about a suicide terrorist who abandoned his intention to blow up a building because he realized he wouldn't be there to witness the results. But Sartre also thought that the I was an object for consciousness, because we can think about ourselves and we can lose our I, in the case of amnesia, and become a different person. In Buddhist philosophy the I is seen as a stream, or a continuity. The continuity is necessary for the existence of karma. But how about people with MPS? And can we be conscious of the extinction of the I, for instance in deep samadhi? Is there something like a fourth state of consciousness from where you can whitness deep sleep and even death? And what if the I is just a mental structure, how is continuity possible? And we haven't even discussed the part of the body. There can be different personalities in one body, but not different bodies for one personality (except perhaps in the Teaparty Movement and in North Korea). And a personality without a body has never been established. Most answers to these questions are speculative. If you want certainty you better start doing some thinking of your own. erik From lemmett at talk21.com Sat Jun 5 08:54:21 2010 From: lemmett at talk21.com (lemmett at talk21.com) Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2010 14:54:21 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [Buddha-l] Being unable to imagine dying [confused] In-Reply-To: <4C09FDDC.9080701@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <79997.57372.qm@web86602.mail.ird.yahoo.com> >> Freud did think that we can't imagine our own deaths because we have to smuggle in ourselves as observers that imagine it. I'm not sure I think that is much more than an observation though - not an argument. Merleau-Ponty says something similar that "neither my birth nor my death can appear to me as my experiences..." in the Phenomenology of Perception and Derrida says something similar in Aporias. More interesting still is that Goethe agreed and may have concluded he was immortal. >Great, those quotes, I bet you can find just as much quotes for the opposite.? I don't know that anyone disagrees, I would like to know though. >Do you even understand what they mean? The?authors in question may just be wrong or they may mean something?different, or, as in the case of Merleau-Ponty, the translation may be?shaky.? I'm fairly sure yes. I can introduce the idea that translations are wrong in most of what I read, I'm not sure it's helpful. The Freud one is more ambiguous than Merleau-Ponty but it still seems clear and Zygmunt Bauman e.g. uses both when discussing his own view that death in inconceivable. >If you want certainty you better start doing some thinking of your own. I do think about this but don't know that doing so is any good. I think of arguments but they are never going to be better than those of the above. Thank you for the reply. From lidewij at gmail.com Sat Jun 5 10:03:25 2010 From: lidewij at gmail.com (Lidewij Niezink) Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2010 18:03:25 +0200 Subject: [Buddha-l] Being unable to imagine dying [confused] In-Reply-To: <79997.57372.qm@web86602.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <4C09FDDC.9080701@xs4all.nl> <79997.57372.qm@web86602.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: "Freud did think that we can't imagine our own deaths because we have to smuggle in ourselves as observers that imagine it. I'm not sure I think that is much more than an observation though - not an argument. Merleau-Ponty says something similar that "neither my birth nor my death can appear to me as my experiences..." in the Phenomenology of Perception and Derrida says something similar in Aporias. More interesting still is that Goethe agreed and may have concluded he was immortal." To me the question would be: and then, so what, fuck it (a book i'm reading at the moment is 'F**k it' by John C. Parkin ** http://www.thefuckitway.com) : what is next? But then again, i'm not that much of a believer so that might be just a limitation once again. I disagree as well. Ego is not non-existing, neither existing. Not in life, not in death, not in between. Observation can, but does not have to be part of 'ego'. But then i turn to the same point of stuckness, something you might recognize yourself. cheers ;-) Lidewij -- Milton said: "They also serve who only stand and wait." http://www.linkedin.com/in/lniezink From jehms at xs4all.nl Sat Jun 5 10:22:21 2010 From: jehms at xs4all.nl (Erik Hoogcarspel) Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2010 18:22:21 +0200 Subject: [Buddha-l] Karma Message-ID: <4C0A79BD.4090008@xs4all.nl> Last year, during his visit to the place I'm teaching these days, one of my students made the observation that Richard is doing his best to prevent the coming of next Buddha and therewith the new Buddhist renaissance. The new Buddha only comes when dharma is in decline, so unless you are a Buddha yourself, the best you can do is help Buddhism down the drain. Many members of this list also help to spread an clarify the dharma, so our karma must be terrible. Recently this logic has been used by one of the most intelligent politicians, undoubtedly a candidate of the coming Nobel Prize on an actual issue. See http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2010/06/onshore-drilling-palin-oil erik From jkirk at spro.net Sat Jun 5 10:31:21 2010 From: jkirk at spro.net (JKirkpatrick) Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2010 10:31:21 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Being unable to imagine dying [confused] In-Reply-To: References: <4C09FDDC.9080701@xs4all.nl><79997.57372.qm@web86602.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <511B17F1281045E899F181C76FD3139F@OPTIPLEX> Mr Lemmet's continuing refusal to engage any of the points anyone has made with respect to his persistent repetition of the same old question/comment strongly suggests that he's putting us all on. Even the surname is a pun. Pun or Fun is neither pun/fun, nor not pun/fun, I guess. Have pfun, mr lemma. JK "The fifth person at the table was Mr Lemmet, the Bishop of Wintenbury's chaplain. Quiet and untalkative but invariably attentive, he had been well-chosen for his present position." "'I have always found exorcisation a very powerful rite!' the Colonial Bishop assured Mr Lemmet as they surveyed the debris." ____________________ "Freud did think that we can't imagine our own deaths because we have to smuggle in ourselves as observers that imagine it. I'm not sure I think that is much more than an observation though - not an argument. Merleau-Ponty says something similar that "neither my birth nor my death can appear to me as my experiences..." in the Phenomenology of Perception and Derrida says something similar in Aporias. More interesting still is that Goethe agreed and may have concluded he was immortal." To me the question would be: and then, so what, fuck it (a book i'm reading at the moment is 'F**k it' by John C. Parkin ** http://www.thefuckitway.com) : what is next? But then again, i'm not that much of a believer so that might be just a limitation once again. I disagree as well. Ego is not non-existing, neither existing. Not in life, not in death, not in between. Observation can, but does not have to be part of 'ego'. But then i turn to the same point of stuckness, something you might recognize yourself. cheers ;-) Lidewij -- Milton said: "They also serve who only stand and wait." http://www.linkedin.com/in/lniezink _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From jkirk at spro.net Sat Jun 5 10:40:00 2010 From: jkirk at spro.net (JKirkpatrick) Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2010 10:40:00 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Karma In-Reply-To: <4C0A79BD.4090008@xs4all.nl> References: <4C0A79BD.4090008@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <7058DDA37A6F4C27B222735C8D5A9E69@OPTIPLEX> I can remember a time when some of us said Vote for Nixon, so as to intensify the karmic contradictions aimred at bringing on the collapse of capitalism, or some such nonsense. I wonder if this idea was invented when the Greeks were politicking in the Agora. JK _________________ Last year, during his visit to the place I'm teaching these days, one of my students made the observation that Richard is doing his best to prevent the coming of next Buddha and therewith the new Buddhist renaissance. The new Buddha only comes when dharma is in decline, so unless you are a Buddha yourself, the best you can do is help Buddhism down the drain. Many members of this list also help to spread an clarify the dharma, so our karma must be terrible. Recently this logic has been used by one of the most intelligent politicians, undoubtedly a candidate of the coming Nobel Prize on an actual issue. See http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2010/06/onshore-dr illing-palin-oil erik _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From lemmett at talk21.com Sat Jun 5 11:23:07 2010 From: lemmett at talk21.com (lemmett at talk21.com) Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2010 17:23:07 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [Buddha-l] Being unable to imagine dying [confused] In-Reply-To: <511B17F1281045E899F181C76FD3139F@OPTIPLEX> Message-ID: <834595.10649.qm@web86601.mail.ird.yahoo.com> No I am not being deliberately provocative. I really don't understand what problem I have been in asking these questions. Maybe if I was trying to prove to the list that the tathagata did not exist and merely shouted down anyone who gave reason to believe that my opinion was wrong. Also my emails were not only *motivated* by a concern with whether or not the thathagata does not exist. In fact I have asked several different questions concerning this teaching of the buddha as well as trying to add something to the discussion other than questions.? I'm not going to apologize for my name. I would gladly do so for asking the list a question without having qualifications, though I do do a fair amount of reading on my own.? Best wishes. Mr Lemmet's continuing refusal to engage any of the points anyone has made with respect to his persistent repetition of the same old question/comment strongly suggests that he's putting us all on. Even the surname is a pun. Pun or Fun is neither pun/fun, nor not pun/fun, I guess. Have pfun, mr lemma. From rhayes at unm.edu Sat Jun 5 11:35:32 2010 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2010 11:35:32 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Being unable to imagine dying [confused] In-Reply-To: <511B17F1281045E899F181C76FD3139F@OPTIPLEX> References: <4C09FDDC.9080701@xs4all.nl><79997.57372.qm@web86602.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <511B17F1281045E899F181C76FD3139F@OPTIPLEX> Message-ID: On Jun 5, 2010, at 10:31, "JKirkpatrick" wrote: > Mr Lemmet's continuing refusal to engage any of the points anyone > has made with respect to his persistent repetition of the same > old question/comment strongly suggests that he's > putting us all on. Then he'll fit right in. No one has said anything in earnest here since 1993. Richard From lemmett at talk21.com Sat Jun 5 11:47:25 2010 From: lemmett at talk21.com (lemmett at talk21.com) Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2010 17:47:25 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [Buddha-l] Being unable to imagine dying [confused] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <512201.85110.qm@web86605.mail.ird.yahoo.com> I am being sincere! OK someone has for the first time told me not to repeat myself but as an explanation of my earnest... Yes I am concerned with whether or not the tathagata exist etc. but I do not know if I agree to not being concerned or how I stop being. But I'm fairly sure that all my questions can be motivated by other concerns. E.g., the inconceivability of one of the possibilities and how that might relate to the problem of the Avyakata-samyutta sutta. Sorry if I have sounded rude or provocative but someone said that this is obviously very important to me: and it is! > Mr Lemmet's continuing refusal to engage any of the points anyone > has made with respect to his persistent repetition of the same > old question/comment strongly suggests that he's > putting us all on. Then he'll fit right in. No one has said anything in earnest here? since 1993. Richard _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From rhayes at unm.edu Sat Jun 5 12:47:38 2010 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2010 12:47:38 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Being left alone to quietly die In-Reply-To: <4C09FDDC.9080701@xs4all.nl> References: <846345.53687.qm@web86608.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <4C09FDDC.9080701@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <7C3FC3B3-84EB-4EC3-BE06-6B233A9291F9@unm.edu> On Jun 5, 2010, at 1:33 AM, Erik Hoogcarspel wrote: > Sartre once wrote a > short story about a suicide terrorist who abandoned his intention to > blow up a building because he realized he wouldn't be there to witness > the results. Erik, you have hit upon an issue that continues to grate on my nerves. As you know, it is my preferred dogma that all people simply cease to exist when they die (although some manage to achieve an end to consciousness before their bodies stop metabolizing nourishment). I have believed this ever since hearing Hank Williams sing "No matter how you struggle and strive, you'll never get out of this world alive." Generally speaking, my belief brings me deep comfort, for it entails the belief that I will no longer have any worries or frustrations, and while I am alive I have no fear that I may someday die and go to heaven and be greeted there by Sarah Palin. But there is something about my belief that really does gnaw away at my naturally cheerful disposition. It bothers me that all those people who believed they would go to heaven (or hell or cross the bridge at bardo) will never know they were wrong. All those self-described martyrs who think they will go to heaven as a result of blowing themselves up along with a busload of innocent school children, or as a result of being pro-life by shooting a doctor who provides abortions, or as a result of dying in some pointless war (but is any war not pointless?), will never know they were wrong. They will never have an opportunity to look at what they have done and say "Merde! Je me suis dup?." That part of me that thrives on Schadevreugde (if that is the proper way of saying it in Dutch) will have to be content to take joy in my own frustration of not seeing others kicking themselves for having been in error. Tiens, ainsi que ce soit. > In Buddhist philosophy the I is seen as a stream, or a continuity. Yes. I love this analogy. Some continua of consciousness are torrents, some maelstroms, and some mere trickles. Politicians are mostly waterfalls, except for Canadians. They are hockey rinks. > If you want certainty > you better start doing some thinking of your own. From bogus@does.not.exist.com Fri Jun 4 12:07:27 2010 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2010 18:07:27 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: Richard From lemmett at talk21.com Sat Jun 5 13:03:30 2010 From: lemmett at talk21.com (lemmett at talk21.com) Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2010 19:03:30 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [Buddha-l] Being left alone to quietly die In-Reply-To: <7C3FC3B3-84EB-4EC3-BE06-6B233A9291F9@unm.edu> Message-ID: <783089.59669.qm@web86608.mail.ird.yahoo.com> >All those self-described martyrs who think they will go to heaven as a result of blowing themselves up along with a busload of innocent school children, or as a result of being pro-life by shooting a doctor who provides abortions, or as a result of dying in some pointless war (but is any war not pointless?), will never know they were wrong.? You and I come to this question from different perspectives but they do seem somewhat like reflections of each other. I say that because I am also concerned with the problem you give above. Recently I was reading the beginning of the Gandavyahu for the first time and was struck, perhaps by its aesthetic, of the possibility that the final moment (Denouement death according to analytical philosophy) is structured according to some karmic principle. Perhaps something analogous is true: perhaps even "I" have that karma manifest as realizing that I won't exist anymore. Wishful thinking? >From what I have been able to observe of people around me, certainty is best achieved by giving up thinking altogether. At least that is what seemingly works best in politics and religion. The reason that I have turned up on (bothered?) the list so is partly because there is the obvious alternative that certainty can be achieved through discussion and intersubjective agreement. Not that self critique is not a good way to establish what *could* be true... also I am a little lost as to how one can reach some stage in contemplation by giving up or stopping it... but hey I do read Buddhism so really doubt that I'll bother the list with too much of my ignorance! It's really is great to just read as well... Best wishes, Luke From rhayes at unm.edu Sat Jun 5 13:06:07 2010 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2010 13:06:07 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Karma In-Reply-To: <4C0A79BD.4090008@xs4all.nl> References: <4C0A79BD.4090008@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <7CEA7928-FD6D-4BEB-8D19-A320E1C1C0D7@unm.edu> On Jun 5, 2010, at 10:22 AM, Erik Hoogcarspel wrote: > See > http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2010/06/onshore-drilling-palin-oil There is an American idiot-idiot (that's sort of like an idiot-savant without any talent) named Rush Limbaugh who has been pushing this line for weeks on his radio program. His actual suggestion was that a specific environmental organization, the Sierra Club, be made to pay for the cleanup in El Golfo de M?xico. The Sierra Club responded with a fund-raising campaign with the slogan "Make Rush Limbaugh the Sierra Club's top fundraiser." People can make a donation in honor of Rush on the Sierra Club website: http://tinyurl.com/2bv4758 I had some miserable fun with this a few days ago on one of my blog posts on http://dayamati.blogspot.com/ . Alas, I was one of about eighty-seven million bloggers who could not resist entitling the piece "Spill, baby, spill." Richard From rhayes at unm.edu Sat Jun 5 13:18:09 2010 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2010 13:18:09 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Being unable to imagine dying [confused] In-Reply-To: <834595.10649.qm@web86601.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <834595.10649.qm@web86601.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Jun 5, 2010, at 11:23 AM, lemmett at talk21.com wrote: > I really don't understand what problem I have been in asking these questions. Maybe if I was trying to prove to the list that the tathagata did not exist and merely shouted down anyone who gave reason to believe that my opinion was wrong. Whether the tath?gata exists or not is a red herring thrown on the path by Dr Funhouse. No Buddhist would ever deny that. What a Buddhist might ask, however, is in what sense a Tath?gata can be said to exist. Specifically, Buddhists would be inclined to ask whether a Tath?gata has an eternal essence or is some kind of abiding and unchanging self. And most Buddhists (in fact, all that I am aware of) would say that there cannot be such a thing as a tath?gata in THAT sense. So the tath?gata, like any other proper name or rigid designator, is a conventional term of convenience that has no unique referent. Therefore, any question based on the supposition that a tath?gata (or anything else you can name) has an abiding essence goes unanswered (avy?k?ta). Richard From lemmett at talk21.com Sat Jun 5 13:27:01 2010 From: lemmett at talk21.com (lemmett at talk21.com) Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2010 19:27:01 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [Buddha-l] Being unable to imagine dying [confused] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <399339.34615.qm@web86607.mail.ird.yahoo.com> I meant after death if that changes your (kind) reply at all|? >> I really don't understand what problem I have been in asking these questions. >>Maybe if I was trying to prove to the list that the tathagata did not exist and >>merely shouted down anyone who gave reason to believe that my opinion was ?>>wrong. >Whether the tath?gata exists or not is a red herring thrown on the path by Dr >Funhouse. No Buddhist would ever deny that. What a Buddhist might ask, >however, is in what sense a Tath?gata can be said to exist. Specifically, >Buddhists would be inclined to ask whether a Tath?gata has an eternal essence >or is some kind of abiding and unchanging self. And most Buddhists (in fact, all >that I am aware of) would say that there cannot be such a thing as a tath?gata in >THAT sense. So the tath?gata, like any other proper name or rigid designator, is >a conventional term of convenience that has no unique referent. Therefore, any >question based on the supposition that a tath?gata (or anything else you can >name) has an abiding essence goes unanswered (avy?k?ta). Sorry about the inability, to format. From rhayes at unm.edu Sat Jun 5 13:35:38 2010 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2010 13:35:38 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Being unable to imagine dying [confused] In-Reply-To: <512201.85110.qm@web86605.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <512201.85110.qm@web86605.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: El Coyote escribi?: Then he'll fit right in. No one has said anything in earnest here since 1993. Luke responded: I am being sincere! But you are Luke, not Ernest. That notwithstanding, it is perhaps worth explaining that my quippant (that's a flippant quip that's gone wrong) was addressed not at my perception of your sincerity, but rather at Joanna's speculations, which are based, I think, on a misreading of what you have written. It is not at all difficult for me to see that you are quite serious in your questions, but I must also confess that it is not always obvious to me what you are asking. But persist in asking, for in no other way will clarity emerge in anyone's mind. Buddhist philosophy is a very odd duck indeed. To most people with training in philosophy, Buddhist philosophers hardly seem worthy of the designation. As philosophy, what the Buddhists wrote is very difficult to take seriously. To most people with a grounding in contemplative practice, on the other hand, Buddhist philosophers hardly seem to be doing anything of any importance at all. They seem just to be talking to feel a warm breeze blow between their teeth. As religion, what the Buddhists wrote is very difficult to take seriously. But all this stuff has survived, so it must make some sense on some level to someone. Part of what motivates those of us who study it for a living is (aside from becoming fabulously wealthy, famous and powerful) to try to get some small insight into what on earth it is about Buddhist writing that makes people keep passing it on from one generation to the next. In other words, we are all just as radically puzzled by it as you are. But at least we have had the opportunity to learn some interesting verbs in a variety of Asian languages. Richard From rhayes at unm.edu Sat Jun 5 13:38:08 2010 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2010 13:38:08 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Being unable to imagine dying [confused] In-Reply-To: <399339.34615.qm@web86607.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <399339.34615.qm@web86607.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <693390C6-5ACC-4F51-B304-E1AD584771A7@unm.edu> On Jun 5, 2010, at 1:27 PM, lemmett at talk21.com wrote: > Sorry about the inability, to format. Don't worry about it. None of us here are Platonists. We don't live in the realm of formats. Richard From lemmett at talk21.com Sat Jun 5 13:47:34 2010 From: lemmett at talk21.com (lemmett at talk21.com) Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2010 19:47:34 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [Buddha-l] Being unable to imagine dying [confused] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <55296.44652.qm@web86607.mail.ird.yahoo.com> >But persist in asking, for in no other way will clarity emerge in anyone's mind. >Buddhist philosophy is a very odd duck indeed. To most people with training in philosophy, Buddhist philosophers hardly seem worthy of the designation. As philosophy, what the Buddhists wrote is very difficult to take seriously. To most people with a grounding in contemplative practice, on the other hand, Buddhist philosophers hardly seem to be doing anything of any importance at all. They seem just to be talking to feel a warm breeze blow between their teeth. As religion, what the Buddhists wrote is very difficult to take seriously. But all this stuff has survived, so it must make some sense on some level to someone. Part of what motivates those of us who study it for a living is (aside from becoming fabulously wealthy, famous and powerful) to try to get some small insight into what on earth it is about Buddhist writing that makes people keep passing it on from one generation to the next. In other words, we are all just as radically puzzled by it as you are. But at least we have had the opportunity to learn some interesting verbs in a variety of Asian languages. What I'm asking is if I were to take seriously the authority behind the fourfold negation of the Buddha's existence after death, apply that doctrine of his final death to my own upcoming one and then add the argument for one's own non existence being inconceivable: then should I conclude anything about the possibility of death being a positive nothingness ("slipping into the night"). Or if "black velvet" remains very unlikely, does death take on a different significance according to these motivations I have adumbrated just now. Also I might add that, I think, that there is certainly something or other to Buddhist contemplation in that there is a sense in which a self cannot be found inhering in phenomena. I haven't unpacked that analytically but then I can't do so at all easily to the belief of death's inconceivability either. At least without reading Derrida anyway. From rhayes at unm.edu Sat Jun 5 15:06:46 2010 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2010 15:06:46 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Being unable to imagine dying [confused] In-Reply-To: <55296.44652.qm@web86607.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <55296.44652.qm@web86607.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <56D54D6B-E111-4F79-8096-6AD95534AB23@unm.edu> On Jun 5, 2010, at 1:47 PM, lemmett at talk21.com wrote: > What I'm asking is if I were to take seriously the authority behind the fourfold negation of the Buddha's existence after death, apply that doctrine of his final death to my own upcoming one and then add the argument for one's own non existence being inconceivable: then should I conclude anything about the possibility of death being a positive nothingness ("slipping into the night"). I'm afraid the fourfold negation is purely an intellectual exercise that has no bearing whatsoever on anything as practical as the question you are asking. About the only thing you can conclude from the fourfold negation is that there is no self that will either endure or perish. But so what? > Or if "black velvet" remains very unlikely, does death take on a different significance according to these motivations I have adumbrated just now. Death, like life, has no significance whatsoever in itself. Insofar as it has any significance at all, it has the significance you have chosen to give to it. It may be worth looking into why you have made the choices you have made in giving various things significance. > Also I might add that, I think, that there is certainly something or other to Buddhist contemplation in that there is a sense in which a self cannot be found inhering in phenomena. The non-self doctrine seems to me like an answer to a question that no one is asking, or a cure to a disease that no one actually has. > I haven't unpacked that analytically but then I can't do so at all easily to the belief of death's inconceivability either. At least without reading Derrida anyway. No condition can possible be so bad that reading Derrida would be worth undertaking to find relief. Buddhist dogma may be a cure for a disease no one has, but Derrida is a disease for a cure that no one has found. But ignore me. I'm old, prejudiced and happy to be both. Richard From horowitz at chass.utoronto.ca Sat Jun 5 15:12:50 2010 From: horowitz at chass.utoronto.ca (Gad Horowitz) Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2010 17:12:50 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Being unable to imagine dying [confused] References: <55296.44652.qm@web86607.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <56D54D6B-E111-4F79-8096-6AD95534AB23@unm.edu> Message-ID: <520E7288C90D416DAED39DF8C0997C03@utor34931c0aec> Has anyone asked lemmet how old he is? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Hayes" To: "Buddhist discussion forum" Sent: Saturday, June 05, 2010 5:06 PM Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] Being unable to imagine dying [confused] > On Jun 5, 2010, at 1:47 PM, lemmett at talk21.com wrote: > >> What I'm asking is if I were to take seriously the authority behind the >> fourfold negation of the Buddha's existence after death, apply that >> doctrine of his final death to my own upcoming one and then add the >> argument for one's own non existence being inconceivable: then should I >> conclude anything about the possibility of death being a positive >> nothingness ("slipping into the night"). > > I'm afraid the fourfold negation is purely an intellectual exercise that > has no bearing whatsoever on anything as practical as the question you are > asking. About the only thing you can conclude from the fourfold negation > is that there is no self that will either endure or perish. But so what? > >> Or if "black velvet" remains very unlikely, does death take on a >> different significance according to these motivations I have adumbrated >> just now. > > Death, like life, has no significance whatsoever in itself. Insofar as it > has any significance at all, it has the significance you have chosen to > give to it. It may be worth looking into why you have made the choices you > have made in giving various things significance. > >> Also I might add that, I think, that there is certainly something or >> other to Buddhist contemplation in that there is a sense in which a self >> cannot be found inhering in phenomena. > > The non-self doctrine seems to me like an answer to a question that no one > is asking, or a cure to a disease that no one actually has. > >> I haven't unpacked that analytically but then I can't do so at all easily >> to the belief of death's inconceivability either. At least without >> reading Derrida anyway. > > No condition can possible be so bad that reading Derrida would be worth > undertaking to find relief. Buddhist dogma may be a cure for a disease no > one has, but Derrida is a disease for a cure that no one has found. > > But ignore me. I'm old, prejudiced and happy to be both. > > Richard > > > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From lemmett at talk21.com Sat Jun 5 15:24:11 2010 From: lemmett at talk21.com (lemmett at talk21.com) Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2010 21:24:11 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [Buddha-l] Being unable to imagine dying [confused] In-Reply-To: <520E7288C90D416DAED39DF8C0997C03@utor34931c0aec> Message-ID: <858002.93313.qm@web86607.mail.ird.yahoo.com> I'm 28 and my time at university was difficult at best. Ok so I will assume the consensus that anything about parinirvana is irrelevant to the conceivability of death and visa versa. I guess I'll make my own mind up about Derrida. Thank you! --- On Sat, 5/6/10, Gad Horowitz wrote: From: Gad Horowitz Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] Being unable to imagine dying [confused] To: "Buddhist discussion forum" Date: Saturday, 5 June, 2010, 22:12 Has anyone asked lemmet how old he is? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Hayes" To: "Buddhist discussion forum" Sent: Saturday, June 05, 2010 5:06 PM Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] Being unable to imagine dying [confused] > On Jun 5, 2010, at 1:47 PM, lemmett at talk21.com wrote: > >> What I'm asking is if I were to take seriously the authority behind the >> fourfold negation of the Buddha's existence after death, apply that >> doctrine of his final death to my own upcoming one and then add the >> argument for one's own non existence being inconceivable: then should I >> conclude anything about the possibility of death being a positive >> nothingness ("slipping into the night"). > > I'm afraid the fourfold negation is purely an intellectual exercise that > has no bearing whatsoever on anything as practical as the question you are > asking. About the only thing you can conclude from the fourfold negation > is that there is no self that will either endure or perish. But so what? > >> Or if "black velvet" remains very unlikely, does death take on a >> different significance according to these motivations I have adumbrated >> just now. > > Death, like life, has no significance whatsoever in itself. Insofar as it > has any significance at all, it has the significance you have chosen to > give to it. It may be worth looking into why you have made the choices you > have made in giving various things significance. > >> Also I might add that, I think, that there is certainly something or >> other to Buddhist contemplation in that there is a sense in which a self >> cannot be found inhering in phenomena. > > The non-self doctrine seems to me like an answer to a question that no one > is asking, or a cure to a disease that no one actually has. > >> I haven't unpacked that analytically but then I can't do so at all easily >> to the belief of death's inconceivability either. At least without >> reading Derrida anyway. > > No condition can possible be so bad that reading Derrida would be worth > undertaking to find relief. Buddhist dogma may be a cure for a disease no > one has, but Derrida is a disease for a cure that no one has found. > > But ignore me. I'm old, prejudiced and happy to be both. > > Richard > > > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From rhayes at unm.edu Sat Jun 5 15:27:18 2010 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2010 15:27:18 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Being unable to imagine dying [confused] In-Reply-To: <520E7288C90D416DAED39DF8C0997C03@utor34931c0aec> References: <55296.44652.qm@web86607.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <56D54D6B-E111-4F79-8096-6AD95534AB23@unm.edu> <520E7288C90D416DAED39DF8C0997C03@utor34931c0aec> Message-ID: <265543EC-FC29-4085-8D6B-BC8FE87A0297@unm.edu> On Jun 5, 2010, at 3:12 PM, Gad Horowitz wrote: > Has anyone asked lemmet how old he is? Well, that seems like a very sensible question to ask anyone. I have been creeping steadily toward death for 23,811 days. How long have you been dying, Gad? From horowitz at chass.utoronto.ca Sat Jun 5 15:29:12 2010 From: horowitz at chass.utoronto.ca (Gad Horowitz) Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2010 17:29:12 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Being unable to imagine dying [confused] References: <55296.44652.qm@web86607.mail.ird.yahoo.com><56D54D6B-E111-4F79-8096-6AD95534AB23@unm.edu><520E7288C90D416DAED39DF8C0997C03@utor34931c0aec> <265543EC-FC29-4085-8D6B-BC8FE87A0297@unm.edu> Message-ID: <0B3D34885C654B8BB174995A309591E4@utor34931c0aec> "Birth, that was the death of him" t.s.eliot ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Hayes" To: "Buddhist discussion forum" Sent: Saturday, June 05, 2010 5:27 PM Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] Being unable to imagine dying [confused] > On Jun 5, 2010, at 3:12 PM, Gad Horowitz wrote: > >> Has anyone asked lemmet how old he is? > > Well, that seems like a very sensible question to ask anyone. I have been > creeping steadily toward death for 23,811 days. How long have you been > dying, Gad? > > > > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From jkirk at spro.net Sat Jun 5 19:35:11 2010 From: jkirk at spro.net (JKirkpatrick) Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2010 19:35:11 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Being unable to imagine dying [confused] In-Reply-To: <56D54D6B-E111-4F79-8096-6AD95534AB23@unm.edu> References: <55296.44652.qm@web86607.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <56D54D6B-E111-4F79-8096-6AD95534AB23@unm.edu> Message-ID: Dear Mr No-fold Lemma, Richard wrote: "It may be worth looking into why you have made the choices you have made in giving various [or, certain] things significance." Amen to that. Why don't you tell us what you have assiduously left out so far: what is your training, or study, in whatever path you are on??? Or, since you were in college, did you take up this existential (there, Herman!) problem on your own,------ or? "No condition can possibly be so bad that reading Derrida would be worth undertaking to find relief. Buddhist dogma may be a cure for a disease no one has, but Derrida is a disease for a cure that no one has found." Ya Allah! JK ____________________________________ On Jun 5, 2010, at 1:47 PM, lemmett at talk21.com wrote: > What I'm asking is if I were to take seriously the authority behind the fourfold negation of the Buddha's existence after death, apply that doctrine of his final death to my own upcoming one and then add the argument for one's own non existence being inconceivable: then should I conclude anything about the possibility of death being a positive nothingness ("slipping into the night"). I'm afraid the fourfold negation is purely an intellectual exercise that has no bearing whatsoever on anything as practical as the question you are asking. About the only thing you can conclude from the fourfold negation is that there is no self that will either endure or perish. But so what? > Or if "black velvet" remains very unlikely, does death take on a different significance according to these motivations I have adumbrated just now. Death, like life, has no significance whatsoever in itself. Insofar as it has any significance at all, it has the significance you have chosen to give to it. It may be worth looking into why you have made the choices you have made in giving various things significance. > Also I might add that, I think, that there is certainly something or other to Buddhist contemplation in that there is a sense in which a self cannot be found inhering in phenomena. The non-self doctrine seems to me like an answer to a question that no one is asking, or a cure to a disease that no one actually has. > I haven't unpacked that analytically but then I can't do so at all easily to the belief of death's inconceivability either. At least without reading Derrida anyway. No condition can possible be so bad that reading Derrida would be worth undertaking to find relief. Buddhist dogma may be a cure for a disease no one has, but Derrida is a disease for a cure that no one has found. But ignore me. I'm old, prejudiced and happy to be both. Richard _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From lemmett at talk21.com Sat Jun 5 20:56:26 2010 From: lemmett at talk21.com (lemmett at talk21.com) Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2010 02:56:26 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [Buddha-l] Being unable to imagine dying [confused] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <284728.93409.qm@web86608.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Hello. I guess I thought it wasn't relevant as long as the list was open to non academics. I only have an undergrad degree in philosophy. I was interested in death being inconceivable for a long time but have only started reading Buddhism in the last 6 months or year, since finishing university. They didn't talk about death much; I did read some Heidegger while there but it wasn't helpful. So yes it is just something that I have a personal interest in, for whatever reason. --- On Sun, 6/6/10, JKirkpatrick wrote: From: JKirkpatrick Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] Being unable to imagine dying [confused] To: "'Buddhist discussion forum'" Date: Sunday, 6 June, 2010, 2:35 Dear Mr No-fold Lemma, Richard wrote: "It may be worth looking into why you have made the choices you have made in giving various [or, certain] things significance." Amen to that. Why don't you tell us what you have assiduously left out so far: what is your training, or study, in whatever path you are on??? Or, since you were in college, did you take up this existential (there, Herman!) problem on your own,------ or? "No condition can possibly be so bad that reading Derrida would be worth undertaking to find relief. Buddhist dogma may be a cure for a disease no one has, but Derrida is a disease for a cure that no one has found."? ? ???Ya Allah! JK ____________________________________ On Jun 5, 2010, at 1:47 PM, lemmett at talk21.com wrote: > What I'm asking is if I were to take seriously the authority behind the fourfold negation of the Buddha's existence after death, apply that doctrine of his final death to my own upcoming one and then add the argument for one's own non existence being inconceivable: then should I conclude anything about the possibility of death being a positive nothingness ("slipping into the night"). I'm afraid the fourfold negation is purely an intellectual exercise that has no bearing whatsoever on anything as practical as the question you are asking. About the only thing you can conclude from the fourfold negation is that there is no self that will either endure or perish. But so what? > Or if "black velvet" remains very unlikely, does death take on a different significance according to these motivations I have adumbrated just now. Death, like life, has no significance whatsoever in itself. Insofar as it has any significance at all, it has the significance you have chosen to give to it. It may be worth looking into why you have made the choices you have made in giving various things significance. > Also I might add that, I think, that there is certainly something or other to Buddhist contemplation in that there is a sense in which a self cannot be found inhering in phenomena. The non-self doctrine seems to me like an answer to a question that no one is asking, or a cure to a disease that no one actually has. > I haven't unpacked that analytically but then I can't do so at all easily to the belief of death's inconceivability either. At least without reading Derrida anyway. No condition can possible be so bad that reading Derrida would be worth undertaking to find relief. Buddhist dogma may be a cure for a disease no one has, but Derrida is a disease for a cure that no one has found. But ignore me. I'm old, prejudiced and happy to be both. Richard _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From jkirk at spro.net Sat Jun 5 22:38:13 2010 From: jkirk at spro.net (JKirkpatrick) Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2010 22:38:13 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Being unable to imagine dying [confused] In-Reply-To: <284728.93409.qm@web86608.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <284728.93409.qm@web86608.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: OK--I'll cease and desist. JK ____________________________ Hello. I guess I thought it wasn't relevant as long as the list was open to non academics. I only have an undergrad degree in philosophy. I was interested in death being inconceivable for a long time but have only started reading Buddhism in the last 6 months or year, since finishing university. They didn't talk about death much; I did read some Heidegger while there but it wasn't helpful. So yes it is just something that I have a personal interest in, for whatever reason. --- On Sun, 6/6/10, JKirkpatrick wrote: From: JKirkpatrick Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] Being unable to imagine dying [confused] To: "'Buddhist discussion forum'" Date: Sunday, 6 June, 2010, 2:35 Dear Mr No-fold Lemma, Richard wrote: "It may be worth looking into why you have made the choices you have made in giving various [or, certain] things significance." Amen to that. Why don't you tell us what you have assiduously left out so far: what is your training, or study, in whatever path you are on??? Or, since you were in college, did you take up this existential (there, Herman!) problem on your own,------ or? "No condition can possibly be so bad that reading Derrida would be worth undertaking to find relief. Buddhist dogma may be a cure for a disease no one has, but Derrida is a disease for a cure that no one has found."? ? ???Ya Allah! JK ____________________________________ On Jun 5, 2010, at 1:47 PM, lemmett at talk21.com wrote: > What I'm asking is if I were to take seriously the authority behind the fourfold negation of the Buddha's existence after death, apply that doctrine of his final death to my own upcoming one and then add the argument for one's own non existence being inconceivable: then should I conclude anything about the possibility of death being a positive nothingness ("slipping into the night"). I'm afraid the fourfold negation is purely an intellectual exercise that has no bearing whatsoever on anything as practical as the question you are asking. About the only thing you can conclude from the fourfold negation is that there is no self that will either endure or perish. But so what? > Or if "black velvet" remains very unlikely, does death take on a different significance according to these motivations I have adumbrated just now. Death, like life, has no significance whatsoever in itself. Insofar as it has any significance at all, it has the significance you have chosen to give to it. It may be worth looking into why you have made the choices you have made in giving various things significance. > Also I might add that, I think, that there is certainly something or other to Buddhist contemplation in that there is a sense in which a self cannot be found inhering in phenomena. The non-self doctrine seems to me like an answer to a question that no one is asking, or a cure to a disease that no one actually has. > I haven't unpacked that analytically but then I can't do so at all easily to the belief of death's inconceivability either. At least without reading Derrida anyway. No condition can possible be so bad that reading Derrida would be worth undertaking to find relief. Buddhist dogma may be a cure for a disease no one has, but Derrida is a disease for a cure that no one has found. But ignore me. I'm old, prejudiced and happy to be both. Richard _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From rhayes at unm.edu Sat Jun 5 22:51:10 2010 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2010 22:51:10 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Being unable to imagine dying [confused] In-Reply-To: <284728.93409.qm@web86608.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <284728.93409.qm@web86608.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Jun 5, 2010, at 8:56 PM, lemmett at talk21.com wrote: > Hello. I guess I thought it wasn't relevant as long as the list was open to non academics. The list is open to anyone who can stand us. > I only have an undergrad degree in philosophy. Makes no difference. Questions about age, educational background, marital status, sexual preference, criminal background, credit rating, previous conditions of servitude and political affiliation are completely off limits. People who ask such questions are made to stand in the corner wearing a Mere ?r?vaka cap. > I was interested in death being inconceivable for a long time but have only started reading Buddhism in the last 6 months or year, since finishing university. Myself, I've never thought much about death being inconceivable. I guess I always figured there is not much point trying to think about anything that might be inconceivable. Life, on the other hand, is well worth thinking about. It's obviously conceivable, since it starts when one is conceived. > They didn't talk about death much In my philosophy classes, I talk about death just about every day. Socrates made a big impact on me when I was just a little puppy. I have never forgotten his claim that the whole purpose of studying philosophy is to prepare oneself for death, and I remind my students of that every class. It makes most of them sick to death of philosophy. Rarely does anyone make the mistake of taking a second philosophy class with me. > I did read some Heidegger while there but it wasn't helpful. You're a better man than I. I tried to read some Heidegger once, but I couldn't make heads or tails out of what he was saying. Mind you, all my philosophical training was in analytic philosophy and Indian philosophy, and all the people who taught me Indian philosophy were enamored of Ayer, Ryle, Russell, Quine, Strawson and Wittgenstein (The Tractatus please---none of that later stuff he wrote after his brain died). There are times when I have a feeling this has given me a rather limited appreciation of Indian philosophy, but I quickly get over those feelings and dismiss them as brief episodes of unaccountable mental illness acquired perhaps from reading Republican bumper stickers. > So yes it is just something that I have a personal interest in, for whatever reason. It's good to have a personal interest in death, especially one's own. It's about the only thing in life you can count on. Did you ever see the movie "Breaker Morant"? It has a great line in it: "Live every day as if it's your last, and one of these days you'll be right." That's very Buddhist, except that Buddhists think it's better to take every breath as if it's your last. An entire day is much too long to keep in mind all at once. Richard From jmp at peavler.org Sun Jun 6 08:35:16 2010 From: jmp at peavler.org (Jim Peavler) Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2010 08:35:16 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Why imagine dying [confused]? In-Reply-To: References: <284728.93409.qm@web86608.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I am nearing 70. After 12 years of college, terminating in a PhD in something or another around 1970 or so (for years I couldn't imagine terminating), teaching in Universities for 12 years, breaking out after I discovered I was no longer needed there to help young men keep out of a war, I went into fields like working around super computers that were doing various sciences, developing tools for publishinug technical papers electronically and writing advertising and public relations for beer companies and a motor-cycle manufacturer. I have been serious about trying to understand life since my father died in suddenly when I was 15. I have not yet got far enough along in my studies to tackle death. (This for Joanna, although she is already probably way too familiar with it.) I think you have started at the wrong end of the elephant. Go to the Trunk first, and try to understand life (as Richard suggests, one breath at a time is about the write dosage). You will get so busy at that that you will probably surprise yourself by dying before you even get to the tail. Here is a thing you can read that, I believe, purports to give the Buddha's own answer to your questions. I have yet to get this far past Sermon One in my own understanding. There is more Buddhism here than I yet understand, http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/bits/bits013.htm From jehms at xs4all.nl Sun Jun 6 09:29:49 2010 From: jehms at xs4all.nl (Erik Hoogcarspel) Date: Sun, 06 Jun 2010 17:29:49 +0200 Subject: [Buddha-l] Being unable to imagine dying [confused] In-Reply-To: References: <284728.93409.qm@web86608.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4C0BBEED.5020201@xs4all.nl> Op 06-06-10 06:51, Richard Hayes schreef: > You're a better man than I. I tried to read some Heidegger once, but I > couldn't make heads or tails out of what he was saying. Mind you, all > my philosophical training was in analytic philosophy and Indian > philosophy, and all the people who taught me Indian philosophy were > enamored of Ayer, Ryle, Russell, Quine, Strawson and Wittgenstein (The > Tractatus please---none of that later stuff he wrote after his brain > died). There are times when I have a feeling this has given me a > rather limited appreciation of Indian philosophy, but I quickly get > over those feelings and dismiss them as brief episodes of > unaccountable mental illness acquired perhaps from reading Republican > bumper stickers. That's an eloquent way to boost about your limitations, Richard. It is not entirely Heidegger's fault that you didn't understand him. Others who had more perseverance managed to get a grip in the end. After all he was just another failed priest who took most of his inspiration from Husserl, local farmers and Meister Eckhart. The idea that Wittgenstein wrote his Logische Untersuchungen after his brain died opens new perspectives for mr. Lemma. It would mean that death merely is liberation from mathematical and logical oversimplifications. I myself did read Heidegger and Husserl, and many other continentals, but also the writers you mention above. I had to during my study, because at the time you could not get away with just studying only a group philosophers or a movement. Later I wanted to understand what they were after. I must say I found it very boring most of the time, too simplistic. erik From jehms at xs4all.nl Sun Jun 6 10:03:58 2010 From: jehms at xs4all.nl (Erik Hoogcarspel) Date: Sun, 06 Jun 2010 18:03:58 +0200 Subject: [Buddha-l] gChod on Dutch radio Message-ID: <4C0BC6EE.7090507@xs4all.nl> a member of this list, Henk Blezer, wil be interviewed about different kinds of gchod (????) in Buddhist and Bon traditions on Dutch radio on Sunday 13th at 22:30 - 23:00 local time. Those who understand Dutch can listen to it on the Net at http://www.radio5.nl/ . Perhaps Henk will at one time give outline of what he had to say for others on the list? There will also be sound recordings of a kind of gchod that has nearly vanished. The other day I showed my students a movie called 'Aghori', picturing the life of this kind of 'gothic punk' sadhu. One of my students asked if he had a license for living on the cremationground and smearing the ashes of burned beloved ones on his body. This illustrates the distance we have between our society and the classic Indian one. The foundation who organizes Henk's interview also has a program (the Boeddhistische Omroep Stichting, the same address on the 12th at 15:02 - 16:00) about Dutch gchodpa's going to churchyards at night to to do their ritual. I think they will need a license... and a reality check. erik From lemmett at talk21.com Sun Jun 6 10:26:37 2010 From: lemmett at talk21.com (lemmett at talk21.com) Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2010 16:26:37 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [Buddha-l] Emptiness and being unable to imagine dying [confused] In-Reply-To: <4C0BBEED.5020201@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <677352.35544.qm@web86601.mail.ird.yahoo.com> >My undergrad lecturer for continental philosophy complained to me that its philosophers did not define terms and were a bit vague, rather than him saying what it eventually seemed to be to me: that they did not really argue for their points except perhaps with vague aesthetic notions.?I think that is done more in an activist way than in the philosophical spirit of writers like Nietzsche, Kant and Marx who is to blame for everything.? >It's not so interesting but I bottled out of agreeing with the Tractatus because the religious finale seemed to lack doubt *and* faith. Merleau-Ponty, I think at least he noticed the intersubjective side of that kind of rhetorical dialogue. >>>I myself did read Heidegger and Husserl, and many other continentals, but also the writers you mention above. I had to during my study, because at the time you could not get away with just studying only a group philosophers or a movement. Later I wanted to understand what they were after. I must say I found it very boring most of the time, too simplistic. >Jim Peavler's surely right that life is to be lived and understood. It's occasionally nice for me to think that I might understand something that can't be lived, because I'm not going to just "live" it, right??I should probably resist suggesting that this is analogous to practical ethics, about cognition and application of the idea of life. >All I really want to add is that Ziporyn's book on Tiantai - Value Paradox -?covers Chih-I's fourfold classification of the truths quite nicely. I'm now perplexed about the sudden-perfect / gradual-perfect distinction but it's pretty irrelevant to anything. >Kind thanks From jkirk at spro.net Sun Jun 6 10:33:43 2010 From: jkirk at spro.net (JKirkpatrick) Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2010 10:33:43 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Why imagine dying [confused]? In-Reply-To: References: <284728.93409.qm@web86608.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <0D03A6ABD1574593AE2078BF2D4AA9EE@OPTIPLEX> Ok scholars: would someone kindly offer the Pali terms used in this text for the following terms found in the 2d sermon cited by Jim? I ask only because I'm surprised that the Buddha's use of these terms suggests that he knew some poetics (and that before he left home for the homeless life he's seen a few puppet shows), and also because I just want to know the terms, e.g., what's the difference between terms for jungle and for wilderness (or were these Eng. terms supplied by the translator(s): "the theory that the saint neither exists nor does not exist after death, is a [jungle, a wilderness, a puppet-show]" Thanks in advance, mid-elephantly speaking and so pedantically yours, Joanna __________________ Here is a thing you can read that, I believe, purports to give the Buddha's own answer to your questions. I have yet to get this far past Sermon One in my own understanding. There is more Buddhism here than I yet understand, http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/bits/bits013.htm _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From bshmr at aol.com Sun Jun 6 11:00:29 2010 From: bshmr at aol.com (R B Basham) Date: Sun, 06 Jun 2010 11:00:29 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Spinning Retreats In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1275843629.13871.19.camel@aims110> My Fellow Members (-: , Loose science coupled with lousy reporting though perhaps 'fun' to play with. No mention of urine residuals of ink and paper which incidentally have been attributed to licking and ingesting articles featuring the USAn Palin (of palingenesis, not metempsychosis, etc. -- for the academics who do not practice). Richard Basham PS: Anyone read FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting) on 60 examples of distortions (including suppression) in medical knowledge? Probably not, only one paper/chain reported the report. Right Speech can be troublesome, which is another topic. ** http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/06/a_buddhist_monk.php?campaign=th_rss_food A Buddhist Monk's Vegetarian Diet to Minimize Chemical Exposure by Jessica Root - Brooklyn, NY on 06. 5.10 Weekday vegetarians ready to ramp up their meatless-ness may find inspiration in this recently released study in Environmental Health News. For five days, 25 study participants dwelled in a Buddhist temple and adopted a monk's lifestyle--including their oftentimes veggie-based diet. Prior to their temple stay participants were asked to reveal what they had eaten during the previous 48 hours (consumables included beef, pork and dairy) and give urine samples. The results... ** See http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/newscience/phthalates-antibiotics-reduced-after-vegetarian-diet/ From richard.nance at gmail.com Sun Jun 6 11:19:30 2010 From: richard.nance at gmail.com (Richard Nance) Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2010 13:19:30 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Why imagine dying [confused]? In-Reply-To: <0D03A6ABD1574593AE2078BF2D4AA9EE@OPTIPLEX> References: <284728.93409.qm@web86608.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <0D03A6ABD1574593AE2078BF2D4AA9EE@OPTIPLEX> Message-ID: On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 12:33 PM, JKirkpatrick wrote: > Ok scholars: would someone kindly offer the Pali terms used in > this text for the following terms found in the 2d sermon cited by > Jim? The term here translated as "jungle" is gahana: http://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.1:1:1149.pali The term translated as "wilderness" is kant?ra: http://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.1:1:237.pali The term translated as "puppet show" is vis?ka: http://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.3:1:2081.pali Each of these terms is, in this context, compounded with an initial "di??hi" (i.e., "view(s)"). Best wishes, R. Nance Indiana From jinavamsa at yahoo.com Sun Jun 6 12:18:39 2010 From: jinavamsa at yahoo.com (Mitchell Ginsberg) Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2010 11:18:39 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Buddha-l] Being unable to imagine dying [confused] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <876396.99595.qm@web63205.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Hello Lemmett and all, Lemmett, can you explain a little of what you mean by the idea of (or term) the conceivability of death? I suppose that that would help with its contrast, the inconceivability of death. I am wondering what is inconceivable about death in your eyes. Do you mean unfathomable? mysterious? awe-inspiring? infinitely fearsome? other? (While waiting for death, if that's what we're doing, ... I remember being 28. Enjoy it!) Mitchell ========== Homepage (updated May 23, 2010): http://jinavamsa.com See also http://jinavamsa.com/mentalhealth.html From lemmett at talk21.com Sun Jun 6 13:00:59 2010 From: lemmett at talk21.com (lemmett at talk21.com) Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2010 19:00:59 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [Buddha-l] Being unable to imagine dying [confused] In-Reply-To: <876396.99595.qm@web63205.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <524110.75693.qm@web86605.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Hello, sorry about the long link but Zygmunt Bauman talks about what I mean in the first few pages of this book?http://books.google.com/books?id=JYNW-3fjGIoC&printsec=frontcover&dq=immortality+strategies&cd=3#v=onepage&q&f=false Thanks. --- On Sun, 6/6/10, Mitchell Ginsberg wrote: From: Mitchell Ginsberg Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] Being unable to imagine dying [confused] To: buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com Date: Sunday, 6 June, 2010, 19:18 Hello Lemmett and all, Lemmett, can you explain a little of what you mean by the idea of (or term) the conceivability of death? I suppose that that would help with its contrast, the inconceivability of death. I am wondering what is inconceivable about death in your eyes. Do you mean unfathomable? mysterious? awe-inspiring? infinitely fearsome? other? (While waiting for death, if that's what we're doing, ... I remember being 28. Enjoy it!) Mitchell? ========== Homepage (updated May 23, 2010): http://jinavamsa.com See also http://jinavamsa.com/mentalhealth.html ? ? ? _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From jkirk at spro.net Sun Jun 6 15:01:30 2010 From: jkirk at spro.net (JKirkpatrick) Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2010 15:01:30 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Being unable to imagine dying [confused] In-Reply-To: <4C0BBEED.5020201@xs4all.nl> References: <284728.93409.qm@web86608.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <4C0BBEED.5020201@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <999B792B905748C8AA10B1E40625B066@OPTIPLEX> Wait--wasn't it Husserl who wrote Logische Untersuchungen? ====== That's an eloquent way to boost about your limitations, Richard. It is not entirely Heidegger's fault that you didn't understand him. Others who had more perseverance managed to get a grip in the end. After all he was just another failed priest who took most of his inspiration from Husserl, local farmers and Meister Eckhart. The idea that Wittgenstein wrote his Logische Untersuchungen after his brain died opens new perspectives for mr. Lemma. It would mean that death merely is liberation from mathematical and logical oversimplifications. I myself did read Heidegger and Husserl, and many other continentals, but also the writers you mention above. I had to during my study, because at the time you could not get away with just studying only a group philosophers or a movement. Later I wanted to understand what they were after. I must say I found it very boring most of the time, too simplistic. erik _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From jkirk at spro.net Sun Jun 6 15:12:59 2010 From: jkirk at spro.net (JKirkpatrick) Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2010 15:12:59 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Why imagine dying [confused]? In-Reply-To: References: <284728.93409.qm@web86608.mail.ird.yahoo.com><0D03A6ABD1574593AE2078BF2D4AA9EE@OPTIPLEX> Message-ID: <631E202CC5BD485EBD47C1F324BAB142@OPTIPLEX> Hi Richard, Thanks much. Now I get to ponder and check up for Skt equivalents and then on to Hindi. Joanna ______________________ On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 12:33 PM, JKirkpatrick wrote: > Ok scholars: would someone kindly offer the Pali terms used in this > text for the following terms found in the 2d sermon cited by Jim? The term here translated as "jungle" is gahana: http://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.1:1:1149.pali The term translated as "wilderness" is kant?ra: http://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.1:1:237.pali The term translated as "puppet show" is vis?ka: http://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.3:1:2081.pali Each of these terms is, in this context, compounded with an initial "di??hi" (i.e., "view(s)"). Best wishes, R. Nance Indiana _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From jkirk at spro.net Sun Jun 6 15:17:38 2010 From: jkirk at spro.net (JKirkpatrick) Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2010 15:17:38 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] gChod on Dutch radio In-Reply-To: <4C0BC6EE.7090507@xs4all.nl> References: <4C0BC6EE.7090507@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: . The foundation who organizes Henk's interview also has a program (the Boeddhistische Omroep Stichting, the same address on the 12th at 15:02 - 16:00) about Dutch gchodpa's going to churchyards at night to to do their ritual. I think they will need a license... and a reality check. erik ================ I hope they'll be able to tell as between pretas, pisaccas and plain old bhuts. Might save their lives.............. From lemmett at talk21.com Sun Jun 6 15:19:11 2010 From: lemmett at talk21.com (lemmett at talk21.com) Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2010 21:19:11 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [Buddha-l] Being unable to imagine dying [confused] In-Reply-To: <999B792B905748C8AA10B1E40625B066@OPTIPLEX> Message-ID: <693043.97067.qm@web86601.mail.ird.yahoo.com> I could never understand what he could possibly mean by wisdom and it seemed *really* important. No really I don't think I have a clue at all... I was wondering if the ultimate existential question is trans-humanistic suicide. Richard would go for it it seems, I'd probably claim that both alternatives are beyond being chosen and then cackle myself to death :? --- On Sun, 6/6/10, JKirkpatrick wrote: From: JKirkpatrick Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] Being unable to imagine dying [confused] To: "'Buddhist discussion forum'" Date: Sunday, 6 June, 2010, 22:01 Wait--wasn't it Husserl who wrote Logische Untersuchungen? ====== That's an eloquent way to boost about your limitations, Richard. It is not entirely Heidegger's fault that you didn't understand him. Others who had more perseverance managed to get a grip in the end. After all he was just another failed priest who took most of his inspiration from Husserl, local farmers and Meister Eckhart. The idea that Wittgenstein wrote his Logische Untersuchungen after his brain died opens new perspectives for mr. Lemma. It would mean that death merely is liberation from mathematical and logical oversimplifications. I myself did read Heidegger and Husserl, and many other continentals, but also the writers you mention above. I had to during my study, because at the time you could not get away with just studying only a group philosophers or a movement. Later I wanted to understand what they were after. I must say I found it very boring most of the time, too simplistic. erik From rhayes at unm.edu Sun Jun 6 15:44:36 2010 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2010 15:44:36 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Being unable to imagine dying [confused] In-Reply-To: <4C0BBEED.5020201@xs4all.nl> References: <284728.93409.qm@web86608.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <4C0BBEED.5020201@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <806DD3BE-D02C-48B0-A498-D800E405EE86@unm.edu> On Jun 6, 2010, at 9:29 AM, Erik Hoogcarspel wrote: > That's an eloquent way to boost about your limitations, Richard. No boasting intended. I do regard my philosophical limitations as something of a handicap, part of the general handicap of having an American education, followed by a Canadian education. The Anglo-American philosophers were so dominant in philosophy departments forty years ago in North America that one could hardly learn about anyone else in a philosophy department. But I cannot say the philosophy programs were solely responsible for lack of education. Mostly it was my own fault that I chose almost nothing in the philosophy department but courses in logic, philosophy of science and philosophy of mind. I had almost no interest at all in anything that was not connected with mathematics or the natural sciences. Even my interest in Buddhism was, at first, almost exclusively an interest in logic. By the time my interests expanded, I was much to old to learn anything new. It should be borne in mind that I have no degrees in philosophy and therefore did not meet any of the requirements of philosophy majors. I majored in Sanskrit and was primarily interested in morphology, syntax and semantics. It was mostly by committing various kinds of fraud that I managed to get jobs teaching religious studies, Buddhism and Buddhist philosophy. Such a fraud would never have worked in Europe. It is only in cultural backwaters such as the United States that one can pass oneself off as something one is not. Richard Hayes Department of Pseudo-philosophy University of New Mexico (where if you can eat the chile, you can have the job) From lemmett at talk21.com Sun Jun 6 17:26:07 2010 From: lemmett at talk21.com (lemmett at talk21.com) Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2010 23:26:07 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [Buddha-l] Being unable to imagine dying [confused?] In-Reply-To: <806DD3BE-D02C-48B0-A498-D800E405EE86@unm.edu> Message-ID: <533039.34258.qm@web86608.mail.ird.yahoo.com> >Richard Hayes Department of Pseudo-philosophy University of New Mexico (where if you can eat the chile, you can have the job) So what you're saying is that phenomenologically wisdom is everything.?But from the perspective of I don't know science and catching the bus on time it's pseudo-philosophy? LukeHome of the pseudo-contributer From jkirk at spro.net Sun Jun 6 17:58:28 2010 From: jkirk at spro.net (JKirkpatrick) Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2010 17:58:28 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Being unable to imagine dying [confused?] In-Reply-To: <533039.34258.qm@web86608.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <806DD3BE-D02C-48B0-A498-D800E405EE86@unm.edu> <533039.34258.qm@web86608.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <96BC17FE93F047789673D513AEDA9419@OPTIPLEX> Not trying to offer a last word or anything (no really)-- but, Mr. Luke, if you are a 'real' live putujana like the rest of us, I'd suggest that your encounter with Buddhism has been trumped (and screwed) by the Mahayana texts you apparently are reading. So you are unable to ask meaningful questions because of it. Wouldn't be the first time that such texts confused, and later (hopefully) amused, eh? How about considering the gradual approach? Do you have patience? How about starting to learn something about the ideas the Buddha himself allegedly taught, before plunging into arcane trumped-up "philosophical" questions? Haven't you ever heard of 'putting the cart before the horse' (old adage found in some ancient texts)? Being a one-time philosophy major is guaranteed not to be helpful, as your latest confirms. Doesn't even help with generating a few good belly laughs. Cheers, JK >Richard Hayes Department of Pseudo-philosophy University of New Mexico (where if you can eat the chile, you can have the job) So what you're saying is that phenomenologically wisdom is everything.?But from the perspective of I don't know science and catching the bus on time it's pseudo-philosophy? LukeHome of the pseudo-contributer _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From jinavamsa at yahoo.com Sun Jun 6 18:15:14 2010 From: jinavamsa at yahoo.com (Mitchell Ginsberg) Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2010 17:15:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Buddha-l] Being unable to imagine dying [confused] (lemmett@talk21.com) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <628985.7227.qm@web63202.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Hello Lemmett, and all, My question to you was addressed to you. Whatever this individual you mention (Zygmunt Bauman) says, I am not asking about him -- although the name Zygmunt almost perks my interest out of the blue -- but about your concern with the issue of the conceivability (and inconceivability) of death. As I asked (directly of you), "Lemmett, can you explain a little of what you mean by the idea of (or term) the conceivability of death? I suppose that that would help with its contrast, the inconceivability of death. I am wondering what is inconceivable about death in your eyes. Do you mean unfathomable? mysterious? awe-inspiring? infinitely fearsome? other?" Your repy was: "Hello, sorry about the long link but Zygmunt Bauman talks about what I mean in the first few pages of this book?http://books.google.com/books?id=JYNW-3fjGIoC&printsec=frontcover&dq=immortality+strategies&cd=3#v=onepage&q&f=false Thanks." But it's a good idea. I could have saved a lot of trouble in school if in reply to a question of what I thought of Aristotle, I had just offered up a web link (but those were the days before the internet) to The Philosopher's text in the original Greek. Neat! (if I may apply an old word to a new short-cut). Mitchell ========== Homepage (updated May 23, 2010): http://jinavamsa.com See also http://jinavamsa.com/mentalhealth.html From lemmett at talk21.com Sun Jun 6 18:20:26 2010 From: lemmett at talk21.com (lemmett at talk21.com) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 00:20:26 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [Buddha-l] Being unable to imagine dying [confused?] In-Reply-To: <96BC17FE93F047789673D513AEDA9419@OPTIPLEX> Message-ID: <894628.63098.qm@web86608.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Sorry I'm less funny that I am in my own head but?I wasn't even talking about Buddhism in the email you seem to be talking about.?I have just ordered selfless persons. I have no idea what you're getting at especially as I believe that reading this last book by Ziporyn has made Mahayana much clearer to me.? So?you don't like how I think about things but I don't think that's about to change anytime soon - least of all by converting to a religion that I have less belief and interest in. Yes it's all one vehicle but not the philosophy of it. Isn't it my decision what is a meaningful question for me to ask especially if you've just started thinking existentially about this??I sort of see what you mean: you think that I lack ability so should study pali meditation and scripture but I'm at a little bit of a loss as to why you have decided this! OK I'll shut up now if you insist like that... Not trying to offer a last word or anything (no really)-- but, Mr. Luke, if you are a 'real' live putujana like the rest of us, I'd suggest that your encounter with Buddhism has been trumped (and screwed) by the Mahayana texts you apparently are reading. So you are unable to ask meaningful questions because of it. Wouldn't be the first time that such texts confused, and later (hopefully) amused, eh? How about considering the gradual approach? Do you have patience? How about starting to learn something about the ideas the Buddha himself allegedly taught, before plunging into arcane trumped-up "philosophical" questions? Haven't you ever heard of 'putting the cart before the horse' (old adage found in some ancient texts)? Being a one-time philosophy major is guaranteed not to be helpful, as your latest confirms. Doesn't even help with generating a few good belly laughs. Cheers, JK From lemmett at talk21.com Sun Jun 6 18:25:44 2010 From: lemmett at talk21.com (lemmett at talk21.com) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 00:25:44 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [Buddha-l] Being unable to imagine dying [confused] In-Reply-To: <628985.7227.qm@web63202.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <211071.64640.qm@web86608.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Hello. I mean that my own death can't be imagined without contradiction from the inside - phenomenologically. Conceivability is a well known item of analysis, as far as I understand it. I am sorry if it's a problem I'm not presenting my erm interest in posting to this list in a particularly well schooled way. Do you mean that I am lying: that I have not tried to stare death right in the face countless times these past few years and blinked each and every time. I'm happy to leave this list alone, Richard was kind enough to help me and for that I'm grateful for this resource but am not about to spend this evening defending myself for what I don't know! It doesn't seem very sane. --- On Mon, 7/6/10, Mitchell Ginsberg wrote: From: Mitchell Ginsberg Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] Being unable to imagine dying [confused] (lemmett at talk21.com) To: buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com Date: Monday, 7 June, 2010, 1:15 Hello Lemmett, and all, My question to you was addressed to you. Whatever this individual you mention (Zygmunt Bauman) says, I am not asking about him -- although the name Zygmunt almost perks my interest out of the blue -- but about your concern with the issue of the conceivability (and inconceivability) of death. As I asked (directly of you), "Lemmett, can you explain a little of what you mean by the idea of (or term) the conceivability of death? I suppose that that would help with its contrast, the inconceivability of death. I am wondering what is inconceivable about death in your eyes. Do you mean unfathomable? mysterious? awe-inspiring? infinitely fearsome? other?" Your repy was: "Hello, sorry about the long link but Zygmunt Bauman talks about what I mean in the first few pages of this book?http://books.google.com/books?id=JYNW-3fjGIoC&printsec=frontcover&dq=immortality+strategies&cd=3#v=onepage&q&f=false? ? Thanks." But it's a good idea. I could have saved a lot of trouble in school if in reply to a question of what I thought of Aristotle, I had just offered up a web link (but those were the days before the internet) to The Philosopher's text in the original Greek. Neat! (if I may apply an old word to a new short-cut).? Mitchell ========== Homepage (updated May 23, 2010): http://jinavamsa.com See also http://jinavamsa.com/mentalhealth.html ? ? ? _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From lemmett at talk21.com Sun Jun 6 18:28:35 2010 From: lemmett at talk21.com (lemmett at talk21.com) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 00:28:35 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [Buddha-l] Fw: Re: Being unable to imagine dying [confused] Message-ID: <216115.66640.qm@web86608.mail.ird.yahoo.com> I mean that I'm only trying to be understood so really what does it matter if I link to something else? Respectfully, Luke --- On Mon, 7/6/10, lemmett at talk21.com wrote: From: lemmett at talk21.com Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] Being unable to imagine dying [confused] To: "Buddhist discussion forum" Date: Monday, 7 June, 2010, 1:25 Hello. I mean that my own death can't be imagined without contradiction from the inside - phenomenologically. Conceivability is a well known item of analysis, as far as I understand it. I am sorry if it's a problem I'm not presenting my erm interest in posting to this list in a particularly well schooled way. Do you mean that I am lying: that I have not tried to stare death right in the face countless times these past few years and blinked each and every time. I'm happy to leave this list alone, Richard was kind enough to help me and for that I'm grateful for this resource but am not about to spend this evening defending myself for what I don't know! It doesn't seem very sane. --- On Mon, 7/6/10, Mitchell Ginsberg wrote: From: Mitchell Ginsberg Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] Being unable to imagine dying [confused] (lemmett at talk21.com) To: buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com Date: Monday, 7 June, 2010, 1:15 Hello Lemmett, and all, My question to you was addressed to you. Whatever this individual you mention (Zygmunt Bauman) says, I am not asking about him -- although the name Zygmunt almost perks my interest out of the blue -- but about your concern with the issue of the conceivability (and inconceivability) of death. As I asked (directly of you), "Lemmett, can you explain a little of what you mean by the idea of (or term) the conceivability of death? I suppose that that would help with its contrast, the inconceivability of death. I am wondering what is inconceivable about death in your eyes. Do you mean unfathomable? mysterious? awe-inspiring? infinitely fearsome? other?" Your repy was: "Hello, sorry about the long link but Zygmunt Bauman talks about what I mean in the first few pages of this book?http://books.google.com/books?id=JYNW-3fjGIoC&printsec=frontcover&dq=immortality+strategies&cd=3#v=onepage&q&f=false? ? Thanks." But it's a good idea. I could have saved a lot of trouble in school if in reply to a question of what I thought of Aristotle, I had just offered up a web link (but those were the days before the internet) to The Philosopher's text in the original Greek. Neat! (if I may apply an old word to a new short-cut).? Mitchell ========== Homepage (updated May 23, 2010): http://jinavamsa.com See also http://jinavamsa.com/mentalhealth.html ? ? ? _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l ? ? ? _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From lemmett at talk21.com Sun Jun 6 19:36:22 2010 From: lemmett at talk21.com (lemmett at talk21.com) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 01:36:22 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [Buddha-l] Confused In-Reply-To: <96BC17FE93F047789673D513AEDA9419@OPTIPLEX> Message-ID: <792014.43747.qm@web86606.mail.ird.yahoo.com> I have absolutely no idea what you mean or if I have inadvertently being insulting. >>>Not trying to offer a last word or anything (no really)-- but, Mr. Luke, if you are a 'real' live putujana like the rest of us, I'd suggest that your encounter with Buddhism has been trumped (and screwed) by the Mahayana texts you apparently are reading. So you are unable to ask meaningful questions because of it. Wouldn't be the first time that such texts confused, and later (hopefully) amused, eh? >>>How about considering the gradual approach? Do you have patience? How about starting to learn something about the ideas the Buddha himself allegedly taught, before plunging into arcane trumped-up "philosophical" questions? Haven't you ever heard of 'putting the cart before the horse' (old adage found in some ancient texts)? >>>Being a one-time philosophy major is guaranteed not to be helpful, as your latest confirms. Doesn't even help with generating a few good belly laughs. >>>Cheers, JK >So what you're saying is that phenomenologically wisdom is everything.?But from the perspective of I don't know science and catching the bus on time it's pseudo-philosophy? LukeHome of the pseudo-contributer Maybe my tongue in cheek comment is true and wisdom [of the Cartesian meditations I mean...] is only authentically wisdom when its project is complete and it grounds the sciences. I can't find that book right now but then in its inferior form it could well be hollow in comparison to everyone else's opinions on science. So I'll leave the list alone if that's what's wanted. Like I said I don't have many burning questions, bits here in there form books that are unclear and a little interest in what it means to attain any kind of enlightening understanding as a lazy member of the laity in the UK. But not like my interest in the conceivability of death. Thanks, L From randall.bernard.jones at gmail.com Sun Jun 6 20:25:38 2010 From: randall.bernard.jones at gmail.com (Randall Jones) Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2010 21:25:38 -0500 Subject: [Buddha-l] Confused In-Reply-To: <792014.43747.qm@web86606.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <96BC17FE93F047789673D513AEDA9419@OPTIPLEX> <792014.43747.qm@web86606.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I trust this seems somehow to have Buddhist content to others than me too: Aubade I work all day, and get half-drunk at night. Waking at four to soundless dark, I stare. In time the curtain-edges will grow light. Till then I see what's really always there: Unresting death, a whole day nearer now, Making all thought impossible but how And where and when I shall myself die. Arid interrogation: yet the dread Of dying, and being dead, Flashes afresh to hold and horrify. The mind blanks at the glare. Not in remorse - The good not done, the love not given, time Torn off unused - nor wretchedly because An only life can take so long to climb Clear of its wrong beginnings, and may never; But at the total emptiness for ever, The sure extinction that we travel to And shall be lost in always. Not to be here, Not to be anywhere, And soon; nothing more terrible, nothing more true. This is a special way of being afraid No trick dispels. Religion used to try, That vast, moth-eaten musical brocade Created to pretend we never die, And specious stuff that says No rational being Can fear a thing it will not feel, not seeing That this is what we fear - no sight, no sound, No touch or taste or smell, nothing to think with, Nothing to love or link with, The anasthetic from which none come round. And so it stays just on the edge of vision, A small, unfocused blur, a standing chill That slows each impulse down to indecision. Most things may never happen: this one will, And realisation of it rages out In furnace-fear when we are caught without People or drink. Courage is no good: It means not scaring others. Being brave Lets no one off the grave. Death is no different whined at than withstood. Slowly light strengthens, and the room takes shape. It stands plain as a wardrobe, what we know, Have always known, know that we can't escape, Yet can't accept. One side will have to go. Meanwhile telephones crouch, getting ready to ring In locked-up offices, and all the uncaring Intricate rented world begins to rouse. The sky is white as clay, with no sun. Work has to be done. Postmen like doctors go from house to house. *Philip Larkin* From jkirk at spro.net Sun Jun 6 20:34:55 2010 From: jkirk at spro.net (JKirkpatrick) Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2010 20:34:55 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Confused In-Reply-To: References: <96BC17FE93F047789673D513AEDA9419@OPTIPLEX><792014.43747.qm@web86606.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6C38BE826E9B4F7CB1EAF0963AD3DFAC@OPTIPLEX> Randall It does--too bad the email format messes up the poem format. Joanna ================== I trust this seems somehow to have Buddhist content to others than me too: Aubade I work all day, and get half-drunk at night. Waking at four to soundless dark, I stare. In time the curtain-edges will grow light. Till then I see what's really always there: Unresting death, a whole day nearer now, Making all thought impossible but how And where and when I shall myself die. Arid interrogation: yet the dread Of dying, and being dead, Flashes afresh to hold and horrify. The mind blanks at the glare. Not in remorse - The good not done, the love not given, time Torn off unused - nor wretchedly because An only life can take so long to climb Clear of its wrong beginnings, and may never; But at the total emptiness for ever, The sure extinction that we travel to And shall be lost in always. Not to be here, Not to be anywhere, And soon; nothing more terrible, nothing more true. This is a special way of being afraid No trick dispels. Religion used to try, That vast, moth-eaten musical brocade Created to pretend we never die, And specious stuff that says No rational being Can fear a thing it will not feel, not seeing That this is what we fear - no sight, no sound, No touch or taste or smell, nothing to think with, Nothing to love or link with, The anasthetic from which none come round. And so it stays just on the edge of vision, A small, unfocused blur, a standing chill That slows each impulse down to indecision. Most things may never happen: this one will, And realisation of it rages out In furnace-fear when we are caught without People or drink. Courage is no good: It means not scaring others. Being brave Lets no one off the grave. Death is no different whined at than withstood. Slowly light strengthens, and the room takes shape. It stands plain as a wardrobe, what we know, Have always known, know that we can't escape, Yet can't accept. One side will have to go. Meanwhile telephones crouch, getting ready to ring In locked-up offices, and all the uncaring Intricate rented world begins to rouse. The sky is white as clay, with no sun. Work has to be done. Postmen like doctors go from house to house. *Philip Larkin* _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From randall.bernard.jones at gmail.com Sun Jun 6 20:40:58 2010 From: randall.bernard.jones at gmail.com (Randall Jones) Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2010 21:40:58 -0500 Subject: [Buddha-l] Confused In-Reply-To: <6C38BE826E9B4F7CB1EAF0963AD3DFAC@OPTIPLEX> References: <96BC17FE93F047789673D513AEDA9419@OPTIPLEX> <792014.43747.qm@web86606.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <6C38BE826E9B4F7CB1EAF0963AD3DFAC@OPTIPLEX> Message-ID: To see the poem properly formatted: http://www.poemhunter.com/best-poems/philip-larkin/aubade/ On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 9:34 PM, JKirkpatrick wrote: > Randall > > It does--too bad the email format messes up the poem format. > Joanna > > From jinavamsa at yahoo.com Sun Jun 6 21:02:30 2010 From: jinavamsa at yahoo.com (Mitchell Ginsberg) Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2010 20:02:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Buddha-l] Being unable to imagine dying [confused?] (lemmett@talk21.com) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <335621.58524.qm@web63206.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Hello Lemmett (or Luke, I think) and all, I think I see which of your postings were replies to me and which to others. What I have are these 2 postings by you that I think are addressed to me -- you wrote: 1. Hello. I mean that my own death can't be imagined without contradiction from the inside - phenomenologically. Conceivability is a well known item of analysis, as far as I understand it.I am sorry if it's a problem I'm not presenting my erm interest in posting to this list in a particularly well schooled way. Do you mean that I am lying: that I have not tried to stare death right in the face countless times these past few years and blinked each and every time. I'm happy to leave this list alone, Richard was kind enough to help me and for that I'm grateful for this resource but am not about to spend this evening defending myself for what I don't know! It doesn't seem very sane. My reply: Oh, OK. I understand phenomenology (having studied with Farber years ago and reading various bits of what some call Husserliana) but am wondering what is difficult about imagining your own death. Incidentally, do you mean the transition from being living to being dead or the state of being most quite dead ongoingly? What is the contradiction that you come up against? I at no point have raised any issue of how schooled or not you are, nor about whether you present your comments in terms of any scholarly criteria. Are you actually asking if I meant that you were lying? (I wonder if you are replying in that to me or to something else said in some other context.) The straight answer is, no, I did not mean that you were lying. What would you be lying about? I have no idea what that might be. You are of course free to "leave this list alone" but I do not think I was encouraging that or, in other words, trying to discourage you from posting here. And, just to complete a reply to your comments in #1 here, I am not asking you to defend yourself or calling on you to defend yourself. Whether defending oneself is sane or not, I suppose that depends on the context and what we take sanity to be. (I recall a friend of mine who once said that sanity isn't all it's cracked up to be.) Well, that's your first posting. 2. I mean that I'm only trying to be understood so really what does it matter if I link to something else?Respectfully, Luke My reply: This is an interesting question. The "matter" or what is important is that you are asking the reader to go to some other source, take the trouble to read that source, interpret that, and then, further, interpret how you might be taking in the cited passages, and guessing what conclusions you drew from them and what you found important, central, inspiring, and so forth. That is a lot of work you are asking others to do. Much simpler, less onerous for others, would be for you just to say what it is that you see as important in the passage and how it impacts you. So that's the "matter" (the problem) with your just citing someone else's work as a reply to a question about what you are talking about or mean. It depends on how much you effort you yourself want to put into articulating (putting into words) what you are raising as a topic of discussion. So if you are only trying to be understood, there is a more efficient way to do it, that's all, best wishes, Mitchell ========== Homepage (updated May 23, 2010): http://jinavamsa.com See also http://jinavamsa.com/mentalhealth.html From rhayes at unm.edu Sun Jun 6 22:24:34 2010 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2010 22:24:34 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Being unable to imagine dying [confused] (lemmett@talk21.com) In-Reply-To: <628985.7227.qm@web63202.mail.re1.yahoo.com> References: <628985.7227.qm@web63202.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Jun 6, 2010, at 6:15 PM, Mitchell Ginsberg wrote: > But it's a good idea. I could have saved a lot of trouble in school if in reply to a question of what I thought of Aristotle, I had just offered up a web link (but those were the days before the internet) to The Philosopher's text in the original Greek. Neat! (if I may apply an old word to a new short-cut). One of the treasured stories in Quaker history is about one of the earliest Quakers, Margaret Fell, who eventually became George Fox's wife. She was very adept at quoting the bible and supplying a scripture for every occasion. One time George Fox listened to her preaching and praised her for her homiletic skills. Then he said "We know very well that thou canst quote scripture. But what dost THOU say?" The phrase "What dost THOU say?" has become a kind of Quaker mantra that gets invoked whenever someone manifests a fondness for ?ptavacana. These days my colleagues and I are finding that term papers come in to us with "bibliographies" consisting almost entirely of URLs to websites. I guess we need a neologist to coin the term "webliography" for such lists of sources. The great danger with over-reliance on the Internet, as we old fogeys know, is that we can get into the habit of quoting or pointing to others' words, thereby deserving to have the ghost of George Fox pop up to whisper in our ear "But what dost THOU say?" Of course on buddha-l, if anyone dares to say anything in his or her own words, someone pops up and says "Can you cite me a two-thousand-year-old text to back up your thoughts?" That's what I say. Unfortunately, I can't cite any suttas to legitimate my claims. Richard Hayes From lemmett at talk21.com Mon Jun 7 00:14:46 2010 From: lemmett at talk21.com (lemmett at talk21.com) Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2010 23:14:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Buddha-l] Being unable to imagine dying [confused?] In-Reply-To: <335621.58524.qm@web63206.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <209381.86880.qm@web86603.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Really, Farber? >My reply: Oh, OK. I understand phenomenology (having studied with Farber years ago and reading various bits of what some call Husserliana) but am wondering what is difficult about imagining your own death. Incidentally, do you mean the transition from being living to being dead or the state of being most quite dead ongoingly? What is the contradiction that you come up against?? Well?Merleau-Ponty might be saying that I must always be aware of the next moment so that my experience is never ending.?If you're interested I can give my own workings but they're probably really wrong. >The "matter" or what is important is that you are asking the reader to go to some other source, take the trouble to read that source, interpret that, and then, further, interpret how you might be taking in the cited passages, and guessing what conclusions you drew from them and what you found important, central, inspiring, and so forth. That is a lot of work you are asking others to do. Much simpler, less onerous for others, would be for you just to say what it is that you see as important in the passage and how it impacts you. So that's the "matter" (the problem) with your just citing someone else's work as a reply to a question about what you are talking about or mean. It depends on how much you effort you yourself want to put into articulating (putting into words) what you are raising as a topic of discussion. So if you are only trying to be understood, there is a more efficient way to do it, that's all,? I thought that the author could put and argue for it much more clearly than I could. Also those few pages seem so explicitly in agreement with me that if they were not I would have to seriously reconsider whether my opinion makes any sense. Sorry for that, it seemed more efficient. Thanks. From lemmett at talk21.com Mon Jun 7 01:02:27 2010 From: lemmett at talk21.com (lemmett at talk21.com) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 07:02:27 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [Buddha-l] Confused In-Reply-To: <792014.43747.qm@web86606.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <684217.64165.qm@web86608.mail.ird.yahoo.com> >>Not trying to offer a last word or anything (no really)--?but, Mr. Luke... I'd suggest that your encounter with Buddhism has been trumped (and screwed) by the Mahayana texts you apparently are reading. So you are unable to ask meaningful questions because of it. Wouldn't be the first time that such texts confused, and later (hopefully) amused, eh? How about considering the gradual approach? Do you have patience? How about starting to learn something about the ideas the Buddha himself allegedly taught, before plunging into arcane trumped-up "philosophical" questions? ... Being a one-time philosophy major is guaranteed not to be helpful, as your latest confirms. Doesn't even help with generating a few good belly laughs. So in what way don't understand what I read? >You are apparently interested in Mediaeval Chinese buddhism and its aftermath -- commonly known as Zen. Reading that stuff is good, and it is very heady broth indeed. Then, just as you finish your twentieth sutra and 500 pages of koans, some wise ass walks into the monastery and declares reading is unnecessary or even harmful to real enlightenment (the Platform Sutra)! Or a beggar with no formal education or buddhist training shows up all the monks who question with his intuitive understanding of buddhist that shames them all (Vimilakrti Sutra). You forgot this? Whatever this is. From jehms at xs4all.nl Mon Jun 7 01:31:46 2010 From: jehms at xs4all.nl (Erik Hoogcarspel) Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2010 09:31:46 +0200 Subject: [Buddha-l] Being unable to imagine dying [confused] In-Reply-To: <999B792B905748C8AA10B1E40625B066@OPTIPLEX> References: <284728.93409.qm@web86608.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <4C0BBEED.5020201@xs4all.nl> <999B792B905748C8AA10B1E40625B066@OPTIPLEX> Message-ID: <4C0CA062.607@xs4all.nl> Op 06-06-10 23:01, JKirkpatrick schreef: > Wait--wasn't it Husserl who wrote Logische Untersuchungen? > Very good Joanna, he did too. erik From jehms at xs4all.nl Mon Jun 7 01:56:54 2010 From: jehms at xs4all.nl (Erik Hoogcarspel) Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2010 09:56:54 +0200 Subject: [Buddha-l] Being unable to imagine dying [confused] In-Reply-To: <693043.97067.qm@web86601.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <693043.97067.qm@web86601.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4C0CA646.5080804@xs4all.nl> Op 06-06-10 23:19, lemmett at talk21.com schreef: > I could never understand what he could possibly mean by wisdom and it seemed *really* important. No really I don't think I have a clue at all... > I was wondering if the ultimate existential question is trans-humanistic suicide. Richard would go for it it seems, I'd probably claim that both alternatives are beyond being chosen and then cackle myself to death :? > or > Who, Wittgenstein? And W I or W II? I cannot imagine what you might mean with trans-humanistic suicide. Is there a sub-humanistic one as well? I guess a good philosophical question is why after having discovered what life is all about we don't commit suicide and the Buddhist answer is reincarnation. So if you're a Buddhist belief in reincarnation could save your life. If you doubt reincarnation you must find another excuse for living and some think compassion is a good one, others like more the idea of self-affirmation or self-development. In the Indian traditions self-development requires social suicide, you bury your social self, your identity and get a new one by getting initiated into a new tribe. That's why Tibetan Buddhism has all these initiations. Most Buddhists prefer that above boring themselves to death or watching tele. erik From lemmett at talk21.com Mon Jun 7 02:08:34 2010 From: lemmett at talk21.com (lemmett at talk21.com) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 08:08:34 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [Buddha-l] Being unable to imagine dying [confused] In-Reply-To: <4C0CA646.5080804@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <737929.38392.qm@web86601.mail.ird.yahoo.com> >Who, Wittgenstein? And W I or W II?? No, Husserl > I cannot imagine what you might mean with trans-humanistic suicide. The suicide of a trans-humanist, isn't that someone who can't involuntarily die? >Most Buddhists?prefer that above boring themselves to death or watching tele. I chose boredom. From jehms at xs4all.nl Mon Jun 7 02:31:33 2010 From: jehms at xs4all.nl (Erik Hoogcarspel) Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2010 10:31:33 +0200 Subject: [Buddha-l] Confused In-Reply-To: <684217.64165.qm@web86608.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <684217.64165.qm@web86608.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4C0CAE65.7040401@xs4all.nl> Luke, you draw a smokescreen with all kinds of half understood words, concepts and half read books. Zygmunt Bauman is a sociologist who analyzes the present state of our society, which he calls Liquid Modernity and which others have called hypermodernity. The specific thing about this is that nothing is stable and sure and everybody has to invent him/herself. He is close to Baudrilaard, but less exuberant. Time is according to Husserl a movement of consciousness that remembers and anticipates continuously. So that's why we can evaluate and recognize a song without having heard all, even while hearing only one tone at the time. In death there is no awareness, how can we anticipate death? Well we can anticipate the end of the song while singing. The end is an apotheosis, it gives meaning and beauty to the whole song. The same with our life, that is the song we are all singing continuously. Death is the apotheosis, it's not a phenomenon, but it is part of our life as the supreme anticipation. That is why Heidegger said that being aware of your own death as a conscious anticipation takes you away from the inauthentic life of everyday gossip into an awareness of being. The media try to prevent this by turning death into a media event. A confusing element is that I anticipate death not as the end of consciousness, but as the end of me. It could be that after losing a beloved one, I feel I'm not me anymore. The song of my life has ended, the stream of anticipation and memories has ended. I even can have an accident or an illness and lose my memory. At that time people see that I am alive, but I will be gone. I will not be aware of being gone, because this new me is just getting itself through the day as before. A person can die without knowing it. erik From lemmett at talk21.com Mon Jun 7 03:21:39 2010 From: lemmett at talk21.com (lemmett at talk21.com) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 09:21:39 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [Buddha-l] Confused In-Reply-To: <4C0CAE65.7040401@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <23497.89598.qm@web86606.mail.ird.yahoo.com> >you draw a smokescreen with all kinds of half understood words, concepts and half read books. hey, I'm fairly sure I understand what I read. i *can* read, after-all. >Zygmunt Bauman is a sociologist who analyzes the present state of our society, which he calls Liquid Modernity and which others have called hypermodernity. The specific thing about this is that nothing is stable and sure and everybody has to invent him/herself. He is close to Baudrilaard, but less exuberant. what relevance is this? nice enough fact that I didn't know but hey, who am I? >Time is according to Husserl a movement of consciousness that remembers and anticipates continuously. So that's why we can evaluate and recognize a song without having heard all, even while hearing only one tone at the time. In death there is no awareness, how can we anticipate death? Well we can anticipate the end of the song while singing. The end is an apotheosis, it gives meaning and beauty to the whole song. The same with our life, that is the song we are all singing continuously.? half remembered words concepts and books. again what relevance is this to quoting Merleau-Ponty or making a lame attempt at humorously caricaturing Husserl on something else entirely? >Death is the apotheosis, it's not a phenomenon, but it is part of our life as the supreme anticipation. That is why Heidegger said that being aware of your own death as a conscious anticipation takes you away from the inauthentic life of everyday gossip into an awareness of being. The media try to prevent this by turning death into a media event. A confusing element is that I anticipate death not as the end of consciousness, but as the end of me. It could be that after losing a beloved one, I feel I'm not me anymore. The song of my life has ended, the stream of anticipation and memories has ended. I even can have an accident or an illness and lose my memory. At that time people see that I am alive, but I will be gone. I will not be aware of being gone, because this new me is just getting itself through the day as before. A person can die without knowing it. it seems obvious to me that it can be anticipated as the end of consciousness. i'm sure there's plenty of people that even think it's significant as such [Derrida?] though I've not admitted that. it's almost like the list comes home from work and uses the list to send unhelpful and borderline irrelevant emails to the rest of the list. what really has any of this got to do with anything I've said about Mahayana [which incidentally I don't think I've said *anything* about] or dying or the avyakata-samyutta sutta? it's a diversion from worst boredom mind so no need to stop. From lidewij at gmail.com Mon Jun 7 03:50:36 2010 From: lidewij at gmail.com (Lidewij Niezink) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 11:50:36 +0200 Subject: [Buddha-l] Confused In-Reply-To: <23497.89598.qm@web86606.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <4C0CAE65.7040401@xs4all.nl> <23497.89598.qm@web86606.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Luke, may I say something you could take wrongly? I'll try. this list is discussing several buddhist and non-buddhist topics for years and years already. (Not me, I'm here for about two years only.) Not only are many people very learned here, they also have a high tolerance for those of us who are not and help explain very complicated matters in 'conceivable' words. You come in, ask your questions, and many people have jumped, read, wrote and asked to get things clear for you. One has to find some common ground in order to find a way to communicate. Now the ball is back at you. Formulate what you really want to know and what you yourself think is what Mitchell asked you. If you want to 'know', as you say, put in the effort. You've retreated to short open answers and a lot of boo-ing and bah-ing in it. You've also announced that you're leaving for a few times already in more or less dramatic ways. Let's cut all that and get the discussion back with some effort or stop it altogether. I'm sorry to be so personal, I'm not sure what my motivation is because I can also just ignore the whole discussion and get on with life. But hey, I did it anyway. As far as death is concerned, the closest peak I had at it was when one of my sisters got brutally murdered and I had to get to terms with that afterward. After the section on her body we took her home with us, washed her body and put her on a (cooled) bed. The next morning I was the first to wake up. I went down into the room where she was and immediately panicked. There was fear and anger all over the place (or was it just me?). So I went upstairs to tell my mother that my sister was not dead, that we could not bury her this way, and that something had to be done. Many people have stayed with the body for the next three days and three nights, many things have happened and during the last morning before her funeral, her facial muscles had relaxed and we could bury her in peace. Why all this? Because from that moment onward I 'knew' that death is a process, not a moment in time. cheers, Lidewij n 7 June 2010 11:21, lemmett at talk21.com wrote: >>you draw a smokescreen with all kinds of half understood words, concepts > and half read books. > hey, I'm fairly sure I understand what I read. i *can* read, after-all. >>Zygmunt Bauman is a sociologist who analyzes the present state of our > society, which he calls Liquid Modernity and which others have called > hypermodernity. The specific thing about this is that nothing is stable > and sure and everybody has to invent him/herself. He is close to > Baudrilaard, but less exuberant. > what relevance is this? nice enough fact that I didn't know but hey, who am I? >>Time is according to Husserl a movement of consciousness that remembers > and anticipates continuously. So that's why we can evaluate and > recognize a song without having heard all, even while hearing only one > tone at the time. In death there is no awareness, how can we anticipate > death? Well we can anticipate the end of the song while singing. The end > is an apotheosis, it gives meaning and beauty to the whole song. The > same with our life, that is the song we are all singing continuously. > half remembered words concepts and books. again what relevance is this to quoting Merleau-Ponty or making a lame attempt at humorously caricaturing Husserl on something else entirely? >>Death is the apotheosis, it's not a phenomenon, but it is part of our > life as the supreme anticipation. That is why Heidegger said that being > aware of your own death as a conscious anticipation takes you away from > the inauthentic life of everyday gossip into an awareness of being. The > media try to prevent this by turning death into a media event. > A confusing element is that I anticipate death not as the end of > consciousness, but as the end of me. It could be that after losing a > beloved one, I feel I'm not me anymore. The song of my life has ended, > the stream of anticipation and memories has ended. I even can have an > accident or an illness and lose my memory. At that time people see that > I am alive, but I will be gone. I will not be aware of being gone, > because this new me is just getting itself through the day as before. A > person can die without knowing it. > > it seems obvious to me that it can be anticipated as the end of consciousness. i'm sure there's plenty of people that even think it's significant as such [Derrida?] though I've not admitted that. > it's almost like the list comes home from work and uses the list to send unhelpful and borderline irrelevant emails to the rest of the list. what really has any of this got to do with anything I've said about Mahayana [which incidentally I don't think I've said *anything* about] or dying or the avyakata-samyutta sutta? it's a diversion from worst boredom mind so no need to stop. > > > > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l > -- Milton said: "They also serve who only stand and wait." http://www.linkedin.com/in/lniezink From c_castell at yahoo.com Mon Jun 7 04:07:34 2010 From: c_castell at yahoo.com (Catalina) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 03:07:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Buddha-l] Being left alone to quietly die In-Reply-To: <7C3FC3B3-84EB-4EC3-BE06-6B233A9291F9@unm.edu> Message-ID: <329695.92703.qm@web111311.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> I guess I remember that Buddha said (I didn't hear it myself so it is not based on experience) that this is one of these questions that it doesn't matter to answer because we can not know and all answers will be just speculations. Anyway it is as it is ALREADY, it does not depend on what we think about it. When I will die (well, I will not but lets just suppose)? I will be a Bodhisattva just to come back ever and ever to read your delusional posts. Catalina From lemmett at talk21.com Mon Jun 7 04:14:23 2010 From: lemmett at talk21.com (lemmett at talk21.com) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 03:14:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Buddha-l] Confused In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <610932.23867.qm@web86603.mail.ird.yahoo.com> >> Luke, may I say something you could take wrongly? I'll try.?>OK, you seem polite.>>this list?is discussing several buddhist and non-buddhist topics for years and years already. (Not me, I'm here for about two years only.) Not only are many people very learned here, they also have a high tolerance for those of us who are not and help explain very complicated matters in 'conceivable' words. You come in, ask your questions, and many people have jumped, read, wrote and asked to get things clear for you. One has to find some common ground in order to find a way to communicate. >I know that it's a good list, I've said so several times. Would it be taking your comments the wrong way to ask why you think there is a failure of communication here and to state explicitly what you are asking? I guess that people in general often don't understand me - it's not malice or laziness - just the way I am I guess. Sorry for resorting to such curt replies but whereas I value the list I did not understand what was being said to me...>>Now the ball is back at you. Formulate what you really want to knowand what you yourself think is what Mitchell asked you. If you want to 'know', as you say, put in the effort. You've retreated to short open answers and a lot of boo-ing and bah-ing in it. You've also announced that you're leaving for a few times already in more or less dramatic ways. Let's cut all that and get the discussion back with some effort or stop it altogether. >I was trying to offer to leave in case I had offended etc.. >>I'm sorry to be so personal, I'm not sure what my motivation is because I can also just ignore the whole discussion and get on with life. But hey, I did it anyway. >Yeah.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>As far as death is concerned, the closest peak I had at it was when one of my sisters got brutally murdered and I had to get to terms with that afterward. After the section on her body we took her home with us, washed her body and put her on a (cooled) bed. The next morning I was the first to wake up. I went down into the room where she was and immediately panicked. There was fear and anger all over the place (or was it just me?). So I went upstairs to tell my mother that my sister was not dead, that we could not bury her this way, and that something had to be done. Many people have stayed with the body for the next three days and three nights, many things have happened and during the last morning before her funeral, her facial muscles had relaxed and we could bury her in peace. Why all this? Because from that moment onward I 'knew' that death is a process, not a moment in time. >I don't know that I have any questions about death in that I do feel capable of picking up a book if I need to. I didn't want to suggest that death is just personal, or so personal that it doesn't actually make sense. Richard has helped me with the question I did have and for that I am genuinely grateful.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I guess that I have very little else to ask about death, or anything off hand and that's why the discussion had stalled etc.. If pressed into asking something a out it I would ask what death's significance is contrasted to more everyday *problems* like boredom, loneliness, even gradual loss of humanity or faith in it. Because I don't know that the question is easily answered at all, even though it may be irrelevant to this list in question. If anyone is curious at all as to why i ask about these things I suffer from severe life long mental illness so I am somewhat whiling away everything really. Also, it might be why I am difficult to understand?Best wishes,Luke From lemmett at talk21.com Mon Jun 7 04:20:38 2010 From: lemmett at talk21.com (lemmett at talk21.com) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 10:20:38 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [Buddha-l] Argument for confusion In-Reply-To: <610932.23867.qm@web86603.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <334399.18319.qm@web86606.mail.ird.yahoo.com> I don't think phenomenologically [sorry if using the term poorly] transiting from being alive to dead is conceivable because that would arrive at an experience that is a non experience and that is contradictory. That does seem to follow: how can we go in our idea from Oxford to Cambridge if Cambridge is itself unthinkable?? To support the psychological tendency that I think Freud states [that people can't imagine their own being dead] I assume that to think about phenomena I have to imagine something about those in this moment. It seems obvious that that sort of qualification would limit the concept in some way: if I'm not imagining variations of live phenomena then in a sense I don't impute them as me. My reason is I cannot imagine my own internal consciousness existing in the future because: it does not yet exist in the future; and I am only what I already am [i am not what i am not yet, because my being X does not mean I will be it but that I am].? So that with Merleau-Ponty the only possible alternative to death being inconceivable then is, I think, that phenomenologically I do not always intend the future but do exist there, which seems to threaten continuity in life. Surely, if I exist at two points in time the contemporary one must intend the other else I have two minds that are split from each other? But neither is the later mind somehow intending the present much of a solution. If at A there is X at A and Y at B, and B intends A, then at A, Y is Y and not X [it can't be X because Y has X but X does not have Y]. Sorry if that's *very* confused. From jmp at peavler.org Mon Jun 7 06:06:37 2010 From: jmp at peavler.org (Jim Peavler) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 06:06:37 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Confused In-Reply-To: References: <96BC17FE93F047789673D513AEDA9419@OPTIPLEX> <792014.43747.qm@web86606.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Wow. You just reminded me that I have not read this, one of my favorite poets, for some time. I think I will pick him back up with "Church Going" and see where it all leads. Thanks. On Jun 6, 2010, at 8:25 PM, Randall Jones wrote: > I trust this seems somehow to have Buddhist content to others than me too: > > Aubade > > *Philip Larkin* Jim Peavler jmp at peavler.org "Be good. Be just." John Adams From jehms at xs4all.nl Mon Jun 7 07:45:55 2010 From: jehms at xs4all.nl (Erik Hoogcarspel) Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2010 15:45:55 +0200 Subject: [Buddha-l] Confused In-Reply-To: References: <4C0CAE65.7040401@xs4all.nl> <23497.89598.qm@web86606.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4C0CF813.3050500@xs4all.nl> Thanks Lidewij, for sharing this. I have heard similar stories even from very sceptic and materialistic people. Often also there are strange things with electricity. I remember that even medical science has some evidence of states of consciousness that are not detectable by current methods. Sometimes people revive after having been diagnosed braindead. It reminds me of the early Samkhya philosophy, where the ego is a product of buddhi or intelligence, which is a product of puru?a or mind. Was not one of the teachers of the Buddha supposed to be a Samkhyin? erik Op 07-06-10 11:50, Lidewij Niezink schreef: > As far as death is concerned, the closest peak I had at it was when > one of my sisters got brutally murdered and I had to get to terms with > that afterward. After the section on her body we took her home with > us, washed her body and put her on a (cooled) bed. The next morning I > was the first to wake up. I went down into the room where she was and > immediately panicked. There was fear and anger all over the place (or > was it just me?). So I went upstairs to tell my mother that my sister > was not dead, that we could not bury her this way, and that something > had to be done. Many people have stayed with the body for the next > three days and three nights, many things have happened and during the > last morning before her funeral, her facial muscles had relaxed and we > could bury her in peace. Why all this? Because from that moment onward > I 'knew' that death is a process, not a moment in time. > > cheers, > Lidewij > > > > From jehms at xs4all.nl Mon Jun 7 08:29:40 2010 From: jehms at xs4all.nl (Erik Hoogcarspel) Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2010 16:29:40 +0200 Subject: [Buddha-l] Being left alone to quietly die In-Reply-To: <329695.92703.qm@web111311.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <329695.92703.qm@web111311.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4C0D0254.1080709@xs4all.nl> This the most staggering example of k?antiparam?t? I ever saw. You deserve your own J?taka, Catalina. erik Op 07-06-10 12:07, Catalina schreef: > When I will die (well, I will not but lets just suppose) I will be a Bodhisattva just to come back ever and ever to read your delusional posts. > > Catalina > > From jkirk at spro.net Mon Jun 7 08:57:56 2010 From: jkirk at spro.net (JKirkpatrick) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 08:57:56 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Confused In-Reply-To: <4C0CF813.3050500@xs4all.nl> References: <4C0CAE65.7040401@xs4all.nl> <23497.89598.qm@web86606.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <4C0CF813.3050500@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <5A1CA05738D54B3080B496F8D2E36D3D@OPTIPLEX> Yes, and how about the accounts of kin burying a person's apparent corpse that suddenly sits up as the dirt is shoveled, and says, What happened?------ ??? These are what's scary about contemporary medical death decisions. Joanna Thanks Lidewij, for sharing this. I have heard similar stories even from very sceptic and materialistic people. Often also there are strange things with electricity. I remember that even medical science has some evidence of states of consciousness that are not detectable by current methods. Sometimes people revive after having been diagnosed braindead. It reminds me of the early Samkhya philosophy, where the ego is a product of buddhi or intelligence, which is a product of puru?a or mind. Was not one of the teachers of the Buddha supposed to be a Samkhyin? erik Op 07-06-10 11:50, Lidewij Niezink schreef: > As far as death is concerned, the closest peak I had at it was when > one of my sisters got brutally murdered and I had to get to terms with > that afterward. After the section on her body we took her home with > us, washed her body and put her on a (cooled) bed. The next morning I > was the first to wake up. I went down into the room where she was and > immediately panicked. There was fear and anger all over the place (or > was it just me?). So I went upstairs to tell my mother that my sister > was not dead, that we could not bury her this way, and that something > had to be done. Many people have stayed with the body for the next > three days and three nights, many things have happened and during the > last morning before her funeral, her facial muscles had relaxed and we > could bury her in peace. Why all this? Because from that moment onward > I 'knew' that death is a process, not a moment in time. > > cheers, > Lidewij > > > > _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From jinavamsa at yahoo.com Mon Jun 7 10:18:17 2010 From: jinavamsa at yahoo.com (Mitchell Ginsberg) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 09:18:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Buddha-l] Being unable to imagine dying [confused] (lemmett@talk21.com) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <463931.32927.qm@web63202.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Helo Lemmett/Luke, and all, You ask: Really, Farber? The answer is yes. Marvin, that is. And not to avoid providing my own obituary notice about him, but simply to follow the trend of webliographizing, I see a "stable URL" for Roderick Chisholm's comments on Farber, after his death. And yes, he was noble and warm, very hospitable and demanding, as a teacher, and very supportive and encouraging as well, as I happily recall. http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0065-972X%28198206%2955%3A5%3C578%3AMF1%3E2.0.CO%3B2-W So that's not Sidney, his brother: http://www.buffalo.edu/buildings/building?id=farber Mitchell ========== Homepage (updated May 23, 2010): http://jinavamsa.com See also http://jinavamsa.com/mentalhealth.html From rhayes at unm.edu Mon Jun 7 10:18:29 2010 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 10:18:29 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Being left alone to quietly die In-Reply-To: <329695.92703.qm@web111311.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <329695.92703.qm@web111311.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Jun 7, 2010, at 4:07 AM, Catalina wrote: > I guess I remember that Buddha said (I didn't hear it myself so it is not based on experience) that this is one of these questions that it doesn't matter to answer because we can not know and all answers will be just speculations. Anyway it is as it is ALREADY, it does not depend on what we think about it. Furthermore, no matter what the answers to many questions are, nothing will change in the conditions that are producing discontent. So if one's main goal is to eliminate unhappiness, there are a lot of questions that become irrelevant. There was a documentary called "The Examined Life" a while back that featured interviews with several philosophers. As an amateur philosopher without much sophistication, I found all of them interesting. One of the most interesting observations to me was by Slavoj ?i?ek, who was commenting on how (to use a different example from the one he used) people can watch oil spewing into the Gulf of Mexico and watch birds caked with oil and dead dolphins washing up on shore and then go fill up the petrol tanks with gasoline, apparently oblivious of the fact that our own consumption of petroleum products is what makes people go out and risk damaging the environment to supply us with the products we crave. In that context, ?i?ek suggests we human beings are probably hard-wired to disregard the unwelcome consequences of our own decisions to act and not to act and that it may therefore be nearly impossible for people to learn from their most serious mistakes. If what ?i?ek says is true, it would not be especially good news for Buddhism. On the other hand, if what he says is true, most Buddhists will just keep practicing even though their practice bears no fruit, wastes time and makes them miss out on most of the joys of life. Richard From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Mon Jun 7 11:34:23 2010 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 13:34:23 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Confused References: <4C0CAE65.7040401@xs4all.nl> <23497.89598.qm@web86606.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <4C0CF813.3050500@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <008801cb0667$ab614d70$2101a8c0@Dan> > It reminds me of the early Samkhya philosophy, where the ego is a > product of buddhi or intelligence, which is a product of puru?a or mind. > Was not one of the teachers of the Buddha supposed to be a Samkhyin? > erik Minor correction. Buddhi is part of prakrti, one of the 24 tattvas on the prakrti -- not purusa -- side. It does have a special relationship with purusa, however, in that it reflects the light of purusa, lighting up the rest of prakrti. According to classical Samkhya, purusa is entirely non-causal, only prakrti causes anything, i.e., produces "products." There is no mention of Samkhya in the Pali Nikayas that I am aware of (anyone have controverting evidence?), but Asvaghosa does have Samkhya play an important role in Gautama's education -- he depicts Buddha's awakening as basically going just one step beyond Samkhya. Dan From jmp at peavler.org Mon Jun 7 11:48:06 2010 From: jmp at peavler.org (Jim Peavler) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 11:48:06 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Confused In-Reply-To: <5A1CA05738D54B3080B496F8D2E36D3D@OPTIPLEX> References: <4C0CAE65.7040401@xs4all.nl> <23497.89598.qm@web86606.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <4C0CF813.3050500@xs4all.nl> <5A1CA05738D54B3080B496F8D2E36D3D@OPTIPLEX> Message-ID: On Jun 7, 2010, at 8:57 AM, JKirkpatrick wrote: > Yes, and how about the accounts of kin burying a person's > apparent corpse that suddenly sits up as the dirt is shoveled, > and says, What happened?------ ??? These are what's scary about > contemporary medical death decisions. And which explains why I am contemplating cremation. I don't actually like dust very much though. Perhaps I could be mixed with concrete and made into a nice statue of something. When I was a kid I thought I would like to be eaten by a bear and return to the life-cycle immediately, but that option has seemed less attractive as I got older. From jkirk at spro.net Mon Jun 7 12:03:09 2010 From: jkirk at spro.net (JKirkpatrick) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 12:03:09 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Confused In-Reply-To: References: <4C0CAE65.7040401@xs4all.nl> <23497.89598.qm@web86606.mail.ird.yahoo.com><4C0CF813.3050500@xs4all.nl><5A1CA05738D54B3080B496F8D2E36D3D@OPTIPLEX> Message-ID: <53D73B935A964C348550188B18BEB716@OPTIPLEX> On Jun 7, 2010, at 8:57 AM, JKirkpatrick wrote: > Yes, and how about the accounts of kin burying a person's apparent > corpse that suddenly sits up as the dirt is shoveled, and says, What > happened?------ ??? These are what's scary about contemporary medical > death decisions. Jim: And which explains why I am contemplating cremation. I don't actually like dust very much though. Perhaps I could be mixed with concrete and made into a nice statue of something. When I was a kid I thought I would like to be eaten by a bear and return to the life-cycle immediately, but that option has seemed less attractive as I got older. Joanna: Cremation is scarier if one isn't dead when the deed is done. I'd rather be suffocated than burned to death. So the really scary question is still, what if they were wrong--what if you weren't dead? --pace those folks who allegedly left this list because of me--sorry I'm still alive, but who knows......... From rhayes at unm.edu Mon Jun 7 13:00:59 2010 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 13:00:59 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Confused In-Reply-To: References: <4C0CAE65.7040401@xs4all.nl> <23497.89598.qm@web86606.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <4C0CF813.3050500@xs4all.nl> <5A1CA05738D54B3080B496F8D2E36D3D@OPTIPLEX> Message-ID: <1FA24713-C8B7-4A24-8F3D-C908D8C10D3B@unm.edu> On Jun 7, 2010, at 11:48 AM, Jim Peavler wrote: > When I was a kid I thought I would like to be eaten by a bear and return to the life-cycle immediately, but that option has seemed less attractive as I got older. A couple of years ago, a workman who was, well, working on our house was very eager to show me something on the computer. He had just received an e-mail with a full-color photo of a young man lying dead in a beautiful mountain meadow, his legs having been eaten by a bear. It was a grisly scene. (I never promised there would be no puns on buddha-l.) That photograph pretty well put an end to my romantic fantasies of being killed and eaten by a bear. I still very much like the idea of feeding scavengers, if they promise to wait until I have stopped twitching before they begin their feast. Vultures, ravens and coyotes would suit me well, if they are not busy eating something more to their taste. The main problem I foresee is that most of my living relatives would be disinclined to put my corpse into the back seat of a car and to drive it out to the malpais country west of Albuquerque. Heck, I don't think they would even be willing to drag it out into the back yard to be fed to ants and cockroaches. The speed with which a colony of ants can devour a mouse or a bird in our yard still fills me with admiration and wonder. Admittedly, I'm bigger than the average mouse, but I bet the ants and roaches could still have me down to a neat pile of bones within a few days, well before the neighbors noticed. Speaking of great Buddhist movies, my own personal favorite is Tobe Hooper's "Texas Chainsaw Massacre." That film was loosely based on a true story. I can still recall the original story in the newspapers. (I mean the real newspapers, not The National Inquirer.) An entire family of simple-minded folks got laid off at the local slaughterhouse. The only thing they knew how to do was kill things and butcher them, so when their unemployment insurance ran out, they eventually put their skills to work by digging up fresh corpses at the cemetery and turning them into sausages. When people stopped dying fast enough to keep the cemetery supplied, these resourceful fellows began to help people arrive on time for supper. Needless to say, Hollywood embellished the story and turned it into something horrific by making it take place in Texas?after all, who would go see a film called "The Alabama Unemployment Problem"? But even the movie managed to preserve the point that people who are willing to eat the flesh of sentient beings are just a short step away from cannibalism, just as it says in the sutras. Time for lunch. Richard From azuban at gmail.com Mon Jun 7 13:09:38 2010 From: azuban at gmail.com (Andre Zuban) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 15:09:38 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Being unable to imagine dying [confused] In-Reply-To: <56D54D6B-E111-4F79-8096-6AD95534AB23@unm.edu> References: <55296.44652.qm@web86607.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <56D54D6B-E111-4F79-8096-6AD95534AB23@unm.edu> Message-ID: On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 5:06 PM, Richard Hayes wrote: > On Jun 5, 2010, at 1:47 PM, lemmett at talk21.com wrote: > >> What I'm asking is if I were to take seriously the authority behind the fourfold negation of the Buddha's existence after death, apply that doctrine of his final death to my own upcoming one and then add the argument for one's own non existence being inconceivable: then should I conclude anything about the possibility of death being a positive nothingness ("slipping into the night"). > > I'm afraid the fourfold negation is purely an intellectual exercise that has no bearing whatsoever on anything as practical as the question you are asking. About the only thing you can conclude from the fourfold negation is that there is no self that will either endure or perish. But so what? So, Buddhism is rather a gay science then for if the above is wrong then there is nothing to worry about, and if it is right then there is no one to worry about. :) Andre From rhayes at unm.edu Mon Jun 7 14:15:43 2010 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2010 14:15:43 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Being unable to imagine dying [confused] In-Reply-To: References: <55296.44652.qm@web86607.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <56D54D6B-E111-4F79-8096-6AD95534AB23@unm.edu> Message-ID: <1275941743.2454.16.camel@rhayes-desktop> On Mon, 2010-06-07 at 15:09 -0400, Andre Zuban wrote: > So, Buddhism is rather a gay science then for if the above is wrong > then there is nothing to worry about, and if it is right then there is > no one to worry about. :) I believe you have headed the hit right on the nail (or whatever the expression is). The unofficial anthem of Buddhism is Bobby McFerrin's song "Don't worry, be happy." Admittedly, McFerrin got the idea from the mystical Jewish grandmother Bubbie Meier. Or was it the Vedantin Muslim mystic Meher Baba? I'm always getting those two mixed up in my happily non-worrying way. Second only to Cornell West, Bobby McFerrin is my favorite gay scientist. Frankly, I don't think anyone but a blues man can grasp the full implications of the first noble truth and move from there into the degree of rhapsodic scientific gaiety needed to sing and dance with abandon. Richard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_Worry,_Be_Happy From franz at mind2mind.net Mon Jun 7 14:36:23 2010 From: franz at mind2mind.net (Franz Metcalf) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 13:36:23 -0700 Subject: [Buddha-l] Confused In-Reply-To: References: <4C0CAE65.7040401@xs4all.nl> <23497.89598.qm@web86606.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <4C0CF813.3050500@xs4all.nl> <5A1CA05738D54B3080B496F8D2E36D3D@OPTIPLEX> Message-ID: <102CFCA9-BB64-40BA-90D5-84941213482F@mind2mind.net> Jim, > Perhaps I could be mixed with concrete and made into > a nice statue of something. You might contact Dr. Gunther von Hagens, the fellow who's been plastinating folks after they die. See . But how good-looking are you? Ever-helpful Franz From jehms at xs4all.nl Mon Jun 7 14:44:55 2010 From: jehms at xs4all.nl (Erik Hoogcarspel) Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2010 22:44:55 +0200 Subject: [Buddha-l] Confused In-Reply-To: <008801cb0667$ab614d70$2101a8c0@Dan> References: <4C0CAE65.7040401@xs4all.nl> <23497.89598.qm@web86606.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <4C0CF813.3050500@xs4all.nl> <008801cb0667$ab614d70$2101a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: <4C0D5A47.7000707@xs4all.nl> Op 07-06-10 19:34, Dan Lusthaus schreef: >> It reminds me of the early Samkhya philosophy, where the ego is a >> product of buddhi or intelligence, which is a product of puru?a or mind. >> Was not one of the teachers of the Buddha supposed to be a Samkhyin? >> erik >> > Minor correction. Buddhi is part of prakrti, one of the 24 tattvas on the > prakrti -- not purusa -- side. It does have a special relationship with > purusa, however, in that it reflects the light of purusa, lighting up the > rest of prakrti. According to classical Samkhya, purusa is entirely > non-causal, only prakrti causes anything, i.e., produces "products." > > Of course, thanks for the correction. I remember someone comparing the relation as a kind of electro-magnetic induction. I was rereading Dasgupta the other day and he insists on early Buddhism being close to Samkhya. erik erik From franz at mind2mind.net Mon Jun 7 14:49:16 2010 From: franz at mind2mind.net (Franz Metcalf) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 13:49:16 -0700 Subject: [Buddha-l] Confused In-Reply-To: References: <96BC17FE93F047789673D513AEDA9419@OPTIPLEX> <792014.43747.qm@web86606.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <6C38BE826E9B4F7CB1EAF0963AD3DFAC@OPTIPLEX> Message-ID: <1EBAA271-9772-487C-B388-728233951857@mind2mind.net> Randall, Thank you for the link to Philip Larkin's "Aubade." Below I append "Next, Please," perhaps Larkin's most Buddhist poem. On this page you'll "Next, Please," as well as "Aubade," "Toads," and "This Be the Verse" (which one might argue has a good lone rhinoceros quality to it). Franz ===== Next, Please Always too eager for the future, we Pick up bad habits of expectancy. Something is always approaching; every day Till then we say, Watching from a bluff the tiny, clear Sparkling armada of promises draw near. How slow they are! And how much time they waste, Refusing to make haste! Yet still they leave us holding wretched stalks Of disappointment, for, though nothing balks Each big approach, leaning with brasswork prinked, Each rope distinct, Flagged, and the figurehead wit golden tits Arching our way, it never anchors; it's No sooner present than it turns to past. Right to the last We think each one will heave to and unload All good into our lives, all we are owed For waiting so devoutly and so long. But we are wrong: Only one ship is seeking us, a black- Sailed unfamiliar, towing at her back A huge and birdless silence. In her wake No waters breed or break. From jmp at peavler.org Mon Jun 7 17:00:59 2010 From: jmp at peavler.org (Jim Peavler) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 17:00:59 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Confused In-Reply-To: <102CFCA9-BB64-40BA-90D5-84941213482F@mind2mind.net> References: <4C0CAE65.7040401@xs4all.nl> <23497.89598.qm@web86606.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <4C0CF813.3050500@xs4all.nl> <5A1CA05738D54B3080B496F8D2E36D3D@OPTIPLEX> <102CFCA9-BB64-40BA-90D5-84941213482F@mind2mind.net> Message-ID: <6F491C7A-DCB4-4850-8594-668BF2FF9785@peavler.org> On Jun 7, 2010, at 2:36 PM, Franz Metcalf wrote: > Jim, > >> Perhaps I could be mixed with concrete and made into >> a nice statue of something. > > You might contact Dr. Gunther von Hagens, the fellow who's been > plastinating folks after they die. See > . But how good-looking are you? I love his work, but everybody is naked (or, even worse, skinned!!) And with all the naughty bits. I don't think anyone should see me that way. It is just too gross! With dignity preserved, Jim Peavler jmp at peavler.org "Be good. Be just." John Adams From shian at kmspks.org Mon Jun 7 18:47:22 2010 From: shian at kmspks.org ([DPD CDT] Shen Shi'an) Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2010 08:47:22 +0800 Subject: [Buddha-l] Confused In-Reply-To: References: <4C0CAE65.7040401@xs4all.nl> <23497.89598.qm@web86606.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <4C0CF813.3050500@xs4all.nl> <5A1CA05738D54B3080B496F8D2E36D3D@OPTIPLEX> <102CFCA9-BB64-40BA-90D5-84941213482F@mind2mind.net> Message-ID: <0E75C555C1C380419C1B0A8017CBF3233BC4360FBA@KMSXCHSVR01.temple.kmspks.org> > I love his work, but everybody is naked (or, even worse, skinned!!) And with all the naughty bits. I don't think anyone should see me that way. It is just too gross! It's great for contemplating the 'impurities of the body':-] From jkirk at spro.net Mon Jun 7 19:17:34 2010 From: jkirk at spro.net (JKirkpatrick) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 19:17:34 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Confused In-Reply-To: <0E75C555C1C380419C1B0A8017CBF3233BC4360FBA@KMSXCHSVR01.temple.kmspks.org> References: <4C0CAE65.7040401@xs4all.nl><23497.89598.qm@web86606.mail.ird.yahoo.com><4C0CF813.3050500@xs4all.nl> <5A1CA05738D54B3080B496F8D2E36D3D@OPTIPLEX><102CFCA9-BB64-40BA-90D5-84941213482F@mind2mind.net> <0E75C555C1C380419C1B0A8017CBF3233BC4360FBA@KMSXCHSVR01.temple.kmspks.org> Message-ID: Impurities of the body are especially a hangup of men who, world-wide, tend to attribute such impurities to women-- thus they figure prominently in Buddhist discourses, maybe even as a method to enable men to be aware of how *their* bodies are composed as compared to those of the much-feared women. Trouble is, the example offered is usually to contemplate the (de)composition of the body of a (beautiful) woman. Beyond the age of eleven or so, however, women must become acquainted with their own special bodily effluvia (the kind that freak men out, except the Tantrics), so based on my own experience-- and supposing it's been similar to that of other women-- the meditations on bodily impurities as antidote to sexual lust don't work for us. In fact, they provoke guffaws. What does work? Well, leaving aside the fact that in the Buddha's time there was no fertility control available, what seems to work for a lot of contemporary women in curbing lust is the boring attention & equipment needed to prevent conception, for a start. Then, there are all the other social and karmic considerations. Doesn't stop a lot of us, unfortunately. However, one does notice that mostly Buddhist countries are less overpopulated than mostly non-Buddhist countries. Family sizes overall are smaller in, say, Tibet and Bhutan, or Vietnam, then they are in India, Bangladesh or _____________ fill in the blanks. Joanna -----Original Message----- From: buddha-l-bounces at mailman.swcp.com [mailto:buddha-l-bounces at mailman.swcp.com] On Behalf Of [DPD CDT] Shen Shi'an Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 6:47 PM To: Buddhist discussion forum Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] Confused > I love his work, but everybody is naked (or, even worse, skinned!!) And with all the naughty bits. I don't think anyone should see me that way. It is just too gross! It's great for contemplating the 'impurities of the body':-] _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From azuban at gmail.com Mon Jun 7 19:43:58 2010 From: azuban at gmail.com (Andre Zuban) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 21:43:58 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Being unable to imagine dying [confused] In-Reply-To: <1275941743.2454.16.camel@rhayes-desktop> References: <55296.44652.qm@web86607.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <56D54D6B-E111-4F79-8096-6AD95534AB23@unm.edu> <1275941743.2454.16.camel@rhayes-desktop> Message-ID: On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 4:15 PM, Richard P. Hayes wrote: > On Mon, 2010-06-07 at 15:09 -0400, Andre Zuban wrote: > >> So, Buddhism is rather a gay science then for if the above is wrong >> then there is nothing to worry about, and if it is right then there is >> no one to worry about. :) > I believe you have headed the hit right on the nail (or whatever the > expression is). The unofficial anthem of Buddhism is Bobby McFerrin's > song "Don't worry, be happy." Admittedly, McFerrin got the idea from the > mystical Jewish grandmother Bubbie Meier. Or was it the Vedantin Muslim > mystic Meher Baba? I'm always getting those two mixed up in my happily > non-worrying way. > > Second only to Cornell West, Bobby McFerrin is my favorite gay > scientist. Frankly, I don't think anyone but a blues man can grasp the > full implications of the first noble truth and move from there into the > degree of rhapsodic scientific gaiety needed to sing and dance with > abandon. > > Richard > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_Worry,_Be_Happy What puzzles me is that there will be always those who'd take the first part of my little eulogy as a suggestion to start worrying about nothingness. Thanks for the link. I also always liked what master Suzuki used to say - "you must be cheerful". Andre From jehms at xs4all.nl Tue Jun 8 01:47:29 2010 From: jehms at xs4all.nl (Erik Hoogcarspel) Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2010 09:47:29 +0200 Subject: [Buddha-l] Confused In-Reply-To: References: <4C0CAE65.7040401@xs4all.nl><23497.89598.qm@web86606.mail.ird.yahoo.com><4C0CF813.3050500@xs4all.nl> <5A1CA05738D54B3080B496F8D2E36D3D@OPTIPLEX><102CFCA9-BB64-40BA-90D5-84941213482F@mind2mind.net> <0E75C555C1C380419C1B0A8017CBF3233BC4360FBA@KMSXCHSVR01.temple.kmspks.org> Message-ID: <4C0DF591.6000004@xs4all.nl> I think that farting is a good contraceptive for otherwise attractive persons, but science and technology has found a cure, see http://www.metronews.ca/toronto/live/article/539102--better-smelling-farts-through-the-magic-of-exit-aromas Apart from the fact that putting people into monasteries has a significant effect on the growth of the population, making young people go to school and force them learn a lot of nonsense by heart also has a strong effect. Therefore the Hindus invented the study of the Vedas and Buddhism invented Abhidarmastudies. erik Op 08-06-10 03:17, JKirkpatrick schreef: > What does work? Well, leaving aside the fact that in the Buddha's > time there was no fertility control available, what seems to work > for a lot of contemporary women in curbing lust is the boring > attention& equipment needed to prevent conception, for a start. > Then, there are all the other social and karmic considerations. > Doesn't stop a lot of us, unfortunately. > > However, one does notice that mostly Buddhist countries are less > overpopulated than mostly non-Buddhist countries. Family sizes > overall are smaller in, say, Tibet and Bhutan, or Vietnam, then > they are in India, Bangladesh or _____________ fill in the > blanks. > > Joanna > > From lemmett at talk21.com Tue Jun 8 08:05:37 2010 From: lemmett at talk21.com (lemmett at talk21.com) Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2010 14:05:37 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [Buddha-l] Being unable to imagine dying [confused] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <952517.99675.qm@web86602.mail.ird.yahoo.com> >>> So, Buddhism is rather a gay science then for if the above is wrong >>> then there is nothing to worry about, and if it is right then there is >>> no one to worry about. :) >> I believe you have headed the hit right on the nail (or whatever the >> expression is). The unofficial anthem of Buddhism is Bobby McFerrin's >> song "Don't worry, be happy." Admittedly, McFerrin got the idea from the >> mystical Jewish grandmother Bubbie Meier. Or was it the Vedantin Muslim >> mystic Meher Baba? I'm always getting those two mixed up in my happily >> non-worrying way. > >> Second only to Cornell West, Bobby McFerrin is my favorite gay >> scientist. Frankly, I don't think anyone but a blues man can grasp the >> full implications of the first noble truth and move from there into the >> degree of rhapsodic scientific gaiety needed to sing and dance with >> abandon. > >> Richard >>?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_Worry,_Be_Happy > >What puzzles me is that there will be always those who'd take the >first part of my little eulogy as a suggestion to >>start worrying about >nothingness<<. > >Thanks for the link. I also always liked what master Suzuki used to >say - "you must be cheerful". > >Andre >Hello again. I just wanted to butt in and ask what is meant by what I have highlighted above "[don't] start worrying about nothingness". Do you mean don't >fear< nothingness, don't >think< about nothingness or something else entirely? Also I would like to ask in what way [and also I guess, what evidence is there to suggest that] I do not understand Mahayana? Best wishes, Luke From Nik.Macleod at proquest.co.uk Tue Jun 8 08:54:12 2010 From: Nik.Macleod at proquest.co.uk (Macleod, Nik) Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2010 15:54:12 +0100 Subject: [Buddha-l] Being unable to imagine dying [confused] In-Reply-To: <952517.99675.qm@web86602.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <952517.99675.qm@web86602.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: > Luke wrote: > Sent: 08 June 2010 15:06 > > ... "[don't] start worrying about nothingness". Do you mean don't > >fear< nothingness, don't >think< about nothingness or something > else entirely? An apposite passage (#66) from K??yapaparivarta springs to mind: "K??yapa it is like a person terrified of empty space who, while beating his chest and wailing piteously, speaks thus: ?Take away that empty space!? What do you think K??yapa, is it possible to remove empty space?" (K??yapa) replied: "No way, Lord!" The Lord said: "So likewise K??yapa those mendicants and brahmins who are frightened of emptiness, they I say are thoroughly confused. Why is that? Because they live and move in emptiness and yet they are afraid if it." Best regards Nik Macleod From lemmett at talk21.com Wed Jun 9 13:12:35 2010 From: lemmett at talk21.com (lemmett at talk21.com) Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2010 19:12:35 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [Buddha-l] Being unable to imagine dying [confused] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <87463.48135.qm@web86602.mail.ird.yahoo.com> I don't want to [further] annoy the list by [further] laboring this point but just wanted to ask if the conceivability of death being annihilation is relevant to anything Buddhist? It seems relevant to *something* about life but maybe just it's conceit, I don't know. I do think I'm interpreting Bauman correctly. Can we imagine falling into a deep sleep?>>>>>> What I'm asking is if I were to take seriously the authority behind the fourfold negation of the Buddha's existence after death, apply that doctrine of his final death to my own upcoming one and then add the argument for one's own non existence being inconceivable: then should I conclude anything about the possibility of death being a positive nothingness ("slipping into the night"). >> >>I'm afraid the fourfold negation is purely an intellectual exercise that has no bearing whatsoever on anything as practical as the question you are asking. About the only thing you can conclude from the fourfold negation is that there is no self that will either endure or perish. But so what? > >So, Buddhism is rather a gay science then for if the above is wrong then there is nothing to worry about, and if it is right then there is no one to worry about. :) From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Wed Jun 9 14:10:25 2010 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2010 16:10:25 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Being unable to imagine dying [confused] References: <87463.48135.qm@web86602.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <001c01cb080f$ccb35eb0$2101a8c0@Dan> Luke, You keep devising elaborate ways to reassure yourself that there is some sort of continuance after death, as if it were a matter of outsmarting a certain logical puzzle. And then you ask others (e.g., listmembers) for confirmation and reassurance. Logical tricks and banking on "ineffability" or "inconceivability" to act as tacit guarantees for what you want them to signify and provide won't get the job done, and is not the Buddhist approach. The Buddhist approach is to go to the source, i.e., ask yourself where the compulsion to play that game -- with so much passion and meaning -- comes from in the first place. Why this desire to squeeze continuance guarantees out of the outright denial of eternalism (balanced by an equally outright denial of annhilationalism). Some Buddhist texts call it bhava-asava, some call it atma-drsti -- Spinoza called it conatus. Until you figure out what it is and why it is making you do and think what you are doing and thinking, it will be writing through you, not vice versa. While this list is called buddha-l, recent evidence suggests that in these important matters listmembers prefer non-Buddhist solutions, or don't understand the Buddhist responses with sufficient perspicacity to do more than cite sources. The "process self" that analytic philosophy has adopted to solve problems of selfhood has also been embraced by those doing "Buddhism" through analytic prisms. Nevermind that Buddhists were aware of the process option and explicitly rejected it. That means you are not the only person having trouble thinking this through. Dan >I don't want to [further] annoy the list by [further] laboring this point >but just wanted to ask if the conceivability of death being annihilation is >relevant to anything Buddhist? It seems relevant to *something* about life >but maybe just it's conceit, I don't know. I do think I'm interpreting >Bauman correctly. Can we imagine falling into a deep sleep?>>>>>> What I'm >asking is if I were to take seriously the authority behind the fourfold >negation of the Buddha's existence after death, apply that doctrine of his >final death to my own upcoming one and then add the argument for one's own >non existence being inconceivable: then should I conclude anything about >the possibility of death being a positive nothingness ("slipping into the >night"). From lemmett at talk21.com Wed Jun 9 14:49:33 2010 From: lemmett at talk21.com (lemmett at talk21.com) Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2010 20:49:33 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [Buddha-l] Being unable to imagine dying [confused] In-Reply-To: <001c01cb080f$ccb35eb0$2101a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: <595607.61577.qm@web86606.mail.ird.yahoo.com> >Dan,>>>You keep devising elaborate ways to reassure yourself that there is some sort of continuance after death, as if it were a matter of outsmarting a certain logical puzzle. And then you ask others (e.g., listmembers) for confirmation and reassurance. Logical tricks and banking on "ineffability" or "inconceivability" to act as tacit guarantees for what you want them to signify and provide won't get the job done >>>>It's not obvious to me that you are right, just like Joanna and others in saying that I don't understand what I read.>>I have in deed considered whether this alleged inconceivability of death guarantees continuance but that's not my concern now because I can accept that it is un-Buddhist to have views on a person continuing or not. >>What I am trying to ask is whether the belief that annihilation is inconceivable is not Buddhist<<. Do?you mean that trying to reconcile inconceivability with Buddhist doctrine is necessarily atma-drsti or if the idea of inconceivability itself is atma-drsti? Or is that question itself atma-drsti?>Sorry if I've misunderstood what you mean but if not I have nothing else to ask.>Not that I'm about to say that death's conceivability is entirely irrelevant, just I suppose to anything Buddhist.>Best wishes From randall.bernard.jones at gmail.com Wed Jun 9 14:35:06 2010 From: randall.bernard.jones at gmail.com (Randall Jones) Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2010 15:35:06 -0500 Subject: [Buddha-l] Process self - was Being unable to imagine dying [confused] In-Reply-To: <001c01cb080f$ccb35eb0$2101a8c0@Dan> References: <87463.48135.qm@web86602.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <001c01cb080f$ccb35eb0$2101a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: <4c0fff84.0110970a.31ae.33a9@mx.google.com> Dan, can you point me toward this "process self" work you mention? I'm interested. I was quite taken by Derek Parfit when I took a seminar with him years ago and suppose you could call his work "process self". I rather thought he was a Buddhist too, but you never know. I was pleased to find Reasons and Persons in my storage unit when I returned to the U.S. earlier this year and might even read him again. More recently, I've started reading Charles Hartshorne and John Cobb (and other "process theology" folks, and while I never for a minute have thought they were Buddhist, there does seem to me to be a certain harmony. 9I UST A Thanks. Randall At 03:10 PM 6/9/2010, Dan wrote: >The "process self" that analytic philosophy has adopted to solve problems of >selfhood has also been embraced by those doing "Buddhism" through analytic >prisms. Nevermind that Buddhists were aware of the process option and >explicitly rejected it. From Jackhat1 at aol.com Wed Jun 9 15:01:20 2010 From: Jackhat1 at aol.com (Jackhat1 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2010 17:01:20 EDT Subject: [Buddha-l] Being unable to imagine dying [confused] Message-ID: <66799.4ababce4.39415b20@aol.com> It would help if you would delineate your response more from the message you are responding to. I get confused. I enjoy your comments and thinking. jack In a message dated 6/9/2010 3:49:53 P.M. Central Daylight Time, lemmett at talk21.com writes: >Dan,>>>You keep devising elaborate ways to reassure yourself that there is some sort of continuance after death, as if it were a matter of outsmarting a certain logical puzzle. And then you ask others (e.g., listmembers) for confirmation and reassurance. Logical tricks and banking on "ineffability" or "inconceivability" to act as tacit guarantees for what you want them to signify and provide won't get the job done >>>>It's not obvious to me that you are right, just like Joanna and others in saying that I don't understand what I read.>>I have in deed considered whether this alleged inconceivability of death guarantees continuance but that's not my concern now because I can accept that it is un-Buddhist to have views on a person continuing or not. >>What I am trying to ask is whether the belief that annihilation is inconceivable is not Buddhist<<. Do you mean that trying to reconcile inconceivability with Buddhist doctrine is necessarily atma-drsti or if the idea of inconceivability itself is atma-drsti? Or is that question itself atma-drsti?>Sorry if I've misunderstood what you mean but if not I have nothing else to ask.>Not that I'm about to say that death's conceivability is entirely irrelevant, just I suppose to anything Buddhist.>Best wishes From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Wed Jun 9 15:45:09 2010 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2010 17:45:09 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Process self - was Being unable to imagine dying[confused] References: <87463.48135.qm@web86602.mail.ird.yahoo.com><001c01cb080f$ccb35eb0$2101a8c0@Dan> <4c0fff84.0110970a.31ae.33a9@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <004b01cb081d$089753c0$2101a8c0@Dan> > Dan, can you point me toward this "process self" work you mention? > I'm interested. Randall, The "process selves" theoreticians of the Buddhist fold were the pudgalavadins, whose theories were rejected by the other sects. One can find various discussions of "process" self theories in texts like Visuddhimagga, and invariably dangers and flaws are pointed out. I haven't time now to compile a list references, but they shouldn't be that hard to locate by an intrepid searcher. Harshorne's process theology is very Quaker -- God is a friend. Whitehead's process god is very Anglican -- long-suffering and stoic. Whitehead is more analytic -- Hartshorne still smells like seminary. Many Western thinkers act as if this were the 17th century and they've just discovered an alternate to thinking about things in terms of "substance," as if they just discovered the other day something inadequate in Aristotle. So "process" as the counterproposal (or God as Verb instead of as Noun) still strikes them as very new and liberating. University writing programs pretend that emphasizing "process" over "product" is a new discovery -- as if a writer ever learned how to write without learning how "to write". And so on. Buddhists recognized that thinking in terms of substantives and processes (svabhava and akara; or dravya and karana; etc.) has strengths and weaknesses. Verbs are no more independent of nouns than vice versa -- they tautologically implicate each other. Turning the process into the substantive -- which is what process thought does -- only defers and camouflages the problems. The new question becomes: Which process, which causal relation, etc. obtains in this or that case? To ignore such questions, or resist carefuly analytic classification, is to put the mind to sleep while uttering meaningless phrases about "processes" -- a way of pretending to know what one doesn't want to know, while valorizing the non-knowing of what one claims to be important to know. Follow me? Dan From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Wed Jun 9 16:10:26 2010 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2010 18:10:26 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Being unable to imagine dying [confused] References: <595607.61577.qm@web86606.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <005401cb0820$90b81570$2101a8c0@Dan> Luke, Try using multiple carriage returns instead of just adding >>> to your responses. >>>>It's not obvious to me that you are right, Obviously, or I wouldn't have had to say it. >just like Joanna and others in saying that I don't understand what I read. That's not what I was arguing. Let me put it another way. In one of the Mahayana sutras (I think it's the Avatamsaka), a contrast is drawn between a dog and a lion. Throw a rock at a dog, the sutra says, and the dog chases the rock. Throw a rock at a lion and the lion chases you. Staring the compulsion in the face, instead of letting it ghost write through you, is the Buddhist recommendation. >>I have in deed considered whether this alleged inconceivability of death >>guarantees continuance but that's not my concern now because I can accept >>that it is un-Buddhist to have views on a person continuing or not. The reason to face this is not based on whether it is or isn't "Buddhist". Rather, it's a question of being a dog or a lion. >>What I am trying to ask is whether the belief that annihilation is >>inconceivable is not Buddhist<<. If it were inconceivable, it couldn't be a view that would have to be explicitly rejected. One can imagine the world existing without one, before one was here or after one is gone -- unless one is an incurable narcissist. Can you imagine the highway being in progress before you approached the entering ramp? Is it ongoing now, even though you are not on it? Are you the last one to leave a party, thinking it ceases to exist once you've left, and you don't want to miss a second? The idea that one cannot imagine oneself in the ground thinking to oneself "I don't exist" is simply a silly and meaningless exercise. >Do you mean that trying to reconcile inconceivability with Buddhist >doctrine is necessarily atma-drsti or if the idea of inconceivability >itself is atma-drsti? Neither. The "inconceivability" that you are pursuing is simply a substitute term for "ineffability" (only the mind is unable to speak, instead of just the mouth). Annihilation is conceivable, can be thought about, but is incoherent and contrary to both evidence and logic. Hence not a viable option for clear-thinking Buddhists or non-Buddhists. Atma-drsti is not the question itself, but rather the impulse to find a continuity narrative, no matter how tenuous, that can be weaved out of any thing, any format or question. Today weave it from "inconceivability," tomorrow from "conceivability," next week from the astrologer's handbook, then tea leaves, then a Lutheran hymnal, then... >Or is that question itself atma-drsti? Closer. Not the question per se, but the motivation to ask the question with the intent you are asking it. The impulse, compulsion, intent -- give it whatever name you wish -- that is atma-drsti making itself known in concrete form, while distracting you into looking elsewhere. That's what it does. That's why Mara is called the trickster, deceiver. You are playing a con game with yourself. The con is in front of your nose, but you're chasing rocks... Dan From lemmett at talk21.com Wed Jun 9 18:56:58 2010 From: lemmett at talk21.com (lemmett at talk21.com) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 00:56:58 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [Buddha-l] Being unable to imagine dying and living In-Reply-To: <005401cb0820$90b81570$2101a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: <645565.3563.qm@web86604.mail.ird.yahoo.com> >>The idea that one cannot imagine oneself in the ground thinking to oneself?"I don't exist" is simply a silly and meaningless exercise. >>>It's also to say that I can't imagine thinking to myself "I am ceasing to exist". To me it seems really important, could it be one way to face atma-drsti and challenge the continuity narrative - perhaps a narrative of a self that dies?>>Not that I think I understand.?Presumably present moments are followed by future ones just because one causes the next; but surely something must differentiate general causal sequences and that constituted by what is provisionally posited as the mental events of some person. In which case, if nothing is denied that we know about ourselves, why can't it be said to be personhood?>>Best wishes>Luke From dee.kaye at yahoo.com Wed Jun 9 21:03:01 2010 From: dee.kaye at yahoo.com (Dee) Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2010 20:03:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Buddha-l] Being unable to imagine dying and living In-Reply-To: <645565.3563.qm@web86604.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <660773.6378.qm@web112410.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> >It's also to say that I can't imagine thinking to myself "I am ceasing to exist". You will definitely cease to exist. I for one am beginning to wish it were sooner rather than later. Honestly, you are simply asking the same set of questions over and over, despite the patient answers you have been offered. Everybody dies, but before we do, we think we are set in stone in some way, some kind of real unchanging predictable identity, despite the fact that everything we think and feel is momentary and ungraspable. (Except for the dogmatists, of course, they really know what is going on). The question of death isn't answerable because there isn't anything we can do to change it. > if nothing is denied that we know about ourselves, why can't it be said to be personhood? What do we know about ourselves? What is being denied or not denied? What is personhood? It costs nothing to learn to think clearly. From bankei at gmail.com Thu Jun 10 00:50:11 2010 From: bankei at gmail.com (Bankei) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 16:50:11 +1000 Subject: [Buddha-l] Ethical Dilemmas Message-ID: Imagine you are walking along a rail line and you see a train coming down the track out of control. There are 5 people on the track, they are unable to move out of the way in time and you are unable to warn them in time. They will all die if the train can't be stopped. You look around in an attempt to stop the train. There is nothing you can do, but there is a switch next to where you are walking which you could pull. This would divert the train onto another track, saving the 5 people. But at the last minute you see there is a man on the other truck and he would be unable to be warned in time. Therefore he would die if the switch was pulled. What would you do? A. Do nothing B. Flick the switch, killing one, but saving 5. A Utilitarian would flick the switch as this would produce the greatest good. What would a Buddhist do, or better what would the Buddha have done? Bankei From joy.vriens at gmail.com Thu Jun 10 00:59:06 2010 From: joy.vriens at gmail.com (Joy Vriens) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 08:59:06 +0200 Subject: [Buddha-l] Ethical Dilemmas In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Bankei wrote > You look around in an attempt to stop the train. There is nothing you can > do, but there is a switch next to where you are walking which you could > pull. This would divert the train onto another track, saving the 5 people. > But at the last minute you see there is a man on the other truck and he > would be unable to be warned in time. Therefore he would die if the switch > was pulled. > > What would you do? > A. Do nothing > B. Flick the switch, killing one, but saving 5. > > A Utilitarian would flick the switch as this would produce the greatest > good. What would a Buddhist do, or better what would the Buddha have done? > > > You forgot to mention the man on the other track is the Buddha... > Joy From jehms at xs4all.nl Thu Jun 10 01:14:29 2010 From: jehms at xs4all.nl (Erik Hoogcarspel) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 09:14:29 +0200 Subject: [Buddha-l] Ethical Dilemmas In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C1090D5.60202@xs4all.nl> Op 10-06-10 08:59, Joy Vriens schreef: > Bankei wrote > > > >> You look around in an attempt to stop the train. There is nothing you can >> do, but there is a switch next to where you are walking which you could >> pull. This would divert the train onto another track, saving the 5 people. >> But at the last minute you see there is a man on the other truck and he >> would be unable to be warned in time. Therefore he would die if the switch >> was pulled. >> >> What would you do? >> A. Do nothing >> B. Flick the switch, killing one, but saving 5. >> >> A Utilitarian would flick the switch as this would produce the greatest >> good. What would a Buddhist do, or better what would the Buddha have done? >> >> >> You forgot to mention the man on the other track is the Buddha... >> As to the first question a possible answer is that there is a J?taka where the bodhisattva kills the captain of a boat in order to save the fifty passengers. So utilitairism is not unacceptable in Buddhism. The whole dilemma is a bit of an advertisement for utilism, I've seen many variations. If the other person is a Buddha, she can cope with a wild train, just like the other one handled the wild elephant. erik From joy.vriens at gmail.com Thu Jun 10 02:04:43 2010 From: joy.vriens at gmail.com (Joy Vriens) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 10:04:43 +0200 Subject: [Buddha-l] Ethical Dilemmas In-Reply-To: <4C1090D5.60202@xs4all.nl> References: <4C1090D5.60202@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: Hi Eric, If the other person is a Buddha, she can cope with a wild train, just like the other one handled the wild elephant. Ok for wild trains, wild elephants, wild boulders, but please no wild porcstew. Joy From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Thu Jun 10 02:08:10 2010 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 04:08:10 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Being unable to imagine dying and living References: <645565.3563.qm@web86604.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <003001cb0874$11a07cb0$2101a8c0@Dan> >>The idea that one cannot imagine oneself in the ground thinking to oneself >>"I don't exist" is simply a silly and meaningless exercise. >>>It's also to say that I can't imagine thinking to myself "I am ceasing to >>>exist". To me it seems really important, could it be one way to face >>>atma-drsti and challenge the continuity narrative - perhaps a narrative >>>of a self that dies?>>Not that I think I understand. Presumably present >>>moments are followed by future ones just because one causes the next; but >>>surely something must differentiate general causal sequences and that >>>constituted by what is provisionally posited as the mental events of some >>>person. In which case, if nothing is denied that we know about ourselves, >>>why can't it be said to be personhood?>>Best wishes>Luke Atma-drsti is the fact that you don't actually believe a word you just wrote -- that you think you still can outsmart death by a logical trick (that, under analysis, doesn't really stand up to very rigorous logical scrutiny anyway), but you feel compelled to keep generating these denials of death. That compulsion is atma-drsti. I'll let you in on a secret: The denials don't work in the long run. A more fruitful direction to focus that energy would be to follow Buddha's example. He began the third watch of the night under the Bodhi tree by asking himself the question: Why is there death? The answer he came up with is: There is death, because there is birth. He then asked, Why is there birth? By sunrise he had traced this back to the root of the problem, and was Awakened, an actual Buddha. You are loitering around the right question -- now time to decide whether to be a lion or a dog. (another secret: "Death" is just "impermanence" taken personally. Impermanence is just death taken impersonally. All is impermanence, hence all is duhkha. So, why is there death?) Dan From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Thu Jun 10 02:19:32 2010 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 04:19:32 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Ethical Dilemmas References: Message-ID: <003501cb0875$a77f6150$2101a8c0@Dan> >> You forgot to mention the man on the other track is the Buddha... Joy's quip is the healthy beginning of the undoing of that sort of question. It's constructed to foster the assumption that this sort of ethics is quantifiable -- fewer dead is better. But what if the five people on the track have just left a home where they raped and killed all the occupants, while the one person on the other track is a scientist on the verge of discovering the cure for AIDS? Does the "equation" change? Since the potential switch puller does not have time to run background checks, all these facts, while contextual, cannot enter into the decision process. Hence the decision has to be reached without a proper weighing of the relevant factors. Hence the decision, whatever else it might be, will not be ethical ... and it would be unethical to presume otherwise. As for what would the Buddha think/do? He would want to know what a "train" is, and would not have enough time to figure out what relation the switch has to the train and the tracks (any more than you would know how to disarm an atomic weapon discovered in your backyard). If he had read too many Jataka tales, he would have thrown himself on the tracks to divert the train -- and been run over moments before the train took out the other five people down the track. Now that sort of morality Richard would applaud. Dan From lemmett at talk21.com Thu Jun 10 03:02:16 2010 From: lemmett at talk21.com (lemmett at talk21.com) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 09:02:16 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [Buddha-l] Being unable to imagine dying and living In-Reply-To: <660773.6378.qm@web112410.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <534899.99902.qm@web86605.mail.ird.yahoo.com> >>You will definitely cease to exist. I for one am beginning to wish it were sooner rather than later. Honestly, you are simply asking the same set of questions over and over, despite the patient answers you have been offered. >>>Complete rubbish, can you read? I can.>>>you think you still can outsmart death by a logical trick? (that, under analysis, doesn't really stand up to very rigorous logical?scrutiny anyway), but you feel compelled to keep generating these denials of?death. That compulsion is atma-drsti. I'll let you in on a secret: The?denials don't work in the long run.>>>No Dan, that's not what I'm doing, I have explicitly stated that I do believe that death occurs so in what way am I trying to "outsmart" it??>Presumably you understood what I said and what you mean is that trying to tie in death being inconceivable to atma-drsti is atma-drsti. What about the fact that my corpse is going to rot or thinking about my loved ones, is trying to place that in a Buddhist context atma-drsti? From jehms at xs4all.nl Thu Jun 10 03:31:23 2010 From: jehms at xs4all.nl (Erik Hoogcarspel) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 11:31:23 +0200 Subject: [Buddha-l] Ethical Dilemmas In-Reply-To: <003501cb0875$a77f6150$2101a8c0@Dan> References: <003501cb0875$a77f6150$2101a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: <4C10B0EB.2040104@xs4all.nl> Op 10-06-10 10:19, Dan Lusthaus schreef: >>> You forgot to mention the man on the other track is the Buddha... >>> > Joy's quip is the healthy beginning of the undoing of that sort of question. > It's constructed to foster the assumption that this sort of ethics is > quantifiable -- fewer dead is better. But what if the five people on the > track have just left a home where they raped and killed all the occupants, > while the one person on the other track is a scientist on the verge of > discovering the cure for AIDS? Does the "equation" change? > > > Perhaps it would be interesting to recall the story of Angulimala here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angulimala) erik From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Thu Jun 10 03:46:30 2010 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 05:46:30 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Ethical Dilemmas References: <003501cb0875$a77f6150$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C10B0EB.2040104@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <007201cb0881$ce26e510$2101a8c0@Dan> > Perhaps it would be interesting to recall the story of Angulimala here. > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angulimala) > erik Oh, I get it! Buddha will convert the train! Maybe change its name to Ahimsa Express. Good idea! Dan From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Thu Jun 10 03:50:54 2010 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 05:50:54 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Being unable to imagine dying and living References: <534899.99902.qm@web86605.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <007901cb0882$6b35cdd0$2101a8c0@Dan> > What about the fact that my corpse is going to rot Thinking about rotting corpses is a time-honored Buddhist tradition -- from Theravada meditation practice (e.g., Visuddhimagga) to tantric graveyard rituals. >or thinking about my loved ones... Thinking what about them, exactly? You are not denying the factoid of death -- but the non-continuance of an indescribable "you". Or maybe you don't read what you write... Dan From lemmett at talk21.com Thu Jun 10 04:01:03 2010 From: lemmett at talk21.com (lemmett at talk21.com) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 10:01:03 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [Buddha-l] Being unable to imagine dying and living In-Reply-To: <007901cb0882$6b35cdd0$2101a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: <664850.72200.qm@web86606.mail.ird.yahoo.com> >You are not denying the factoid of death -- but the non-continuance of an indescribable "you". Or maybe you don't read what you write... No I am not stating the continuance of me. What I mean is that that idea is a cognitive element to my [our] thinking of dying whether we mean it to be or not. But I can accept that this cognitive distortion or the identification of it or anything like that has nothing to do with Buddhism: cased closed!? From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Thu Jun 10 05:06:24 2010 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 07:06:24 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Being unable to imagine dying and living References: <664850.72200.qm@web86606.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <009301cb088c$f72df920$2101a8c0@Dan> >>You are not denying the factoid of death -- but the non-continuance of an indescribable "you". Or maybe you don't read what you write... >No I am not stating the continuance of me. What I mean is that that idea is >a cognitive element to my [our] thinking of dying whether we mean it to be >or not. But I can accept that this cognitive distortion or the >identification of it or anything like that has nothing to do with Buddhism: >cased closed! Denying the denial, while affirming it! Nice. I guess you don't read what you write. Case closed. Dan From joy.vriens at gmail.com Thu Jun 10 05:21:18 2010 From: joy.vriens at gmail.com (Joy Vriens) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 13:21:18 +0200 Subject: [Buddha-l] Ethical Dilemmas In-Reply-To: <003501cb0875$a77f6150$2101a8c0@Dan> References: <003501cb0875$a77f6150$2101a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: Hi Dan, It's disheartening to see the damage of reading too many jatakas on Superman, Spiderman and other superheroes. Why always this urge to intervene? Let Mother Nature do her job. Trains are born, derail and die carrying along in their momentum the average serial killer and Nobel Price scientist, both on the verge of whatever it is (aren't we always on the verge of something? Oh the potential!). Mere sweatdrops on the forehead of Mother Nature, that she wipes off with one hand whilst accomplishing her immense task with the other. At the beginning of his career the Buddha may perhaps at the odd occasion have vaguely considered intervening. Later on, at times, when he was a bit distracted, one could see him nod his head almost imperceptibly. But towards the end, he was continuously struck with admiration when he saw the ever increasingly complex plots of Mother Nature. Finally when the first yuppie bodhisattvas came along with their wet dreams about ships and captains, he felt it was time for him to leave. Joy From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Thu Jun 10 07:16:33 2010 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 09:16:33 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Ethical Dilemmas References: <003501cb0875$a77f6150$2101a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: <002a01cb089f$262bfb70$2101a8c0@Dan> Hi Joy, >Why always this urge to > intervene? Let Mother Nature do her job. Careful not to jump to the other extreme. There is a difference between having to do something as opposed to having something to do. Sila is one of the tripod legs on which Buddhism stands, and shouldn't be neglected in the name of observation-only samadhi (or some other name, such as Father Nature). There is no compassion, no prajna, no Buddhism, without responsibility. Dan From joy.vriens at gmail.com Thu Jun 10 07:47:25 2010 From: joy.vriens at gmail.com (Joy Vriens) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 15:47:25 +0200 Subject: [Buddha-l] Ethical Dilemmas In-Reply-To: <002a01cb089f$262bfb70$2101a8c0@Dan> References: <003501cb0875$a77f6150$2101a8c0@Dan> <002a01cb089f$262bfb70$2101a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: > Careful not to jump to the other extreme. There is a difference between > having to do something as opposed to having something to do. Sila is one of > the tripod legs on which Buddhism stands, and shouldn't be neglected in the > name of observation-only samadhi (or some other name, such as Father > Nature). There is no compassion, no prajna, no Buddhism, without > responsibility. > Amen to that Father Dan. But responsibility for one's acts. Am I my brother's keeper? A bird, a plane, Superman? Joy From lemmett at talk21.com Thu Jun 10 07:50:29 2010 From: lemmett at talk21.com (lemmett at talk21.com) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 13:50:29 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [Buddha-l] Being unable to imagine dying and living In-Reply-To: <009301cb088c$f72df920$2101a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: <231380.61373.qm@web86605.mail.ird.yahoo.com> >>No I am not stating the continuance of me. What I mean is that that idea [inconceivability] is?>>a cognitive element to my [our] thinking of dying whether we mean it to be >>or not. But I can accept that this cognitive distortion or the >>identification of it or anything like that has nothing to do with Buddhism:?>>cased closed! >Denying the denial, while affirming it! Nice. I guess you don't read what?>you write. Case closed. I'm sorry but I don't understand where the continuance of me is a logical consequence of anything I have said. In my use of 'my thinking of dying'? But you said 'I guess you don't' in your reply! From jmp at peavler.org Thu Jun 10 08:03:00 2010 From: jmp at peavler.org (Jim Peavler) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 08:03:00 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Ethical Dilemmas In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <03DB4667-AC90-4C33-9333-40D7E0CBDCD4@peavler.org> On Jun 10, 2010, at 12:50 AM, Bankei wrote: Throw the switch. The Buddhist neither exists nor does not exist, so it wouldn't matter We can't say about the people who may not be buddhists. I think this is one of those questions that do not edify. Jim Peavler jmp at peavler.org "Be good. Be just." John Adams From jkirk at spro.net Thu Jun 10 08:13:36 2010 From: jkirk at spro.net (JKirkpatrick) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 08:13:36 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Being unable to imagine dying and living In-Reply-To: <664850.72200.qm@web86606.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <007901cb0882$6b35cdd0$2101a8c0@Dan> <664850.72200.qm@web86606.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <15246C75784147A9A0BB6B21BDD0EF51@OPTIPLEX> Smart move. If your case is closed, then please drop it. JK _________________________________ >You are not denying the factoid of death -- but the non-continuance of >an indescribable "you". Or maybe you don't read what you write... No I am not stating the continuance of me. What I mean is that that idea is a cognitive element to my [our] thinking of dying whether we mean it to be or not. But I can accept that this cognitive distortion or the identification of it or anything like that has nothing to do with Buddhism: cased closed!? _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From lemmett at talk21.com Thu Jun 10 08:35:06 2010 From: lemmett at talk21.com (lemmett at talk21.com) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 14:35:06 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [Buddha-l] Ethical Dilemmas In-Reply-To: <003501cb0875$a77f6150$2101a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: <370885.32380.qm@web86604.mail.ird.yahoo.com> >> You forgot to mention the man on the other track is the Buddha... >Joy's quip is the healthy beginning of the undoing of that sort of question. >It's constructed to foster the assumption that this sort of ethics is >quantifiable -- fewer dead is better. But what if the five people on the >track have just left a home where they raped and killed all the occupants, >while the one person on the other track is a scientist on the verge of >discovering the cure for AIDS? Does the "equation" change? > >Since the potential switch puller does not have time to run background >checks, all these facts, while contextual, cannot enter into the decision >process. Hence the decision has to be reached without a proper weighing of >the relevant factors. Hence the decision, whatever else it might be, will >not be ethical ... and it would be unethical to presume otherwise. Really? We have to weight every relevant factor to make an ethical decision not just all the factors that we know??Assuming you're not just limiting ethics to omniscient beings, when do we have enough information to be ethical and why suppose that that includes knowing what research projects each potential fatality is involved in? What if more lives were involved?? Is there anything at all to be said for that killing a murderer and a saint is in both instances the choice to end a life? Of?course practically I would say that a serial murderer should be left hungry before others [and I assume I'd decide that not just because his life has such lower social utility than that of a saint] but is it right to lower the value of someone's life upon every sin or every unethical choice or opinion, every piece of incompetence? Every time they ask Buddha-l something close to what has already been asked? No I'm not asking for forgiveness... From lemmett at talk21.com Thu Jun 10 08:45:08 2010 From: lemmett at talk21.com (lemmett at talk21.com) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 14:45:08 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [Buddha-l] Being unable to imagine dying and living In-Reply-To: <15246C75784147A9A0BB6B21BDD0EF51@OPTIPLEX> Message-ID: <768266.64589.qm@web86602.mail.ird.yahoo.com> >Smart move. If your case is closed, then please drop it. >JK No problem I won't post about that again.?Is it OK for me to continue to use the list or are you not going to drop this? From stefan.detrez at gmail.com Thu Jun 10 08:46:47 2010 From: stefan.detrez at gmail.com (Stefan Detrez) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 16:46:47 +0200 Subject: [Buddha-l] Ethical Dilemmas In-Reply-To: <002a01cb089f$262bfb70$2101a8c0@Dan> References: <003501cb0875$a77f6150$2101a8c0@Dan> <002a01cb089f$262bfb70$2101a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: Thinking the problem through can lead to a bizarre conclusion: anything might afterwards have been the morally right action, especially in such extreme situations. Killing one man in order to save the others seems right from a utilitarian point of view. Allowing the five to die seems morally justifiable too. There is no calculus possible here. What if one person on the track was a family member or a beloved? Or what if the five persons were known killers? What if one of the five persons was your beloved and the rest killers? What if those five persons where suffering from a terminal decease? Even if you do not act, you could not be blamed for not having taken your responsibility. What would be that responsibility? How, if, would 'a normal person is similar circumstances' act? That is very difficult to discover. Not acting would motivabe not wishing to actively cause pain 2010/6/10 Dan Lusthaus > Hi Joy, > > >Why always this urge to > > intervene? Let Mother Nature do her job. > > > Careful not to jump to the other extreme. There is a difference between > having to do something as opposed to having something to do. Sila is one of > the tripod legs on which Buddhism stands, and shouldn't be neglected in the > name of observation-only samadhi (or some other name, such as Father > Nature). There is no compassion, no prajna, no Buddhism, without > responsibility. > > Dan > > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l > -- Stefan Detrez Lokkaardstraat 18 2018 Antwerpen Belgium 0032485471003 From jkirk at spro.net Thu Jun 10 08:54:27 2010 From: jkirk at spro.net (JKirkpatrick) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 08:54:27 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Ethical Dilemmas In-Reply-To: <03DB4667-AC90-4C33-9333-40D7E0CBDCD4@peavler.org> References: <03DB4667-AC90-4C33-9333-40D7E0CBDCD4@peavler.org> Message-ID: <37BF3724C8FC4BC682756E2B1F5CC3BF@OPTIPLEX> Indeed-- along with the recent spate of questions about continuation during and after dying and the like. Not conducive at all, except to annoyance (their obvious intention, as the writer continually claims he's not trying to annoy)----- etc. JK On Jun 10, 2010, at 12:50 AM, Bankei wrote: Throw the switch. The Buddhist neither exists nor does not exist, so it wouldn't matter We can't say about the people who may not be buddhists. I think this is one of those questions that do not edify. Jim Peavler jmp at peavler.org "Be good. Be just." John Adams _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From stefan.detrez at gmail.com Thu Jun 10 08:55:24 2010 From: stefan.detrez at gmail.com (Stefan Detrez) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 16:55:24 +0200 Subject: [Buddha-l] Ethical Dilemmas In-Reply-To: References: <003501cb0875$a77f6150$2101a8c0@Dan> <002a01cb089f$262bfb70$2101a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: Continued. Pressed the send button too soon. > Not acting can motivated by not wishing to actively cause pain, and > allowing pain to be caused is slightly different - you can allow pain by > consciously chosing to do so, but you can also refrain from consciously > chosing to allow pain to be caused. The result is the same, but the > motivation is different. You'd think becoming trapped in a moral paralysis > is morally justifiable, eventhough such justification would have horrible > consequences. > Stefan > > > From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Thu Jun 10 09:06:29 2010 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 11:06:29 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Ethical Dilemmas References: <370885.32380.qm@web86604.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <004501cb08ae$820071b0$2101a8c0@Dan> >Really? We have to weight every relevant factor to make an ethical decision >not just all the factors that we know? No, but you are missing the point. This is not a run of the mill ethical decision, but a life-or-death determination, absolutely irreversible and irremediable. If you are deciding who lives and who dies, you better have ALL the facts beforehand. Without those facts, you cannot decide ethically. People (or sentient beings) are not numerical units, nor are they abstractions. The track walkers are not all equal just because they are all (presumably) human (no zombies or vampires trolling the tracks). Who they are is a product of what they've done (karma). You are not (normally) the judge of their karma, but if you are making life and death decisions for them, without their knowledge or approval nor sanctioned to do so by any judicial authority whatsoever, you better know who they are. Otherwise, as I said, whatever you do, it would be unethical to pretend what you are doing is ethical. Let's shift the example. Several people are drowning in icy cold water. You jump in to try to save them. You can only grab one and make it back to shore, but not all of them -- or else the cold water will disable you and you will drown as well. Which one do you grab? Answer: It doesn't matter. Whichever you can. Should that one turn out to be a reprehensible character, so be it. That you can't save the rest and didn't save someone perhaps more estimable than the one you saved is moot. Why is this situation different from the tracks? And it is. Dan From jehms at xs4all.nl Thu Jun 10 09:39:21 2010 From: jehms at xs4all.nl (Erik Hoogcarspel) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 17:39:21 +0200 Subject: [Buddha-l] Ethical Dilemmas In-Reply-To: References: <003501cb0875$a77f6150$2101a8c0@Dan> <002a01cb089f$262bfb70$2101a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: <4C110729.1050303@xs4all.nl> Op 10-06-10 16:55, Stefan Detrez schreef: > Continued. Pressed the send button too soon. > > > >> Not acting can motivated by not wishing to actively cause pain, and >> allowing pain to be caused is slightly different - you can allow pain by >> consciously chosing to do so, but you can also refrain from consciously >> chosing to allow pain to be caused. The result is the same, but the >> motivation is different. You'd think becoming trapped in a moral paralysis >> is morally justifiable, eventhough such justification would have horrible >> consequences. >> >> Let me remind you that ethics is not about the best decision, but the about which decision one can justify the best. So it's a decision to the best of your knowledge. It is obvious that the decision that causes he least amount of victims is the easiest to justify, no matter what kind of ethical vision you use. The most difficult one is when you have two persons against each other. There are many examples of that kind of cases. In that kind there is no justification for a choice, so you have to flip a coin. erik From jkirk at spro.net Thu Jun 10 10:04:17 2010 From: jkirk at spro.net (JKirkpatrick) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 10:04:17 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Ethical Dilemmas In-Reply-To: <4C110729.1050303@xs4all.nl> References: <003501cb0875$a77f6150$2101a8c0@Dan> <002a01cb089f$262bfb70$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C110729.1050303@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <0C3ACAF0ED074048ADD709DE760AA4E7@OPTIPLEX> The most difficult one is when you have two persons against each other. There are many examples of that kind of cases. In that kind there is no justification for a choice, so you have to flip a coin. erik Flip a coin, or choose not to choose. Maybe choose not to be a busybody. That is also an action, usually based on the reality that one can or could do nothing to resolve the dilemma or improve matters. JK From lemmett at talk21.com Thu Jun 10 10:04:19 2010 From: lemmett at talk21.com (lemmett at talk21.com) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 16:04:19 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [Buddha-l] Ethical Dilemmas In-Reply-To: <004501cb08ae$820071b0$2101a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: <210138.78420.qm@web86606.mail.ird.yahoo.com> >Why is this situation different from the tracks? And it is. > >Dan Yes of course. Firstly you have to beg the question about which of the train alternatives is worse in order to say that not choosing could be equivalent in each experiment. So it's a different kind of question. Also, as you pointed out, there is reason to believe that with the train crash neither alternative is more ethical, perhaps not acting is not the wrong choice at all, in which case acquiescence has a different value in both questions.? The difference between the two is that in that drowning example there are three alternatives with one being inferior [if you assume that any human life has some value]. Is that all? Hopefully Dan's question was not a rhetorical one. But that's not to say that in no such examples would it be ethical to act to save more people; if it was taking one life to save many many more lives. I think. From joy.vriens at gmail.com Thu Jun 10 10:06:35 2010 From: joy.vriens at gmail.com (Joy Vriens) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 18:06:35 +0200 Subject: [Buddha-l] Ethical Dilemmas In-Reply-To: References: <003501cb0875$a77f6150$2101a8c0@Dan> <002a01cb089f$262bfb70$2101a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: Hi Stefan, > Thinking the problem through can lead to a bizarre conclusion: anything > might afterwards have been the morally right action, especially in such > extreme situations. Killing one man in order to save the others seems right > from a utilitarian point of view. Allowing the five to die seems morally > justifiable too. There is no calculus possible here. What if one person on > the track was a family member or a beloved? Or what if the five persons > were known killers? What if one of the five persons was your beloved and > the > rest killers? What if those five persons where suffering from a terminal > decease? Even if you do not act, you could not be blamed for not having > taken your responsibility. What would be that responsibility? How, if, > would > 'a normal person is similar circumstances' act? That is very difficult to > discover. Not acting would motivabe not wishing to actively cause pain > > Hi Stefan, When one thinks about this sort of questions, it becomes obvious that God isn't dead, whatever His real status was before he was declared dead. The vain ape called man has put on His suit and burdened himself with His mission, utilitarianism (or other teleological goodies like History...), thus turning into a schizophrene. It's not easy to be man and God at the same time. To have both an individual point of view and at the same time wanting to see through God's eye and act accordingly. Obviously, man doesn't have God's eye. We don't know the outcome of things before they happen, we don't know the intentions of others. So we piece and string together a bunch of crappy arguments, that we consider an equivalent to God's eye. But it's an eye that doesn't see and can only have a bit of hindsight. Reconstruing is not seeing. The hindsight doesn't even have to be a reconstruction it may simply be a construction and it probably is just that. (I hope I haven't forgotten any capital letters) According to Buddhism the person on the track is a family member. "A disciple of the Buddha, Arya Katyayana once was in a village where he came upon an ordinary family scene: A mother, fondly holding a child, was eating some a fish. Now and then, the mother would kick away a dog trying to get at some of the food.Through his highly developed perceptive power, the monk saw them as they had been in a previous life: The fish had been the woman's father, the dog had once been her mother, and the child she cuddled had been her greatest enemy. Observing this relationship, Katyayana wept, saying: Eating the flesh of her father, Beating her mother's back, And nursing her enemy on her lap, Should I laugh or cry at the play of this world?" Picked up somewhere from the Internet. From lemmett at talk21.com Thu Jun 10 10:07:44 2010 From: lemmett at talk21.com (lemmett at talk21.com) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 16:07:44 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [Buddha-l] Ethical Dilemmas In-Reply-To: <37BF3724C8FC4BC682756E2B1F5CC3BF@OPTIPLEX> Message-ID: <727405.80604.qm@web86606.mail.ird.yahoo.com> >along with the recent spate of questions about >continuation during and after dying and the like. Not conducive >at all, except to annoyance (their obvious intention, as the >writer continually claims he's not trying to annoy) Dear Joanna, isn't this best dropped? I am not only claiming that I am not trying to annoy but that I'm not asking about continuing after dying. Oh well my Derrida has arrived now so it's good times! From lemmett at talk21.com Thu Jun 10 10:24:10 2010 From: lemmett at talk21.com (lemmett at talk21.com) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 16:24:10 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [Buddha-l] Fw: Re: Ethical Dilemmas Message-ID: <616667.49993.qm@web86605.mail.ird.yahoo.com> >>along with the recent spate of questions about >>continuation during and after dying and the like. Not conducive >>at all, except to annoyance (their obvious intention, as the >>writer continually claims he's not trying to annoy) >Dear Joanna, isn't this best dropped? I am not only>claiming that I am not trying to annoy but that I'm not asking>about continuing after dying. Oh well my Derrida has>arrived now so it's good times!OK so I did ask if X had any significance to continuing after death and when answered asked other questions about X. But please, there is more evidence that you are trying to annoy [it's *obvious* that you are trying to do so]; even that post itself twists my questions into being blatantly answered in well known Buddhist scripture. But I can be so patient that I am willing even to drop this case now. Reply if you must, I don't have to have the last word [now]. From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Thu Jun 10 10:24:44 2010 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 12:24:44 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Ethical Dilemmas References: <003501cb0875$a77f6150$2101a8c0@Dan> <002a01cb089f$262bfb70$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C110729.1050303@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <006401cb08b9$708864f0$2101a8c0@Dan> Erik, > Let me remind you that ethics is not about the best decision, but the > about which decision one can justify the best. That's an odd -- and dangerous -- definition of ethics. Anything can be "justified" after the fact. > So it's a decision to the > best of your knowledge. Different situations have different stipulations. Deciding who gets the first cookie is not the same as deciding who lives and dies, and the requisite information and grasp of principles is radically different for each situation. > It is obvious that the decision that causes he > least amount of victims is the easiest to justify, no matter what kind > of ethical vision you use. Nonsense. There is nothing obvious about it. It depends who they are. They are not simply equal-unit integers. Quantity might be one factor to consider, but not the sole factor, nor will it invariably trump all other factors. >The most difficult one is when you have two > persons against each other. Only if they are "equal in every respect" -- which rarely is the case. Let me illustrate the insufficiency of relying on quantification to decide by offering a well-known example from the rabbinic tradition. Situation 1: Your city (or group, or caravan) is under siege. The attackers demand Person X be turned over to them (they intend to kill that person), and they will let everyone else go. Otherwise they will kill everyone. What do you do? Situation 2: Your city (group, or caravan) is under siege. The attackers demand you hand over any person to them, and they will let everyone else go. (they intend to kill that person.) Otherwise they will kill everyone. What do you do? Situation 3: Your city (or group, or caravan) is under siege. The attackers demand Person X be turned over to them, and they will let everyone else go. They want Person X for a capital offense, for which Person X is known to be guilty. Otherwise they will kill everyone. What do you do? Situation 4: Your city (or group, or caravan) is under siege. The attackers demand Person X be turned over to them, and they will let everyone else go. Person X is an innocent person, Otherwise they will kill everyone. What do you do? Situation 5: Your city (group, or caravan) is under siege. The attackers demand you hand over any five (or ten, or twenty) persons to them, and they will let everyone else go. (they intend to kill those people.) Otherwise they will kill everyone. What do you do? First, these situations are not the same. The overriding ethical consideration is all these cases is NOT the quantity (save many by turning one, or five, or ten, etc., over), but the innocence or guilt of the person being demanded. If the demand is nonspecific, not requesting someone specific but just anyone, then one does not accede to the demand, even at the risk of every else's life. If the request is for a distinct individual, AND if that person is indeed guilty of a capital offense, then turn that person over so that everyone else is spared. If that person is innocent, then you do not turn over the person, even if that means everyone else will die. Your supposedly "obvious" justification is why the Nazis could fill concentration camps with innocent people. "We" were saved by turning "them" over, and there's more of us than them. Hallelujah! Obvious! Dan From franz at mind2mind.net Thu Jun 10 13:39:01 2010 From: franz at mind2mind.net (Franz Metcalf) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 12:39:01 -0700 Subject: [Buddha-l] Being unable to imagine dying and living In-Reply-To: <003001cb0874$11a07cb0$2101a8c0@Dan> References: <645565.3563.qm@web86604.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <003001cb0874$11a07cb0$2101a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: <7622D8DF-817D-40F1-9578-1F006FBEF3E5@mind2mind.net> Dan, > You are loitering around the right question -- now time to decide > whether to be a lion or a dog. But Dan: "Whoever is joined to all the living has hope; for a living dog is better than a dead lion." (Koheleth/Ecclesiastes 9:4) Mandatory Buddhist content: Koheleth is incomparably the most Buddhist book in the Tanakh or the New Testament. Franz From lemmett at talk21.com Thu Jun 10 13:43:12 2010 From: lemmett at talk21.com (lemmett at talk21.com) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 19:43:12 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [Buddha-l] Ethical Dilemmas In-Reply-To: <002a01cb089f$262bfb70$2101a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: <250367.3520.qm@web86601.mail.ird.yahoo.com> >>Why always this urge to>>intervene? Let Mother Nature do her job. >Careful not to jump to the other extreme. There is a difference between >having to do something as opposed to having something to do. Sila is one of >the tripod legs on which Buddhism stands, and shouldn't be neglected in the >name of observation-only samadhi (or some other name, such as Father >Nature). There is no compassion, no prajna, no Buddhism, without >responsibility. What if a psychopath looking for victims told you to choose two names at random, say from a phonebook or something, one name at random or he would choose three at random himself? It seems obvious that the second option is best but this means that lives themselves can be equatable.? So the way I look at this problem is that the best outcome is probably the least loss of life, though it may turn out otherwise. However the ethical value of choosing the option that is probably more valuable, is ambiguous with not intervening because of the evil in choosing to kill.?And that that evil changes as it is contextualized, so that turning in people to the nazis is not quite the same. There is no right or wrong choice with something like the trains, blame or praise; it is up to whoever finds themselves in that situation to decide what sort of responsibility they want to act out. We did this is psyc class, my answer is probably not very Buddhist. That is all. From bathieme at hotmail.com Thu Jun 10 14:06:20 2010 From: bathieme at hotmail.com (Barnaby Thieme) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 13:06:20 -0700 Subject: [Buddha-l] Ethical Dilemmas In-Reply-To: <250367.3520.qm@web86601.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <002a01cb089f$262bfb70$2101a8c0@Dan>, <250367.3520.qm@web86601.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Several years ago an audience member asked HH the Dalai Lama what you should do if you find yourself in New York City, confronted with a terrorist with a nuclear bomb, and you're the only one who can stop him, and the only way you can stop him is to kill him. HHDL replied "Ask me when it happens." A funny reply, and one that fits my general sense of what ethical philosophy or precepts can and cannot do. It seems to me that a tacit premise of these scenarios is that there exists or can exist a coherent set of principles that can effectively codify and evaluate the rightness or wrongness of action, and I think that's simply false. Surely HHDL does not believe that -- he probably believes, as any good Gelukpa, that there is in fact an inexorable moral law of karma that is part of the structure of the cosmos, and that retributive action governs rebirth. I myself cannot accept that or anything close to it, though I'd grant that there probably are moral precepts which generally support many Buddhist soteriological agendas, e.g., if one is a liar and a thief, those actions probably encourage afflictive desires and self-grasping. It seems to me that moral judgment relies ultimately on moral intuition, which is rooted primarily in our evolutionary history as cooperative primates, and has nothing to do with transcendental values. Part of that value-schema is that moral judgments should be coherent, which perhaps drives philosophers like beasts of burden to try to adjudicate the morality of hypothetical scenarios with reference to phantom frameworks, driven by what is essentially an animal instinct. Not that I have anything against ethical behavior -- I just think psychology is a better framework for assessing it than philosophy or religious doctrine. xob~ _________________________________ More than any time in history mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness, the other to total extinction. Let us pray that we have the wisdom to choose correctly. -- Woody Allen _________________________________________________________________ The New Busy is not the too busy. Combine all your e-mail accounts with Hotmail. http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multiaccount&ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_4 From jehms at xs4all.nl Thu Jun 10 15:41:38 2010 From: jehms at xs4all.nl (Erik Hoogcarspel) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 23:41:38 +0200 Subject: [Buddha-l] Ethical Dilemmas In-Reply-To: <006401cb08b9$708864f0$2101a8c0@Dan> References: <003501cb0875$a77f6150$2101a8c0@Dan> <002a01cb089f$262bfb70$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C110729.1050303@xs4all.nl> <006401cb08b9$708864f0$2101a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: <4C115C12.1000707@xs4all.nl> Op 10-06-10 18:24, Dan Lusthaus schreef: > Erik, > >> Let me remind you that ethics is not about the best decision, but the >> about which decision one can justify the best. >> > That's an odd -- and dangerous -- definition of ethics. Anything can be > "justified" after the fact. > No, this just the difference between ' is' and ' ought' . We 're not talking politics or retorics, but ethics. So if to the best of your knowledge drilling oil into deep sea has the most benefit for the most people, it is ethically justified. You may get sued if you're sloppy, but ethics is not the same as penal law. > >> So it's a decision to the >> best of your knowledge. >> > Different situations have different stipulations. Deciding who gets the > first cookie is not the same as deciding who lives and dies, and the > requisite information and grasp of principles is radically different for > each situation. > Now that is what I call dangerous. You can wipe your ass with principles and ethics if the stakes are high enough. The gosts of Stalin and Poll Pot are applauding. > >> It is obvious that the decision that causes he >> least amount of victims is the easiest to justify, no matter what kind >> of ethical vision you use. >> > Nonsense. There is nothing obvious about it. It depends who they are. They > are not simply equal-unit integers. Quantity might be one factor to > consider, but not the sole factor, nor will it invariably trump all other > factors. > Thank you for this subtle wisdom, but I don't do bigotry. Every human being has my solidarity: men, women, old and young educated or not, any race. > > >> The most difficult one is when you have two >> persons against each other. >> > Only if they are "equal in every respect" -- which rarely is the case. > > Let me illustrate the insufficiency of relying on quantification to decide > by offering a well-known example from the rabbinic tradition. > > Situation 1: > Your city (or group, or caravan) is under siege. The attackers demand Person > X be turned over to them (they intend to kill that person), and they will > let everyone else go. Otherwise they will kill everyone. What do you do? > Disregard the blackmail. > Situation 2: > Your city (group, or caravan) is under siege. The attackers demand you hand > over any person to them, and they will let everyone else go. (they intend to > kill that person.) Otherwise they will kill everyone. What do you do? > As before. > Situation 3: > Your city (or group, or caravan) is under siege. The attackers demand Person > X be turned over to them, and they will let everyone else go. They want > Person X for a capital offense, for which Person X is known to be guilty. > Otherwise they will kill everyone. What do you do? > Offer a public trial. No blackmail. > Situation 4: > Your city (or group, or caravan) is under siege. The attackers demand Person > X be turned over to them, and they will let everyone else go. Person X is an > innocent person, Otherwise they will kill everyone. What do you do? > As before. > Situation 5: > Your city (group, or caravan) is under siege. The attackers demand you hand > over any five (or ten, or twenty) persons to them, and they will let > everyone else go. (they intend to kill those people.) Otherwise they will > kill everyone. What do you do? > Disregard the blackmail. > Your supposedly "obvious" justification is why the Nazis could fill > concentration camps with innocent people. "We" were saved by turning "them" > over, and there's more of us than them. Hallelujah! Obvious! > > Let's not go there Dan. Ethics is the best without retorical violence. I personally have no affection for any kind of bigotry. I would even testify against my own brother if he were a kind of Mladic and he would return the favour. We both know it and we're proud of it. An important argument is that all this taking sides with next of kin is only short term benefit and disastrous in the long run. erik From lemmett at talk21.com Thu Jun 10 17:15:41 2010 From: lemmett at talk21.com (lemmett at talk21.com) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 23:15:41 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [Buddha-l] Ethical Dilemmas In-Reply-To: <4C115C12.1000707@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <264360.22722.qm@web86601.mail.ird.yahoo.com> >>Disregard the blackmail. Hello. So if someone threatens your own life the ethical thing to do is always to ignore it? As well as being a little mad, the ethical decision is presumably not something you would do [and not just be obliged to do]. These seem like reasonable reasons to disagree with you: there is something very inelegant about meeting every threat of violence with complete disregard for your safety. Anyway I really do keep telling myself to stop emailing the list... From jehms at xs4all.nl Fri Jun 11 01:49:23 2010 From: jehms at xs4all.nl (Erik Hoogcarspel) Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 09:49:23 +0200 Subject: [Buddha-l] Ethical Dilemmas In-Reply-To: References: <002a01cb089f$262bfb70$2101a8c0@Dan>, <250367.3520.qm@web86601.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4C11EA83.4080900@xs4all.nl> Op 10-06-10 22:06, Barnaby Thieme schreef: > Not that I have anything against ethical behavior -- I just think psychology is a better framework for assessing it than philosophy or religious doctrine. > > Hi Barnaby you are right: what someone does does not depend on ethics, but on his/her psychological condition. Ethics is philosophy, it is reflection and discussion. So the answere of the Dalai Lama should have been 'ask me afterwards', because only then the discussion starts. Only then do you ask yourself the question 'do I have to apologize or can I be proud of myself?' Of course you can try to live by ethical standards, f.i. eat vegetarian food, not carry a gun, be polite and even compassionate, but ethical standards are the result of ethical reflection. Btw I see that many people think that ethics has something to do with religion, but I think this is a mistake. A rule of behavior does not become ethically justified because it has been sanctioned by some religious authority. In general religions tend to prescribe rather absolute rules that have to be obeyed blindly, so they ignore individual responsibility and without responsibility no ethics is possible. erik From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Fri Jun 11 02:46:24 2010 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 04:46:24 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Ethical Dilemmas References: <002a01cb089f$262bfb70$2101a8c0@Dan>, <250367.3520.qm@web86601.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <004101cb0942$93129070$2101a8c0@Dan> Barnaby, You are confusing entertaining hypotheticals, on the one hand, with articulating and establishing sound ethical principles, on the other. This discussion started with a hypothetical -- which in its construction was flawed and weighted. HHDL's answer is simply the prudent refusal to enter a loaded hypothetical, since whatever he says would not be taken as speculation of the moment, but as principles to live by by at least some of the eventual audience. The telling part of his response is that he left his options open, knowing full well what sort of position others would expect him to take and defend. That should already tell you quite a bit. Dan From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Fri Jun 11 03:26:27 2010 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 05:26:27 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Ethical Dilemmas References: <003501cb0875$a77f6150$2101a8c0@Dan> <002a01cb089f$262bfb70$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C110729.1050303@xs4all.nl><006401cb08b9$708864f0$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C115C12.1000707@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <004601cb0948$2b450530$2101a8c0@Dan> Erik, Your recent responses are quite disappointing. >>> Let me remind you that ethics is not about the best decision, but the >>> about which decision one can justify the best. >>> >> That's an odd -- and dangerous -- definition of ethics. Anything can be >> "justified" after the fact. >> > No, this just the difference between ' is' and ' ought' . Not at all. First of all, you are treating ethics as post-action justification, and "ought" when properly applied is aimed toward the future. Retrospective "oughts" are not ethical, but reprimands. To have an "ought," one has to have guiding principles, and to have those principles be ethical they have to be sound and rationally grounded. >> Different situations have different stipulations. Deciding who gets the >> first cookie is not the same as deciding who lives and dies, and the >> requisite information and grasp of principles is radically different for >> each situation. >> > Now that is what I call dangerous. You can wipe your ass with principles > and ethics if the stakes are high enough. That wouldn't be very ethical would it? How do we know? Because we can measure the deviation against those principles. You are defeating your own argument and providing strong evidence for mine. Thank you. > Thank you for this subtle wisdom, but I don't do bigotry. Every human > being has my solidarity: men, women, old and young educated or not, any > race. Not the issue. High sounding but empty platitude. You don't hire just anybody off the street for jobs requiring specific skills, you go to someone with medical training when you need medical care, you have adults decide things like what to eat, whether to go to school or not, etc. for children and not vice versa, and you don't allow just anyone to represent Holland on the football team at the World Cup http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/06/magazine/06Soccer-t.html?ref=magazine So much for solidarity. So you only make distinctions when the situation is mundane, not when life and death is involved? That's dangerous. >> Situation 3: >> Your city (or group, or caravan) is under siege. The attackers demand >> Person >> X be turned over to them, and they will let everyone else go. They want >> Person X for a capital offense, for which Person X is known to be guilty. >> Otherwise they will kill everyone. What do you do? >> > Offer a public trial. No blackmail. >> Situation 4: >> Your city (or group, or caravan) is under siege. The attackers demand >> Person >> X be turned over to them, and they will let everyone else go. Person X is >> an >> innocent person, Otherwise they will kill everyone. What do you do? >> > As before. "Public trial" is not an option. You are under siege, not at the Hague. I thought that would be obvious from the example and the word "siege." The threat of death for the besieged is imminent, and the threats are not coming from friends or allies, but lethal enemies. How those under seige determine whether the person(s) being requested are innocent or guilty is not specified, so, perhaps there is time for a brief ersatz hearing or discussion in lieu of a trial, but that would only be for domestic consumption and decision making... the demanders have already passed judgement and are not interested in renegotiating that. It is also to be understood from the example -- perhaps it could have been made more explicit -- that the power lies with those making the demand, and the ability of the besieged to defend themselves, much less make counter demands, like a trial, are virtually nil. To acquiesce will save many lives. To refuse to acquiesce will likely result in the death of all the besieged. The critical factor, as seem to sense based on your responses, is the innocence or guilt of the one being demanded. It is NOT ultimately a question of the number of lives at stake, though that does contribute to the decision in situation 3 to turn the person over. The issue here is not the hypothetical per se (though such situations do take place in various ways even today), but in the principles involved. . >> Your supposedly "obvious" justification is why the Nazis could fill >> concentration camps with innocent people. "We" were saved by turning >> "them" >> over, and there's more of us than them. Hallelujah! Obvious! >> >> > Let's not go there Dan. But that is precisely where this goes. By your enunciated principle, it was ethical for Europe to turn its back on millions of gypsies, mentally retarded, Jews, Catholic priests, Poles, Russians... By the standard of innocence/guilt expressed by the situations I offered, that collaboration and compliance cannot muster the veneer of ethicality. Let me point out that the original discussion of these alternatives occurred in the context of Roman siege, and that the debate was revived during the time of Maimonides, when a Holocaust of sorts was taking place first in Spain, and then in Morocco, while he was there, finally escaping to Egypt where things were more stable. So the Nazi dimension is neither superfluous nor gratuitous. That was precisely the type of situation it was designed to address. >Ethics is the best without retorical violence. Which is why you said "The gosts of Stalin and Poll Pot are applauding" earlier? >An important > argument is that all this taking sides with next of kin is only short > term benefit and disastrous in the long run. No disagreement there, but that was not the question. The issue is whether quantification is a sufficient criterion for life-and-death decisions. I've presented reasons with examples for why it is not. Dan From gary.gach at gmail.com Fri Jun 11 03:36:16 2010 From: gary.gach at gmail.com (Gary Gach) Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 02:36:16 -0700 Subject: [Buddha-l] Koheleth Message-ID: You warm the cockles of my heart, Franz, by your reference I've been reading this book in Hebrew for a decade now & am amazed it even "made the cut" for inclusion ... [you might have fun considering the word translated as vanity really means more like a vapor (no thing) ... ] Gary http://www.patheos.com/Religion-Portals/Buddhist.html (thru the end of the month, then onwards) From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Fri Jun 11 04:17:01 2010 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 06:17:01 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Koheleth References: Message-ID: <005f01cb094f$3bfb6a70$2101a8c0@Dan> Subject: [Buddha-l] Koheleth > You warm the cockles of my heart, Franz, by your reference > I've been reading this book in Hebrew for a decade now > & am amazed it even "made the cut" for inclusion ... > > [you might have fun considering the word translated as vanity > really means more like a vapor (no thing) ... ] > > Gary Zalman Schachter calls Koheleth the "Daoist" book of the Bible. The "Vanity" translation is a legacy from the King James version, when apparently English speakers thought of the word "vanity" in the light of its root -- "to be in vain" -- rather than the narcissistic self-love that the word has acquired. The Hebrew, HeVeL, can mean steam, and can apply to speech in the sense that we would say "hot air". Koheleth (Ecclesiastes) 1:2 reads: ????? ???????? ????? ???????, ????? ???????? ?????? ????? King James: ECCLESIASTES 1:2 Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all [is] vanity. The key word, hevel, is defined thus in one of the better Hebrew-English online dictionaries: ??? (literary) steam, vapor ; breath ; (flowery) speech, utterance (esp. related to Torah, learned) foolishness, nonsense, absurdity ; (flowery) for nothing, uselessly (as adverb) Morfix Dictionary: http://morfix.mako.co.il/default.aspx?q=%u05D4%u05B8%u05D1%u05B6%u05DC Alternatively, Google dictionary: 1. Vanity 2. Vapor 3. Futility 4. Steam 5. Folly 6. Emptiness 7. Blether The Alcalay Dictionary offers similar definitions but stresses "in vain" in various forms and idioms, e.g. hevlei ha-olam hazeh = "the vain pleaures of this world". As Shakespeare has Macbeth say: Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player who struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more; it's a tale told by idiots, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Dan From jehms at xs4all.nl Fri Jun 11 04:37:27 2010 From: jehms at xs4all.nl (Erik Hoogcarspel) Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 12:37:27 +0200 Subject: [Buddha-l] Ethical Dilemmas In-Reply-To: <004601cb0948$2b450530$2101a8c0@Dan> References: <003501cb0875$a77f6150$2101a8c0@Dan> <002a01cb089f$262bfb70$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C110729.1050303@xs4all.nl><006401cb08b9$708864f0$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C115C12.1000707@xs4all.nl> <004601cb0948$2b450530$2101a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: <4C1211E7.5010307@xs4all.nl> Op 11-06-10 11:26, Dan Lusthaus schre > Erik, > > Your recent responses are quite disappointing. > I'm sorry Dan, I suppose I have still many lives to go before I reach a satisfying level of wisdom. But it used to be worse so I still have hope. > Not at all. First of all, you are treating ethics as post-action > justification, and "ought" when properly applied is aimed toward the future. > Retrospective "oughts" are not ethical, but reprimands. To have an "ought," > one has to have guiding principles, and to have those principles be ethical > they have to be sound and rationally grounded. > > Nope, ought is a prescription a priori. I ought to help my neighbors even in the case I'm a teenager sailing alone around the world. >>> Different situations have different stipulations. Deciding who gets the >>> first cookie is not the same as deciding who lives and dies, and the >>> requisite information and grasp of principles is radically different for >>> each situation. >>> I think it is and I have some company, f.i. G.E. Moore was very much against the so called 'naturalist' thesis. The problem with situationalist ethics is that you have to find a justification for the rule you apply or for the act itself somehow in the situation itself, but due to the fact of perspectivism, it is often impossible to get some common ground there. It is much easier to agree on some common norms and values a prioir. If we agree on this we can also come to an agreement about the evaluation of the state of affairs, which we would need for a situationalist ethics anyhow. But we can also straight away agree on a general type of teleology or deontology. > you don't allow just anyone to represent Holland on > the football team at the World Cup > http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/06/magazine/06Soccer-t.html?ref=magazine > Believe me I would, I was just about to ask Richard. > > But that is precisely where this goes. By your enunciated principle, it was > ethical for Europe to turn its back on millions of gypsies, mentally > retarded, Jews, Catholic priests, Poles, Russians... By the standard of > innocence/guilt expressed by the situations I offered, that collaboration > and compliance cannot muster the veneer of ethicality. > I think innocence or guilt is irrelevant here. That is the justice department. History is not just, it doesn't protect the innocent or punish the wrongdoers. Should we help the poor and victims of suppression? Of course. I should do it right now, but 'ought' implies 'can'. I cannot remove the Burmese gunta, that's why they're still there. > > The issue is whether > quantification is a sufficient criterion for life-and-death decisions. I've > presented reasons with examples for why it is not. > > Nor for decisions about cookies. Is it justified to kill a terrorist? According to utilism it is OK, according to Kant or Habermas it is not. I tend to agree with Kant, because the utilist approach would entail that you may kill anyone who is suspected to kill more than one person. This would make a very unsafe and violent society. A utilism that reckons with longterm consequences comes always very close to a deontology. deontologically erik From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Fri Jun 11 05:57:37 2010 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 07:57:37 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Ethical Dilemmas References: <003501cb0875$a77f6150$2101a8c0@Dan> <002a01cb089f$262bfb70$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C110729.1050303@xs4all.nl><006401cb08b9$708864f0$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C115C12.1000707@xs4all.nl><004601cb0948$2b450530$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C1211E7.5010307@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <008201cb095d$499dadb0$2101a8c0@Dan> Erik, > Nope, ought is a prescription a priori. Prescriptive, yes -- and hence prescribing for future actions, to be considered PRIOR to taking action. But a priori? Not necessarily. For instance a legal code makes prescriptive rules: You ought to stop at a red light. This is prescriptive, but not an a priori. > I think it is and I have some company, f.i. G.E. Moore If you are not uncomfortable being in G.E. Moore's company, so be it. Moore's realism was truly naive. He was delivering a guest lecture at a university, and when questioned by the audience about his realism, he pointed to the skylight in the ceiling and said he knew certain things to be true and real just as he knew that the sun, though not visible through the opaque glass, was providing the light illiuminating the room. It was then pointed out to him that behind the skylight was an artificial light; it was not a window to the outside. To say that different situations are different is not automatically relativism. You think killing a terrorist is the same as killing an innocent person. Is it the same as killing a wolf? A lamb? A cockroach? Body lice? Viruses? Bacteria? Is it the killing that is the same or different, or WHOM is being killed, and by whom? If the latter, then the line between terrorists, innocent people and body lice is arbitrary. Only humans? Then you have to rethink your universalism and professions of non-prejudice, since you would be clearly anthrocentric. >> you don't allow just anyone to represent Holland on >> the football team at the World Cup >> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/06/magazine/06Soccer-t.html?ref=magazine > > Believe me I would, I was just about to ask Richard. If you need surgery, would you invite Richard to do that as well, or would you prefer a trained surgeon? > I think innocence or guilt is irrelevant here. And thus something other than ethics is at play. >That is the justice > department. History is not just, But we are talking about ethics, not history (nor Joy's Mother Nature -- you folks certainly do worship at a variety of pujas). >it doesn't protect the innocent or > punish the wrongdoers. Which is why people need to take up the responsibility of ethical consideration of their actions, since neither history, nor nature, nor the other guy, will do it for you. Of course, you can choose not not protect innocent people nor curtail wrongdoers -- but then don't pretend such negligence has ethical justification. > Should we help the poor and victims of > suppression? Of course. I should do it right now, but 'ought' implies > 'can'. I cannot remove the Burmese gunta, that's why they're still there. If you want to undermine them, you could work toward that end. You don't know how effective you might be until you make the effort. One can't personally do everything for obvious reasons. The question is what can one do, and what should one do? > Nor for decisions about cookies. Is it justified to kill a terrorist? > According to utilism it is OK, according to Kant or Habermas it is not. > I tend to agree with Kant, This is a luxury bred by a certain isolation from reality -- where food is pre-killed and attractively packaged waiting at the local store, jack nickelsons are handling the truth, and we think the bad stuff is happening to "them" over there, not here. After centuries of inter-European wars, two world wars, massive genocides of the 20th century (Hitler, Stalin, etc.), Europe's sudden enlightened pacifism is an ephemeral bubble already obsolete, an understandable historical anomaly largely a consequence of European recognition that the sun does finally set on the British Empire and the the days of Imperialism are over. >because the utilist approach would entail > that you may kill anyone who is suspected to kill more than one person. > This would make a very unsafe and violent society. A utilism that > reckons with longterm consequences comes always very close to a > deontology. You are still thinking in numerical units, not flesh-and-blood people (despite your anthrocentrism -- your anthrocentrism ultimately reduces people to numbers). This is not ethics, but arithmetic. Dan From joy.vriens at gmail.com Fri Jun 11 08:46:41 2010 From: joy.vriens at gmail.com (Joy Vriens) Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 16:46:41 +0200 Subject: [Buddha-l] Ethical Dilemmas In-Reply-To: <008201cb095d$499dadb0$2101a8c0@Dan> References: <003501cb0875$a77f6150$2101a8c0@Dan> <002a01cb089f$262bfb70$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C110729.1050303@xs4all.nl> <006401cb08b9$708864f0$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C115C12.1000707@xs4all.nl> <004601cb0948$2b450530$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C1211E7.5010307@xs4all.nl> <008201cb095d$499dadb0$2101a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: Hi Dan, > But we are talking about ethics, not history (nor Joy's Mother Nature -- > you > folks certainly do worship at a variety of pujas). > We (me and my saktis) are Yes-sayers, we worship life and *She*-who-must-be- *obeyed*... > > Which is why people need to take up the responsibility of ethical > consideration of their actions, since neither history, nor nature, nor the > other guy, will do it for you. Of course, you can choose not not protect > innocent people nor curtail wrongdoers -- but then don't pretend such > negligence has ethical justification. "Choose not to protect innocent people" ? Who is setting the rules of the game, who decides there is a game to play in the first place and that everybody has to join in and therefore choose? What is there to win? A sort of certification of being a "good man" and of being on the right side and recognition as such? Like dogs sniffing other dog's bums? Is the game on all the time and continuously? Would it be immoral or amoral to not join the game? Would that make one responsible for everything that goes wrong in the world? Whereas those who at least tried and messed up things terribly would be moral? Is display of "good will" enough? And "innocent people". As long as individuals are part of nations, people, groups etc., consider themselve as such and are considered as such, there is not much personal choice and the adjactive "innocent" doesnt' mean much. As a member of various groups, we can of course accept the ethics of those groups, like we eat when we are hungry and drink when we are thirsty. One can take aboard the ethics of one's group along with other obligations without adhering indivually and feeling one makes a choice on a personal level. Or not ? :-) From bathieme at hotmail.com Fri Jun 11 13:00:41 2010 From: bathieme at hotmail.com (Barnaby Thieme) Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 12:00:41 -0700 Subject: [Buddha-l] Ethical Dilemmas In-Reply-To: <004101cb0942$93129070$2101a8c0@Dan> References: <002a01cb089f$262bfb70$2101a8c0@Dan>, , <250367.3520.qm@web86601.mail.ird.yahoo.com>, , <004101cb0942$93129070$2101a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: Hi Dan, > You are confusing entertaining hypotheticals, on the one hand, with > articulating and establishing sound ethical principles, on the other. It seems pretty clear to me that the purpose of hypothetical scenarios of this kind is to challenge the reader to reply, and to justify their response with a coherent rationale. What else could they be for? > HHDL's answer is simply the prudent refusal to enter a loaded hypothetical, > since whatever he says would not be taken as speculation of the moment, but > as principles to live by by at least some of the eventual audience. I agree with this -- in fact, this seems to be pretty similar to the point I was making, i.e., it's difficult to generalize from individual ethical situations in which many variables are at play, and to formulate categorical ethical statements of sufficient complexity to be useful. I don't readily recall an effort to articulate a universal framework for ethics that withstood much scrutiny or felt persuasive -- are you arguing on behalf of the existence of such frameworks? pax~ Barnaby _________________________________________________________________ The New Busy is not the old busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox. http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_3 From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Fri Jun 11 14:44:30 2010 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 16:44:30 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Ethical Dilemmas References: <003501cb0875$a77f6150$2101a8c0@Dan><002a01cb089f$262bfb70$2101a8c0@Dan><4C110729.1050303@xs4all.nl> <006401cb08b9$708864f0$2101a8c0@Dan><4C115C12.1000707@xs4all.nl> <004601cb0948$2b450530$2101a8c0@Dan><4C1211E7.5010307@xs4all.nl> <008201cb095d$499dadb0$2101a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: <003b01cb09a6$e41fedf0$2101a8c0@Dan> Hi Joy, > We (me and my saktis) are Yes-sayers, we worship life and > *She*-who-must-be- > *obeyed*... The wrong puja - what are you saying "yes" to? > "Choose not to protect innocent people" ? Who is setting the rules of the > game, Being human comes with instructions and obligations. If you choose to ignore or argue against them, that too is a choice. But bad ethics. If I were a minority I would be VERY afraid to live in today's Europe (obviously half a century ago was even worse -- perhaps we are getting a glimpse into why that is the case). One of my professors, Bibhuti Yadav, used to say Buddhism has no ethics. Despite all the bluster about "Buddhist Ethics" these days, the last few days have started to convince me that Yadav was right. Domage. Dan From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Fri Jun 11 14:55:43 2010 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 16:55:43 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Ethical Dilemmas References: <002a01cb089f$262bfb70$2101a8c0@Dan>, , <250367.3520.qm@web86601.mail.ird.yahoo.com>, , <004101cb0942$93129070$2101a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: <004001cb09a8$753563a0$2101a8c0@Dan> Dear Barnaby, > I don't readily recall an effort to articulate a universal framework for > ethics that withstood much scrutiny or felt persuasive -- are you arguing > on behalf of the existence of such frameworks? Perhaps. A turning point for me away from the cultural relativism that would oppose such an effort ("when in Rome...") came many years ago in the American Museum of Natural History, when they opened a new exhibit on the Aztecs that neither minimized nor glossed over the human sacrifice that was the daily core of the culture. Every day a victim was led up the stairs of the pyramid, laid on a table, and a priest would slash open the chest and pull out the still-beating heart and hold it up to the cheering crowd. All salubriously enveloped in holiness and prayers. The more details I learned, the more disgusted I became, and the more I decided there is a transcultural right and wrong, and one would be obligated to try to stop this sort of thing, regardless of what the Aztecs themselves thought they were doing. They were deluded, harmful sentient beings inflicting harm -- systematically and institutionally -- on other sentient beings, and it was simply wrong. Mutatis mutandi same would go for Nazis, Pol Pot, etc. If you are more comfortable with "transcultural" instead of "universal", that's ok. Dan From jehms at xs4all.nl Fri Jun 11 15:43:26 2010 From: jehms at xs4all.nl (Erik Hoogcarspel) Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 23:43:26 +0200 Subject: [Buddha-l] Ethical Dilemmas In-Reply-To: <008201cb095d$499dadb0$2101a8c0@Dan> References: <003501cb0875$a77f6150$2101a8c0@Dan> <002a01cb089f$262bfb70$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C110729.1050303@xs4all.nl><006401cb08b9$708864f0$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C115C12.1000707@xs4all.nl><004601cb0948$2b450530$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C1211E7.5010307@xs4all.nl> <008201cb095d$499dadb0$2101a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: <4C12ADFE.7040209@xs4all.nl> Dan, Op 11-06-10 13:57, Dan Lusthaus schreef: > Prescriptive, yes -- and hence prescribing for future actions, to be > considered PRIOR to taking action. But a priori? Not necessarily. For > instance a legal code makes prescriptive rules: You ought to stop at a red > light. This is prescriptive, but not an a priori. > This is nonsense, sorry I'm not going to explain a priori to you, do your homework. > >> I think it is and I have some company, f.i. G.E. Moore >> > If you are not uncomfortable being in G.E. Moore's company, so be it. > Moore's realism was truly naive. > I meant ethical realism, not ontological. > To say that different situations are different is not automatically > relativism. No, read again. >>> you don't allow just anyone to represent Holland on >>> the football team at the World Cup >>> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/06/magazine/06Soccer-t.html?ref=magazine >>> >> Believe me I would, I was just about to ask Richard. >> > If you need surgery, would you invite Richard to do that as well, or would > you prefer a trained surgeon? > Certainly, why? > That is the justice >> department. History is not just, >> > But we are talking about ethics, not history (nor Joy's Mother Nature -- you > folks certainly do worship at a variety of pujas). > You were talking about history as an argument for your position on ethics. > >> Should we help the poor and victims of >> suppression? Of course. I should do it right now, but 'ought' implies >> 'can'. I cannot remove the Burmese gunta, that's why they're still there. >> > If you want to undermine them, you could work toward that end. You don't > know how effective you might be until you make the effort. > Parole parole parole... > Nor for decisions about cookies. Is it justified to kill a terrorist? >> According to utilism it is OK, according to Kant or Habermas it is not. >> I tend to agree with Kant, >> > This is a luxury bred by a certain isolation from reality -- where food is > pre-killed and attractively packaged waiting at the local store, jack > nickelsons are handling the truth, and we think the bad stuff is happening > to "them" over there, not here. After centuries of inter-European wars, two > world wars, massive genocides of the 20th century (Hitler, Stalin, etc.), > Europe's sudden enlightened pacifism is an ephemeral bubble already > obsolete, an understandable historical anomaly largely a consequence of > European recognition that the sun does finally set on the British Empire and > the the days of Imperialism are over. > You sound like you joined to many Tea-parties lately. VS gooooood, Europe baaaaad! I wish the world was that easy, but then again I wouldn't have much to do as a philosopher. Now I have to go and shoot a moose for breakfast. erik From bathieme at hotmail.com Fri Jun 11 16:35:07 2010 From: bathieme at hotmail.com (Barnaby Thieme) Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 15:35:07 -0700 Subject: [Buddha-l] Ethical Dilemmas In-Reply-To: <004001cb09a8$753563a0$2101a8c0@Dan> References: <002a01cb089f$262bfb70$2101a8c0@Dan>, , , <250367.3520.qm@web86601.mail.ird.yahoo.com>, , , , <004101cb0942$93129070$2101a8c0@Dan>, , <004001cb09a8$753563a0$2101a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: Funny you should mention that just last weekend I was in Los Angeles and saw an extensive exhibit of Aztec art and artifacts at the Getty Villa. I was deeply confronted by their religious vision, which is intense and ruthless, and I was deeply shaken by seeing sacrificial implements and a large, engraved stone on which sacrificial victims would be bound and ritually murdered. I hope that anyone who has a real encounter with things of this sort is shaken. I gather that the experience of being profoundly shaken is part of what these guys were trying to evoke -- something of the mysterium tremendum. Still, it seems to me that one can distinguish between two similar positions. The first is: I have moral judgments which I apply across cultures, and from my reference frame they supersede local beliefs. We could find many examples of this -- I don't accept that a man has the right to beat his wife, no matter what Sharia law says. The second is: there is an objectively-established framework for right and wrong which in some way transcends the actual aggregate of individual judgments and beliefs of all the individual people out there. As a matter of strict reasoning we can't derive the existence of such a framework from the experience of deeply-held judgments. In fact, the existence of cultures where perfectly "moral" people go about their lives beating their wives and cutting hearts out suggests to me that such a framework probably doesn't exist, unless vast numbers of the people out there are "evil" in some objective sense. It's hard for me to accept that for a variety of reasons. Another way of saying that is: pointing out the weaknesses of a relativist position (e.g., it can't readily deal with the problem of human sacrifice or wife beating) doesn't eo ipso provide evidence for a specific alternative. Still, this is a very interesting problem to consider. It seems to me that a categorical rejection of something like arbitrary human sacrifice has to ultimately depend on something like an axiom like "Human life has intrinsic value." I'll have to chew on that. Thanks again for your thoughts. Regards, Barnaby > From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net > To: buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com > Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 16:55:43 -0400 > Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] Ethical Dilemmas > > Dear Barnaby, > > > I don't readily recall an effort to articulate a universal framework for > > ethics that withstood much scrutiny or felt persuasive -- are you arguing > > on behalf of the existence of such frameworks? > > Perhaps. A turning point for me away from the cultural relativism that would > oppose such an effort ("when in Rome...") came many years ago in the > American Museum of Natural History, when they opened a new exhibit on the > Aztecs that neither minimized nor glossed over the human sacrifice that was > the daily core of the culture. Every day a victim was led up the stairs of > the pyramid, laid on a table, and a priest would slash open the chest and > pull out the still-beating heart and hold it up to the cheering crowd. All > salubriously enveloped in holiness and prayers. The more details I learned, > the more disgusted I became, and the more I decided there is a transcultural > right and wrong, and one would be obligated to try to stop this sort of > thing, regardless of what the Aztecs themselves thought they were doing. > They were deluded, harmful sentient beings inflicting harm -- systematically > and institutionally -- on other sentient beings, and it was simply wrong. > Mutatis mutandi same would go for Nazis, Pol Pot, etc. > > If you are more comfortable with "transcultural" instead of "universal", > that's ok. > > Dan > > > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l _________________________________________________________________ The New Busy is not the too busy. Combine all your e-mail accounts with Hotmail. http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multiaccount&ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_4 From bernie.simon at gmail.com Fri Jun 11 17:24:45 2010 From: bernie.simon at gmail.com (Bernard Simon) Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 19:24:45 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Twitter Terma Message-ID: <46699874-113A-4B80-997D-7A81B9EDC1BD@gmai.com> Over on Twitter people are discovering new things the Buddha said every day: The mind is everything. What you think you become There is no way to happiness, happiness is the way I never see what has been done; I only see what remains to be done. He who loves 50 people has 50 woes; he who loves no one has no woes No matter how hard the past, you can always begin again http://twitter.com/#search?q=buddha%20%23quote Sounds like this Buddha guy should get a job with Hallmark Cards. From joy.vriens at gmail.com Fri Jun 11 22:17:02 2010 From: joy.vriens at gmail.com (Joy Vriens) Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2010 06:17:02 +0200 Subject: [Buddha-l] Ethical Dilemmas In-Reply-To: <003b01cb09a6$e41fedf0$2101a8c0@Dan> References: <003501cb0875$a77f6150$2101a8c0@Dan> <002a01cb089f$262bfb70$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C110729.1050303@xs4all.nl> <006401cb08b9$708864f0$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C115C12.1000707@xs4all.nl> <004601cb0948$2b450530$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C1211E7.5010307@xs4all.nl> <008201cb095d$499dadb0$2101a8c0@Dan> <003b01cb09a6$e41fedf0$2101a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: Good morning (relatively speaking) Dan, I assure you it is morning here. > Being human comes with instructions and obligations. If you choose to > ignore > or argue against them, that too is a choice. But bad ethics. > Wrong puja, bad ethics, relativism is bad... What is your absolute or ultimate reference point? From where are you looking and c Being human comes with instructions and obligations. True. > If I were a minority I would be VERY afraid to live in today's Europe > (obviously half a century ago was even worse -- perhaps we are getting a > glimpse into why that is the case). One of my professors, Bibhuti Yadav, > used to say Buddhism has no ethics. Despite all the bluster about "Buddhist > Ethics" these days, the last few days have started to convince me that > Yadav > was right. Domage. > > Dan > > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l > From joy.vriens at gmail.com Fri Jun 11 22:39:36 2010 From: joy.vriens at gmail.com (Joy Vriens) Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2010 06:39:36 +0200 Subject: [Buddha-l] Ethical Dilemmas In-Reply-To: <003b01cb09a6$e41fedf0$2101a8c0@Dan> References: <003501cb0875$a77f6150$2101a8c0@Dan> <002a01cb089f$262bfb70$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C110729.1050303@xs4all.nl> <006401cb08b9$708864f0$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C115C12.1000707@xs4all.nl> <004601cb0948$2b450530$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C1211E7.5010307@xs4all.nl> <008201cb095d$499dadb0$2101a8c0@Dan> <003b01cb09a6$e41fedf0$2101a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: Second attempt, my first message left when I was joyfully tapping away and some accidental key combination of gmail, that I ignore, send it off. Good morning (relatively speaking) Dan, I assure you it is morning here. > Being human comes with instructions and obligations. If you choose to > ignore > or argue against them, that too is a choice. But bad ethics. > Wrong puja, bad ethics, relativism is bad... What is your absolute or ultimate reference point? From where are you looking and calling your judgements? Being human comes with instructions and obligations. True. Aztecs had their instructions and obligations, we in the West, in Europe, in France etc have ours > If I were a minority I would be VERY afraid to live in today's Europe > (obviously half a century ago was even worse -- perhaps we are getting a > glimpse into why that is the case). One of my professors, Bibhuti Yadav, > used to say Buddhism has no ethics. Despite all the bluster about "Buddhist > Ethics" these days, the last few days have started to convince me that > Yadav > was right. Domage. > Yes, looking at last days election results at different places in Europe, it doesn't look good at all. Ethics always seem to be the ethics of a group. And it seems to be particularly difficult nowadays to be/remain a group in a globalising world, globalising is it really? Truth about the situation as it is (the end of "Communication"), justice and vision are the keywords of Jacques Attali's project to prepare France to pull it out of the crisis. We can only have a universal ethic if we are or act as a group and share the same values and take into account the interests of all. That not being the case, globally speaking, and probably not even possible, we can't have universal ethics. Universal ethics can also be so abstract that they don't apply in a concrete situation. Hence "Buddhism has no ethics" because it doesn't live up to the Ethics you measure it with. Joy From joy.vriens at gmail.com Fri Jun 11 22:58:48 2010 From: joy.vriens at gmail.com (Joy Vriens) Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2010 06:58:48 +0200 Subject: [Buddha-l] Ethical Dilemmas In-Reply-To: <004001cb09a8$753563a0$2101a8c0@Dan> References: <002a01cb089f$262bfb70$2101a8c0@Dan> <250367.3520.qm@web86601.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <004101cb0942$93129070$2101a8c0@Dan> <004001cb09a8$753563a0$2101a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: Dan, Perhaps. A turning point for me away from the cultural relativism that would > oppose such an effort ("when in Rome...") came many years ago in the > American Museum of Natural History, when they opened a new exhibit on the > Aztecs that neither minimized nor glossed over the human sacrifice that was > the daily core of the culture. Every day a victim was led up the stairs of > the pyramid, laid on a table, and a priest would slash open the chest and > pull out the still-beating heart and hold it up to the cheering crowd. All > salubriously enveloped in holiness and prayers. > Fortunately that would strike almost anyone as barbarious, which is a sign we have moved on. Yet at the same time, all proportions being kept, I can easily recognize the functioning of a legal justice system in this description. Especially legal systems where the death penalty is still active, and where certain groups of the population seem to be more present among the executed than others. The architecture of an imposing building, with steps leading up to it, high counters (or what do you call them) in the court itself, judges dressed like priests, hidden behind the high counter, looking down on the "victim", the victim, exposed standing behind a barre, having to look up to them. The victim having their chest slashed open by psychological and other experts, and their still-beating heart exposed to the crowd: childhood, problems, mots secret motivations etc. all salubriously enveloped in holiness and sermons. I did write all proportions kept :-) Joy From kdorje at aol.com Sat Jun 12 00:15:42 2010 From: kdorje at aol.com (kdorje at aol.com) Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2010 02:15:42 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Abhidharma for undergrads In-Reply-To: References: <003501cb0875$a77f6150$2101a8c0@Dan><002a01cb089f$262bfb70$2101a8c0@Dan><4C110729.1050303@xs4all.nl> <006401cb08b9$708864f0$2101a8c0@Dan><4C115C12.1000707@xs4all.nl> <004601cb0948$2b450530$2101a8c0@Dan><4C1211E7.5010307@xs4all.nl> <008201cb095d$499dadb0$2101a8c0@Dan><003b01cb09a6$e41fedf0$2101a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: <8CCD80DD101A903-6C0-23AF1@webmail-m053.sysops.aol.com> Would anyone recommend a text for undergraduate and graduate courses on Abhidharma, in addition to the Abhidharmakosha, Abhidharmasamuccaya, and Pancaskandha? Thanks in advance for suggestions. Best wishes, Konchog Dorje From jehms at xs4all.nl Sat Jun 12 01:21:57 2010 From: jehms at xs4all.nl (Erik Hoogcarspel) Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2010 09:21:57 +0200 Subject: [Buddha-l] Twitter Terma In-Reply-To: <46699874-113A-4B80-997D-7A81B9EDC1BD@gmai.com> References: <46699874-113A-4B80-997D-7A81B9EDC1BD@gmai.com> Message-ID: <4C133595.6030104@xs4all.nl> Op 12-06-10 01:24, Bernard Simon schreef: > Over on Twitter people are discovering new things the Buddha said > every day: > > The mind is everything. What you think you become > > There is no way to happiness, happiness is the way > > I never see what has been done; I only see what remains to be done. > > He who loves 50 people has 50 woes; he who loves no one has no woes > > No matter how hard the past, you can always begin again > > http://twitter.com/#search?q=buddha%20%23quote > > Sounds like this Buddha guy should get a job with Hallmark Cards. > I'm afraid the Buddha has no copyrights here. It are sayings that used to be painted on pictures and tiles to hang on the wall. erik From jehms at xs4all.nl Sat Jun 12 01:46:37 2010 From: jehms at xs4all.nl (Erik Hoogcarspel) Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2010 09:46:37 +0200 Subject: [Buddha-l] Ethical Dilemmas In-Reply-To: References: <003501cb0875$a77f6150$2101a8c0@Dan> <002a01cb089f$262bfb70$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C110729.1050303@xs4all.nl> <006401cb08b9$708864f0$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C115C12.1000707@xs4all.nl> <004601cb0948$2b450530$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C1211E7.5010307@xs4all.nl> <008201cb095d$499dadb0$2101a8c0@Dan> <003b01cb09a6$e41fedf0$2101a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: <4C133B5D.9000805@xs4all.nl> Op 12-06-10 06:39, Joy Vriens schreef: > If I were a minority I would be VERY afraid to live in today's Europe >> (obviously half a century ago was even worse -- perhaps we are getting a >> glimpse into why that is the case). One of my professors, Bibhuti Yadav, >> used to say Buddhism has no ethics. Despite all the bluster about "Buddhist >> Ethics" these days, the last few days have started to convince me that >> Yadav >> was right. Domage. >> >> > Yes, looking at last days election results at different places in Europe, it > doesn't look good at all. > We are sorry, Joy. There's an initiative to sell the county Limburg where half of the population voted Wilders. If you bid 2 Euro it may be yours. I have tried to understand the results of the voting and I think it is caused by sloppy people management, what companies call HRM and what in France in the 19th and 18th century used to be called 'la police'. It will become worse now that it becomes clear that our pensions will be reduced because of BP's oil spill, which causes it's shares to drop. Shit happens. erik From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Sat Jun 12 03:31:39 2010 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2010 05:31:39 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Ethical Dilemmas References: <003501cb0875$a77f6150$2101a8c0@Dan> <002a01cb089f$262bfb70$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C110729.1050303@xs4all.nl><006401cb08b9$708864f0$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C115C12.1000707@xs4all.nl><004601cb0948$2b450530$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C1211E7.5010307@xs4all.nl><008201cb095d$499dadb0$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C12ADFE.7040209@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <003601cb0a12$0f931e60$2101a8c0@Dan> Erik, > You sound like you joined to many Tea-parties lately. VS gooooood, > Europe baaaaad! I wish the world was that easy, but then again I > wouldn't have much to do as a philosopher. > > Now I have to go and shoot a moose for breakfast. When one runs out of rational arguments, one resorts to name-calling and innuendo. Dan From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Sat Jun 12 04:05:59 2010 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2010 06:05:59 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Ethical Dilemmas References: <002a01cb089f$262bfb70$2101a8c0@Dan><250367.3520.qm@web86601.mail.ird.yahoo.com><004101cb0942$93129070$2101a8c0@Dan><004001cb09a8$753563a0$2101a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: <004301cb0a16$ea764990$2101a8c0@Dan> Joy > Fortunately that would strike almost anyone as barbarious, which is a sign > we have moved on. Yet at the same time, all proportions being kept, I can > easily recognize the functioning of a legal justice system in this > description. Especially legal systems where the death penalty is still > active, and where certain groups of the population seem to be more present > among the executed than others. this sort of sloppy conflationaryism [to coin an ugly word] is a disservice, and hinders rather than sharpens thinking. Without even getting into great detail let me again simply invoke the distinction between innocent and guilty. Bug exterminators, same thing? http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,946853,00.html At some level it may be important to examine the lines that run between Aztec sacrifice and, for instance Vedic yajna, in which the sacrifice was also envisioned as guaranteeing and furthering the continuance of the culture and the cosmic order (Rta). Or, again, the apparent power of such images -- such as a well known religion that centers itself on the bloody execution of its deity, and places the death implement on buildings, in buildings, around their neck, pantomiming it with their hands during prayer or while repelling vampires. Metaphors can be useful tools for thinking, but they can obscure as well. If I really thought that you don't see the chasm of difference between the US judicial system and the Aztecs' sacrificial system, I would bother to explain that for you. Attali's musical metaphor has a certain appeal, but in the end it seems to be more about cleverness than elucidation (I could be wrong). All sorts of problems begin when metaphors are taken literally. Ethics, for better or worse, has to deal primarily with the literal, not the metaphorical. Both Derrida (in "White Mythology") and Sthiramati (in Trimsika-bhasya to k.1) work hard to undermine the distinction between literal and metaphorical, but they do so by treating such things carefully, not by misleading conflations. Dan From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Sat Jun 12 04:16:13 2010 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2010 06:16:13 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Abhidharma for undergrads References: <003501cb0875$a77f6150$2101a8c0@Dan><002a01cb089f$262bfb70$2101a8c0@Dan><4C110729.1050303@xs4all.nl><006401cb08b9$708864f0$2101a8c0@Dan><4C115C12.1000707@xs4all.nl><004601cb0948$2b450530$2101a8c0@Dan><4C1211E7.5010307@xs4all.nl><008201cb095d$499dadb0$2101a8c0@Dan><003b01cb09a6$e41fedf0$2101a8c0@Dan> <8CCD80DD101A903-6C0-23AF1@webmail-m053.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <004401cb0a18$49568190$2101a8c0@Dan> H. Guenther's Philosophy and Psychology of the Abhidharma is a very good overview -- insightful and thorough. Dhammajoti's three books are also excellent: Bhikkhu KL Dhammajoti. _Sarvastivada Abhidharma_.University of Hong Kong, 2009, 4th revised edition. [Excellent and detailed presentation of the debates between the Abhidharmists, using Skt, TIb. Chinese and Pali sources] Bhikkhu KL Dhammajoti. _Entrance into the Supreme Doctrine: Skandhila's Abhidharmavatara_ University of Hong Kong, 2008, 2nd revised edition [translation and study of the Abhidharmavatara, a key Sarvastivada text that influenced Vasubandhu.] Bhikkhu KL Dhammajoti. _Abhidharma Doctrines and Controversies on Perception_. University of Hong Kong, 2007, 3rd revised edition. [Like the title says, abhidharmic debates related to theories of perception, epistemology, etc. -- Should be must reading for all pramanavadins, since this is from whence Dignaga, etc. derived.] Good luck with the course. Dan ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Saturday, June 12, 2010 2:15 AM Subject: [Buddha-l] Abhidharma for undergrads > > > Would anyone recommend a text for undergraduate and graduate courses on > Abhidharma, in addition to the Abhidharmakosha, Abhidharmasamuccaya, > and Pancaskandha? > > Thanks in advance for suggestions. > > Best wishes, > > Konchog Dorje > > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l > From joy.vriens at gmail.com Sat Jun 12 04:49:22 2010 From: joy.vriens at gmail.com (Joy Vriens) Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2010 12:49:22 +0200 Subject: [Buddha-l] Ethical Dilemmas In-Reply-To: <004301cb0a16$ea764990$2101a8c0@Dan> References: <002a01cb089f$262bfb70$2101a8c0@Dan> <250367.3520.qm@web86601.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <004101cb0942$93129070$2101a8c0@Dan> <004001cb09a8$753563a0$2101a8c0@Dan> <004301cb0a16$ea764990$2101a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: Back again, > Especially legal systems where the death penalty is still > > active, and where certain groups of the population seem to be more > present > > among the executed than others. > > this sort of sloppy conflationaryism [to coin an ugly word] is a > disservice, > and hinders rather than sharpens thinking. "When one runs out of rational arguments, one resorts to name-calling and innuendo." > Without even getting into great > detail let me again simply invoke the distinction between innocent and > guilty. > > Bug exterminators, same thing? > > I don't get this. Please tell me first who are the bugs and who are the bug exterminators? > http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,946853,00.html > > At some level it may be important to examine the lines that run between > Aztec sacrifice and, for instance Vedic yajna, in which the sacrifice was > also envisioned as guaranteeing and furthering the continuance of the > culture and the cosmic order (Rta). Or, again, the apparent power of such > images -- such as a well known religion that centers itself on the bloody > execution of its deity, and places the death implement on buildings, in > buildings, around their neck, pantomiming it with their hands during prayer > or while repelling vampires. > This reminds me of a French anarchist joke. If the Christ hadn't been crucified, but impaled, what sign would his followers have made? > Metaphors can be useful tools for thinking, but they can obscure as well. > If > I really thought that you don't see the chasm of difference between the US > judicial system and the Aztecs' sacrificial system, I would bother to > explain that for you. A judicial system is about order and social peace. It's not perfect and can't allow itself to apologize for its mistakes and repair them due to potential loss of authority. The very rare exceptions confirm the rule. The innocent that are condemned and perhaps executed are victims, but useful victims, since they help to maintain the social peace (Rta) AND the judicial system. In some cases when public opinion is thirsty for "justice", it is better to find just any suspect and to keep that suspect until the mob goes quiet again. If necessary the suspect may be released and another random suspect be arrested. In such cases there isn't even a condemnation and therefore not even a judicial mistake, but the fact is very similar to that of a proper condemnation and/or execution. Such suspects are victims that pay the price of the Rta. They may not lose their biological life, but they certainly lose plenty. Religion is everywhere, especially there where it is said to be absent. Attali's musical metaphor has a certain appeal, but in > the end it seems to be more about cleverness than elucidation (I could be > wrong). > > Yes I think it is cleverness too, but we do need cleverness. Joy From H.W.A.Blezer at hum.leidenuniv.nl Sat Jun 12 06:30:07 2010 From: H.W.A.Blezer at hum.leidenuniv.nl (Blezer, H.W.A.) Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2010 14:30:07 +0200 Subject: [Buddha-l] gCod on Dutch Radio Message-ID: Dear inhabitants of the cremation grounds of thoughts and of Buddha-L space, In response to Erik's earlier announcement, let me add that the Saturday broadcast on gCod is in English, with Alejandro Chaoul, probably known to some of you. Alejandro practices and teaches gCod himself. He recently published a book on Bon gCod (http://www.snowlionpub.com/pages/N87_4.html). The interview with him on gCod is only part of today's hour-long broadcast. Tomorrow's broadcast, is mainly on Bon Zab gcod (The Profound Ch?d); it has a bit of a human interest approach. Zab gcod is a liturgy 'discovered' by a treasure discoverer from Nyag rong, Nyag gter gSang sngags gling pa (b.1864) and his famous consort bDe chen dbang mo (b.1868, Donatella Rossi wrote on her), both from Nyag rong, Eastern Tibet. Their tradition is part of so-called New Bon. There also are some excerpts of nuns in Redna Menling (Dolanji, HP, India) performing the mKha' 'gro'i gad rgyang (The Far-Reaching Laughter of the Dakinis); a brief liturgy arranged by Shar rdza bKra shis rgyal mtshan (b.1859-1934). He was a teacher of mKha' 'gro bDe chen dbang mo. The only reason I am speaking about this, is because I happened to be involved in helping Benno van den Bogaert and Rudi de Bleser recording the nuns' performance, in Redna Menling, in 2008, and subsequently advised them to include the rare Zab gcod performance in their recordings, which they did. There are precious few people who still know how to perform that hauntingly beautiful Zab gcod ritual, which makes it even more special. Me me mKhas mchog rdo rje, Meme (or grandpa) Khemchok Dorje -- now about 78 -- still knows Zab gcod and locally is famous for his performance. He is one of the last surviving disciples of Khyung sprul rin po che (1897-1955), from Gur gyam in Western Tibet. He was taught by the latter; Khyung sprul Rin po che in turn was taught in mDo smad, probably from (someone close to) the mentioned couple of discoverers. Meme Khemchok most kindly agreed to perform Zab gcod for us. He is probably the only person in exile who knows how to do this. I am not sure about China, maybe some very old person that studied with Khyung sprul Rin po che or someone from Nyag rong still knows. We felt it would be good to share part of his performance on the radio, with a wider audience. Fred Gales, free lance sound reporter, took on the challenge, for the BOS. If the technical quality of the recordings will allow it (which we now doubt), the recordings may appear on DVD, some time. With kind regards, Henk Blezer [Buddha-l] gChod on Dutch radio Erik Hoogcarspel jehms at xs4all.nl Sun Jun 6 10:03:58 MDT 2010 a member of this list, Henk Blezer, wil be interviewed about different kinds of gchod (????) in Buddhist and Bon traditions on Dutch radio on Sunday 13th at 22:30 - 23:00 local time. Those who understand Dutch can listen to it on the Net at http://www.radio5.nl/ . Perhaps Henk will at one time give outline of what he had to say for others on the list? There will also be sound recordings of a kind of gchod that has nearly vanished. The other day I showed my students a movie called 'Aghori', picturing the life of this kind of 'gothic punk' sadhu. One of my students asked if he had a license for living on the cremationground and smearing the ashes of burned beloved ones on his body. This illustrates the distance we have between our society and the classic Indian one. The foundation who organizes Henk's interview also has a program (the Boeddhistische Omroep Stichting, the same address on the 12th at 15:02 - 16:00) about Dutch gchodpa's going to churchyards at night to to do their ritual. I think they will need a license... and a reality check. erik From alberto.tod at gmail.com Sat Jun 12 07:58:30 2010 From: alberto.tod at gmail.com (Alberto Todeschini) Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2010 09:58:30 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Abhidharma for undergrads In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C139286.9010404@gmail.com> > Would anyone recommend a text for undergraduate and graduate courses on > Abhidharma, in addition to the Abhidharmakosha, Abhidharmasamuccaya, > and Pancaskandha? If you are planning to use Walpola Rahula's translation of the Abhidharmasamuccaya, you should note that there are parts that are translated completely wrongly. I'm familiar in particular with the V?davini?caya section, which I assigned to my students. We gave up and read the Tibetan instead. And if you are using the English version of Rahula's work, think that for the portions of the Samuccaya that don't survive in Sanskrit you'll be reading an English translation of a French translation of a Sanskrit translation of a Chinese translation of a Sanskrit text. Lastly, I've found a number of problems created by the English translator. Clearly, she was proficient in French but didn't always understand the import of what she was translating, hence the result is at times unreliable. Best, Alberto Todeschini From rhayes at unm.edu Sat Jun 12 08:12:28 2010 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2010 08:12:28 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Ethical Dilemmas In-Reply-To: <4C133B5D.9000805@xs4all.nl> References: <003501cb0875$a77f6150$2101a8c0@Dan> <002a01cb089f$262bfb70$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C110729.1050303@xs4all.nl> <006401cb08b9$708864f0$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C115C12.1000707@xs4all.nl> <004601cb0948$2b450530$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C1211E7.5010307@xs4all.nl> <008201cb095d$499dadb0$2101a8c0@Dan> <003b01cb09a6$e41fedf0$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C133B5D.9000805@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <58DA4001-5D3C-4B93-862B-0E6EE88A78A2@unm.edu> On Jun 12, 2010, at 1:46, Erik Hoogcarspel wrote: > We are sorry, Joy. There's an initiative to sell the county Limburg > where half of the population voted Wilders. Limburg? Isn't that where they make cheese that smells like canned werewolf farts? From rhayes at unm.edu Sat Jun 12 08:14:34 2010 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2010 08:14:34 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Ethical Dilemmas In-Reply-To: <003601cb0a12$0f931e60$2101a8c0@Dan> References: <003501cb0875$a77f6150$2101a8c0@Dan> <002a01cb089f$262bfb70$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C110729.1050303@xs4all.nl><006401cb08b9$708864f0$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C115C12.1000707@xs4all.nl><004601cb0948$2b450530$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C1211E7.5010307@xs4all.nl><008201cb095d$499dadb0$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C12ADFE.7040209@xs4all.nl> <003601cb0a12$0f931e60$2101a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: It appears once again as though Dan has run out of rational arguments. Richard On Jun 12, 2010, at 3:31, "Dan Lusthaus" wrote: > Erik, > >> You sound like you joined to many Tea-parties lately. VS gooooood, >> Europe baaaaad! I wish the world was that easy, but then again I >> wouldn't have much to do as a philosopher. >> >> Now I have to go and shoot a moose for breakfast. > > When one runs out of rational arguments, one resorts to name-calling > and > innuendo. > > Dan > > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From jehms at xs4all.nl Sat Jun 12 09:54:32 2010 From: jehms at xs4all.nl (Erik Hoogcarspel) Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2010 17:54:32 +0200 Subject: [Buddha-l] Ethical Dilemmas In-Reply-To: <58DA4001-5D3C-4B93-862B-0E6EE88A78A2@unm.edu> References: <003501cb0875$a77f6150$2101a8c0@Dan> <002a01cb089f$262bfb70$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C110729.1050303@xs4all.nl> <006401cb08b9$708864f0$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C115C12.1000707@xs4all.nl> <004601cb0948$2b450530$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C1211E7.5010307@xs4all.nl> <008201cb095d$499dadb0$2101a8c0@Dan> <003b01cb09a6$e41fedf0$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C133B5D.9000805@xs4all.nl> <58DA4001-5D3C-4B93-862B-0E6EE88A78A2@unm.edu> Message-ID: <4C13ADB8.5050008@xs4all.nl> Op 12-06-10 16:12, Richard Hayes schreef: > On Jun 12, 2010, at 1:46, Erik Hoogcarspel wrote: > >> We are sorry, Joy. There's an initiative to sell the county Limburg >> where half of the population voted Wilders. >> > Limburg? Isn't that where they make cheese that smells like canned > werewolf farts? > It is. See the relation? Cause and effect. So pick your cheese carefully. erik From rhayes at unm.edu Sat Jun 12 13:42:16 2010 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2010 13:42:16 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Ethical Dilemmas In-Reply-To: <4C13ADB8.5050008@xs4all.nl> References: <003501cb0875$a77f6150$2101a8c0@Dan> <002a01cb089f$262bfb70$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C110729.1050303@xs4all.nl> <006401cb08b9$708864f0$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C115C12.1000707@xs4all.nl> <004601cb0948$2b450530$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C1211E7.5010307@xs4all.nl> <008201cb095d$499dadb0$2101a8c0@Dan> <003b01cb09a6$e41fedf0$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C133B5D.9000805@xs4all.nl> <58DA4001-5D3C-4B93-862B-0E6EE88A78A2@unm.edu> <4C13ADB8.5050008@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <77AD3FA5-538F-4AE0-9A3F-DAA6E40F085F@unm.edu> On Jun 12, 2010, at 9:54, Erik Hoogcarspel wrote: >> Limburg? Isn't that where they make cheese that smells like canned >> werewolf farts? >> > It is. See the relation? Cause and effect. So pick your cheese > carefully. I think I see how the causality works. The Limburgers have been holding their noses to keep out the stench of the cheese and consequently were unable to detect the stench of Wilders' anti-Muslim rhetoric. I guess one should discipline oneself not to try to shut out the stink of politicians; otherwise, one may end up being governed by them. My condolences to all Nederlanders. Richard > From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Sun Jun 13 00:49:46 2010 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2010 02:49:46 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Ethical Dilemmas References: <003501cb0875$a77f6150$2101a8c0@Dan> <002a01cb089f$262bfb70$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C110729.1050303@xs4all.nl><006401cb08b9$708864f0$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C115C12.1000707@xs4all.nl><004601cb0948$2b450530$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C1211E7.5010307@xs4all.nl><008201cb095d$499dadb0$2101a8c0@Dan><4C12ADFE.7040209@xs4all.nl> <003601cb0a12$0f931e60$2101a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: <006901cb0ac4$9c9920e0$2101a8c0@Dan> > It appears once again as though Dan has run out of rational arguments. > > Richard And once again Richard can't tell the difference between description on the one hand and name-calling and innuendo on the other -- though he is an expert at the latter. (and that's a description, not an innuendo). Dan From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Sun Jun 13 01:06:22 2010 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2010 03:06:22 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Ethical Dilemmas References: <002a01cb089f$262bfb70$2101a8c0@Dan><250367.3520.qm@web86601.mail.ird.yahoo.com><004101cb0942$93129070$2101a8c0@Dan><004001cb09a8$753563a0$2101a8c0@Dan><004301cb0a16$ea764990$2101a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: <007201cb0ac6$eec373a0$2101a8c0@Dan> Joy, >> Especially legal systems where the death penalty is still >> > active, and where certain groups of the population seem to be more >> present >> > among the executed than others. >> >> this sort of sloppy conflationaryism [to coin an ugly word] is a >> disservice, >> and hinders rather than sharpens thinking. > > > "When one runs out of rational arguments, one resorts to name-calling and > innuendo." That was a description, not an argument. Comparing the US judicial and penal system to Aztec sacrifice -- I realize that sort of delusional demonization is popular in many quarters these days, but it is indeed the sort of conflational demagoguery that clouds the waters rather clarifying anything. > > I don't get this. Please tell me first who are the bugs and who are the > > bug > exterminators? >> http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,946853,00.html Follow the link. > A judicial system is about order and social peace. It's not perfect and > can't allow itself to apologize for its mistakes and repair them due to > potential loss of authority. The very rare exceptions confirm the rule. > The > innocent that are condemned and perhaps executed are victims, but useful > victims, since they help to maintain the social peace (Rta) AND the > judicial > system. In some cases when public opinion is thirsty for "justice", it is > better to find just any suspect and to keep that suspect until the mob > goes > quiet again. If necessary the suspect may be released and another random > suspect be arrested. In such cases there isn't even a condemnation and > therefore not even a judicial mistake, but the fact is very similar to > that > of a proper condemnation and/or execution. Such suspects are victims that > pay the price of the Rta. They may not lose their biological life, but > they > certainly lose plenty. Religion is everywhere, especially there where it > is > said to be absent. I understand that's how it works in much of the world, but the US system has taken many steps, from habeas corpus to Miranda rights, to multiple levels of appeal, to minimize this -- so much so that it gets accused of bending over so far backwards to provide rights to the accused that the victims and aggrieved have been protesting and fighting back. These things go in pendulum shifts. While in practice that might go on, that is NOT the ethos, and when brought to light, not condoned or accepted. Again, the underlying issue in all this would be innocence and guilt and the instruments by which that can be determined. The US legal system's motto is: Innocent until proven guilty. The actual practice may not always live up to that, but that is the express ideal. Dan From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Sun Jun 13 01:38:21 2010 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2010 03:38:21 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Abhidharma for undergrads References: <4C139286.9010404@gmail.com> Message-ID: <008901cb0acb$65fd5090$2101a8c0@Dan> Concerning the Rahula translation of the Abhidharmasamuccaya (into French) and Sara Boin-Webb's English version that: When Rahula did his dissertation (which became that edition), Gokhale's mss. for portions of the Sanskrit text were available. The remainder was translated for Rahula from Chinese into Sanskrit, and he then rendered the Sanskrit -- both the attested portions from Gokhale and the new back-translation -- into French, clearly distinguishing them in his translation. Since then Tatia has published the Sanskrit of Sthiramati's Commentary, which contains much of the root text, but not all (it cites words and passages, but not the complete text). That is sufficient -- esp. when read alongside the Chinese and Tibetan versions -- to gain a fairly solid sense of what the original Sanskrit was. There is a very useful compilation made in Japan that goes passage by passage through the entire text, giving Gokhale (when available), Xuanzang's Chinese, the Tib., Tatia's Sthiramati, Xuanzang's Chinese of that, and the Tib. It is available as a pdf for download at http://www.shiga-med.ac.jp/public/yugagyo/AS/AS_ETEXT_V1_ALL.pdf (it's a long download) Given the limitations under which Rahula and Boin-Webb worked, I think they did a better job than Alberto's characterization might have suggested, though not perfect by any means. Either the French or English would be "safe" to use with undergraduates -- if graduate students can read any or all of the canonical languages, they can use the translations as ponies alongside the originals. Dan Lusthaus From jehms at xs4all.nl Sun Jun 13 03:55:14 2010 From: jehms at xs4all.nl (Erik Hoogcarspel) Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2010 11:55:14 +0200 Subject: [Buddha-l] Ethical Dilemmas In-Reply-To: <006901cb0ac4$9c9920e0$2101a8c0@Dan> References: <003501cb0875$a77f6150$2101a8c0@Dan> <002a01cb089f$262bfb70$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C110729.1050303@xs4all.nl><006401cb08b9$708864f0$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C115C12.1000707@xs4all.nl><004601cb0948$2b450530$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C1211E7.5010307@xs4all.nl><008201cb095d$499dadb0$2101a8c0@Dan><4C12ADFE.7040209@xs4all.nl> <003601cb0a12$0f931e60$2101a8c0@Dan> <006901cb0ac4$9c9920e0$2101a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: <4C14AB02.2060101@xs4all.nl> Op 13-06-10 08:49, Dan Lusthaus schreef: > And once again Richard can't tell the difference between description > on theone hand and name-calling and innuendo on the other -- though he > is an > expert at the latter. (and that's a description, not an innuendo). > > I can appreciate Dan's opposition against cultural relativism, but this doesn't mean that one culture is inherently better than another. All cultures have good and bad elements. It's very unwise to just reject all of one culture and take over all elements of another one, Buddhist or not. It's very easy though, because this kind of essentialism offers no choices so it frees from responsibility. The other mistake and strategy of bad faith is to call everything equal, so choice has no ethical or practical consequences and is just a matter of personal preference. Here is an example of what the effect can be of two-dimensional thinking (and basd smelling cheese). Warning: don't watch it during meals and don't show it to minors, it contains poisonous material. http://www.krapuul.nl/nieuws/8801/wilders-oproep-tot-genocide-op-mensen-met-wortels-in-de-islam/ erik From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Sun Jun 13 04:59:36 2010 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2010 06:59:36 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Ethical Dilemmas References: <003501cb0875$a77f6150$2101a8c0@Dan> <002a01cb089f$262bfb70$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C110729.1050303@xs4all.nl><006401cb08b9$708864f0$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C115C12.1000707@xs4all.nl><004601cb0948$2b450530$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C1211E7.5010307@xs4all.nl><008201cb095d$499dadb0$2101a8c0@Dan><4C12ADFE.7040209@xs4all.nl> <003601cb0a12$0f931e60$2101a8c0@Dan> <006901cb0ac4$9c9920e0$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C14AB02.2060101@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <00a601cb0ae7$83a1e720$2101a8c0@Dan> Erik, > I can appreciate Dan's opposition against cultural relativism, but this > doesn't mean that one culture is inherently better than another. All > cultures have good and bad elements. It's very unwise to just reject all > of one culture and take over all elements of another one, Buddhist or > not. No one suggested anything of the sort. What I identified as "wrong" was the daily sacrificial system of the Aztecs, not Aztec culture as a whole, whatever that was or might mean. If eliminating the sacrifice would irreparably destroy the culture, then the culture is built on a sick foundation and its loss a victory for decency and the saving of countless lives, as was the defeat of the Nazi regime. As for the Wilders speech, i realize it is also very popular and much easier to demonize Wilders than to admit that there might be some grains (or more) of legitimacy in his diagnosis. > http://www.krapuul.nl/nieuws/8801/wilders-oproep-tot-genocide-op-mensen-met-wortels-in-de-islam/ (Demonize him by accusing him of demonization... very neat) For instance what he says about Israel starting around minute 9 is absolutely true, though anti-zionism has become so ingrained in many quarters that it will be easier for some to dismiss what he says than admitting that he is pointing to a fundamental flaw in the common polemics. The conflict *is* about ideology and hegemony (who gets to control how you live), not land. Appeasement didn't prevent WW II, and trying to appease Arabs with land, etc., will be just as unsuccessful since that is not what they want (Hamas says so blatantly, the PA will accept land as a temporary measure toward a final solution). No one is listening, no one wants to admit that they are saying that, and that they mean what they say. That children are brainwashed to think Jews are apes and pigs, that honor killings are now taking place in Europe, etc., that plane hijacking, murder at the Olympics, suicide bombers, etc. have been gifts from the Islamic world to the rest of the globe --- all that is true -- they're not Wilders' fantasies. So, yes, Erik, painting with broad brushes obscures important details, and one can sometimes find legitimacy even in one-note fearmongers like Wilders, esp. when those opposing him feel superior but use the same kind of cartoon thinking that dismisses with caricature, obscuring the issues rather than clarifying solutions. WIlders is not the cause of the problem, he's a symptom. Buddhism requires going deeper than symptoms (first noble truth) to their cause (second noble truth). Dan From joy.vriens at gmail.com Sun Jun 13 05:56:54 2010 From: joy.vriens at gmail.com (Joy Vriens) Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2010 13:56:54 +0200 Subject: [Buddha-l] Ethical Dilemmas In-Reply-To: <007201cb0ac6$eec373a0$2101a8c0@Dan> References: <002a01cb089f$262bfb70$2101a8c0@Dan> <250367.3520.qm@web86601.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <004101cb0942$93129070$2101a8c0@Dan> <004001cb09a8$753563a0$2101a8c0@Dan> <004301cb0a16$ea764990$2101a8c0@Dan> <007201cb0ac6$eec373a0$2101a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: Dear Dan, > That was a description, not an argument. Comparing the US judicial and > penal > system to Aztec sacrifice -- I realize that sort of delusional demonization > is popular in many quarters these days, but it is indeed the sort of > conflational demagoguery that clouds the waters rather clarifying anything. > > Nothing I say or write I consider as a description. I am not that mad. My intention was therefore not to compare democratic judicial systems to Aztec measures for maintaining social peace and order, but to suggest that the differences between those bloody barbarians and ourselves may not be that big and to give the friendly advice that before solemnly making that sort of statement, one should first check whether one's fly isn't open. I was aiming at all the Western judicial systems I am aware of, but the US do still have the particularity of the death penalty. Any system that isn't infallible itself, doesn't have the right to impose punishment that is definite and can't be made undone. It thereby makes itself into an illegitimate judicial system as far as I am concerned. I watched the interview of Putin by a French journalist asking the traditional questions about human rights. Putin answers that it's an old European tradition to impose their rules and their standards and kindly reminds the journalist of the Colonialist era and points out violations of human rights exist everywhere, mentioning by the by the problem of French prisons... http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xdm6ut_vladimir-poutine-face-a-david-pujad_news (Note Putin's defying sitting posture). "Il faut d'abord balayer devant sa porte" he seems to say to the French. I have worked for years as court translator and have seen the French judicial system and prisons from within. You can't imagine the gaps between theory and practice. Sacrifice is a word that will spontaneously spring to mind at one point or another. Again I am not saying this out of some sort of righteousness. I don't know the US judicial system from within, so I take you on your word when you say this is NOT the ethos, both in theory and practice. Again, the underlying issue in all this would be innocence and guilt and the > instruments by which that can be determined. The US legal system's motto > is: > Innocent until proven guilty. The actual practice may not always live up to > that, but that is the express ideal. > > "The US legal system's motto is: Innocent until proven guilty." Great motto, we have the same one here. Sarkozy has also adopted the American system of the possibility to plead guilty, offering more clemency in exchange for less hassle. Does a guilty plea *prove* anything? Considering a guilty plea the equivalent of proof, opens the possibility that someone may plead guilty not totally out of their own free will. And that immediately evokes in my poor oversensitive imagination images of the Spanish inquisition. The Spanish inquisition? you may reply, yes the Spanish Inquisition http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tym0MObFpTI&feature=related Joy From joy.vriens at gmail.com Sun Jun 13 06:04:30 2010 From: joy.vriens at gmail.com (Joy Vriens) Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2010 14:04:30 +0200 Subject: [Buddha-l] Ethical Dilemmas In-Reply-To: <00a601cb0ae7$83a1e720$2101a8c0@Dan> References: <003501cb0875$a77f6150$2101a8c0@Dan> <002a01cb089f$262bfb70$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C110729.1050303@xs4all.nl> <006401cb08b9$708864f0$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C115C12.1000707@xs4all.nl> <004601cb0948$2b450530$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C1211E7.5010307@xs4all.nl> <008201cb095d$499dadb0$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C12ADFE.7040209@xs4all.nl> <003601cb0a12$0f931e60$2101a8c0@Dan> <006901cb0ac4$9c9920e0$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C14AB02.2060101@xs4all.nl> <00a601cb0ae7$83a1e720$2101a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: Hi again, > > No one suggested anything of the sort. What I identified as "wrong" was the > daily sacrificial system of the Aztecs, not Aztec culture as a whole, > whatever that was or might mean. If eliminating the sacrifice would > irreparably destroy the culture, then the culture is built on a sick > foundation and its loss a victory for decency and the saving of countless > lives, as was the defeat of the Nazi regime. > "According to Ren? Girard, human culture has been founded on two principles, which he calls "mimetic rivalry" and the "surrogate victim mechanism." Mimesis refers to the propensity of humans to imitate other people both consciously and unconsciously. Girard developed a mimetic theory of the self in his early work as a literary critic (Deceit, Desire, and the Novel: Self and Other in Literary Structure [French, 1961; English 1965]). Such novelists as Cervantes, Stendhal, Dostoevsky and Proust taught him that humans learn what to desire by taking other people as models to imitate. Aware of a lack within ourselves, we look to others to teach us what to value and who to be." "During the course of evolution, Girard believes a long series of primal murders, repeated endlessly over possibly a million years, taught early humans that the death of one or more members of the group would bring a mysterious peace and discharge of tension. This pattern is the foundation of what Girard calls the surrogate victim mechanism. Often the dead person was hailed as a bearer of peace, a sacred figure, even a god. Fearful that unrestrained violence would return, early humans sought ritual ways to re-enact and resolve the sacrificial crisis of distinctions in order to channel and contain violence. "Good violence" was invoked to drive out "bad violence." This is why rituals from around the world call for the sacrifice of humans and animals. For Girard, the sacred first appears as violence directed at a sacrificial victim, a scapegoat. Every culture achieves stability by discharging the tensions of mimetic rivalry and violence onto scapegoats. Scapegoating channels and expels violence so that communal life can continue. As mimetic tensions recur, a new crisis threatens, and sacred violence is once again necessary." http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_n36_v113/ai_18962919/ > That children are brainwashed to think Jews are apes and pigs, that honor > killings are now taking place in Europe, etc., that plane hijacking, murder > at the Olympics, suicide bombers, etc. have been gifts from the Islamic > world to the rest of the globe --- all that is true -- they're not Wilders' > fantasies. > > I still don't see what you meant by bugs and bug exterminators... I have to listen to Henk now From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Sun Jun 13 07:00:30 2010 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2010 09:00:30 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Ethical Dilemmas References: <002a01cb089f$262bfb70$2101a8c0@Dan><250367.3520.qm@web86601.mail.ird.yahoo.com><004101cb0942$93129070$2101a8c0@Dan><004001cb09a8$753563a0$2101a8c0@Dan><004301cb0a16$ea764990$2101a8c0@Dan><007201cb0ac6$eec373a0$2101a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: <00b901cb0af8$672ab390$2101a8c0@Dan> Joy, > I was aiming at all the Western judicial systems I am aware of, but the > US do > still have the particularity of the death penalty. Since death would have been the linchpin in the analogy, and was included in your (non-)description, I assumed that was your primary target. Thanks for the clarification. I was trying to point out that an alternate view might be this, from a Pakistani source: http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=28484 >Any system that isn't > infallible itself, doesn't have the right to impose punishment that is > definite and can't be made undone. It thereby makes itself into an > illegitimate judicial system as far as I am concerned. I am not for the death penalty. Only a handful of the 50 states have the death penalty, and among them only a few actively use it (Texas, Florida, etc.). States like California have it on the books but have suspended it practice. New York banned it for many years, and then brought it back. Absolutists on both sides of the debate prevent a fully rational discussion from taking place. > (Note > Putin's defying sitting posture). > > "Il faut d'abord balayer devant sa porte" he seems to say to the French. Yes, we also have the expression "First put your own house in order." I've grown tired of this sort of fingerpointing and exploitation of hypocrisies, since it often comes from those more guilty than the ones they accuse, and are designed as diversionary tactics. (though Richard applauds the Ahmadinejads and Chavezes of the world as long as they trash the US). > I have worked for years as court translator and have seen the French > judicial system and prisons from within. You can't imagine the gaps > between > theory and practice. Sacrifice is a word that will spontaneously spring to > mind at one point or another. Again I am not saying this out of some sort > of > righteousness. I don't know the US judicial system from within, so I take > you on your word when you say this is NOT the ethos, both in theory and > practice. And I take your word for the condition of the French judiciary. The gap between the ideal and the practice in the US can sometimes be quite wide as well. Lenny Bruce, who had his own misfortunes with the system, once noted that "In the halls of justice the only justice is in the halls." One can't fairly judge a system run by humans on a standard of infallibility, but one can judge it by the seriousness of the effort it makes to prevent and redress misuses. it could always be better... >Sarkozy has also adopted the > American system of the possibility to plead guilty, offering more clemency > in exchange for less hassle. Does a guilty plea *prove* > anything? Does a decision reached by a judge or jury "prove" anything? They make it official, supposedly by following specified standards of evidence and proof, but they make mistakes. The plea bargain -- as it's called -- is designed as an expeditor, and has come to have many uses. Both sides -- prosecution and defense -- have to agree to it, so at least in principle it should provide opportunity for some equity (whereas a trial might not, since the state may have more resources to pursue a conviction than a defendent would have to mount a defense, though in cases of celebrity defenses, or the wealthy, the balance often tips the other way). Prosecutors fearing they might not get a conviction for a stronger charge, may offer the defendent a deal for admitting to a lesser charge, with a lesser sentence, etc. Smart defense lawyers can use pleas to get good deals for their clients. And, yes, people innocent of the crime for which they are being accused may plead guilty to get a smaller sentence when it looks like trying to prove their innocence may be hopeless. And incompetent lawyers can get their clients bad pleas, etc. In the end, the main thing it seems to do is move cases more quickly through the system, since preparation for trial and trials and appeals, etc. can drag out for years and cost both the defendent and the state huge sums of money. It's cheaper and faster to plea. Like most things, it's something that can be useful or abused. Incidentally, as a book review I commissioned of Jerryson's _Buddhist Warfare_ -- to appear soon on H-Buddhism -- will point out, Buddhism has condoned the death penalty since its inception in all Buddhist countries. Dan From alex at chagchen.org Sun Jun 13 07:08:34 2010 From: alex at chagchen.org (Alex Wilding) Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2010 15:08:34 +0200 Subject: [Buddha-l] Ethical Dilemmas In-Reply-To: References: <003501cb0875$a77f6150$2101a8c0@Dan> <002a01cb089f$262bfb70$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C110729.1050303@xs4all.nl> <006401cb08b9$708864f0$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C115C12.1000707@xs4all.nl> <004601cb0948$2b450530$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C1211E7.5010307@xs4all.nl> <008201cb095d$499dadb0$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C12ADFE.7040209@xs4all.nl> <003601cb0a12$0f931e60$2101a8c0@Dan> <006901cb0ac4$9c9920e0$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C14AB02.2060101@xs4all.nl> <00a601cb0ae7$83a1e720$2101a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: <000001cb0af9$89f1c9d0$9dd55d70$@org> Might I raise my head long enough to ask whether there is a shred of anything more substantial than sheer speculation in this? Is it anything more than the proverbial "French philosophy"? AW -----Original Message----- From: buddha-l-bounces at mailman.swcp.com [mailto:buddha-l-bounces at mailman.swcp.com] On Behalf Of Joy Vriens Sent: Sunday, 13 June 2010 2:05 PM To: Buddhist discussion forum Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] Ethical Dilemmas ... "According to Ren? Girard, human culture has been founded on two principles, which he calls "mimetic rivalry" and the "surrogate victim mechanism." Mimesis refers to the propensity of humans to imitate other people both consciously and unconsciously. Girard developed a mimetic theory of the self in his early work as a literary critic (Deceit, Desire, and the Novel: Self and Other in Literary Structure [French, 1961; English 1965]). Such novelists as Cervantes, Stendhal, Dostoevsky and Proust taught him that humans learn what to desire by taking other people as models to imitate. Aware of a lack within ourselves, we look to others to teach us what to value and who to be." "During the course of evolution, Girard believes a long series of primal murders, repeated endlessly over possibly a million years, taught early humans that the death of one or more members of the group would bring a mysterious peace and discharge of tension. This pattern is the foundation of what Girard calls the surrogate victim mechanism. Often the dead person was hailed as a bearer of peace, a sacred figure, even a god. Fearful that unrestrained violence would return, early humans sought ritual ways to re-enact and resolve the sacrificial crisis of distinctions in order to channel and contain violence. "Good violence" was invoked to drive out "bad violence." This is why rituals from around the world call for the sacrifice of humans and animals. For Girard, the sacred first appears as violence directed at a sacrificial victim, a scapegoat. Every culture achieves stability by discharging the tensions of mimetic rivalry and violence onto scapegoats. Scapegoating channels and expels violence so that communal life can continue. As mimetic tensions recur, a new crisis threatens, and sacred violence is once again necessary." http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_n36_v113/ai_18962919/ ... From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Sun Jun 13 07:14:30 2010 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2010 09:14:30 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Ethical Dilemmas References: <003501cb0875$a77f6150$2101a8c0@Dan><002a01cb089f$262bfb70$2101a8c0@Dan><4C110729.1050303@xs4all.nl> <006401cb08b9$708864f0$2101a8c0@Dan><4C115C12.1000707@xs4all.nl> <004601cb0948$2b450530$2101a8c0@Dan><4C1211E7.5010307@xs4all.nl> <008201cb095d$499dadb0$2101a8c0@Dan><4C12ADFE.7040209@xs4all.nl> <003601cb0a12$0f931e60$2101a8c0@Dan><006901cb0ac4$9c9920e0$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C14AB02.2060101@xs4all.nl><00a601cb0ae7$83a1e720$2101a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: <00be01cb0afa$5c0d0510$2101a8c0@Dan> Joy, >"According to Ren? Girard, human culture has been founded on two >principles, >which he calls "mimetic rivalry" and the "surrogate victim mechanism." The first he takes from Erich Auerbach -- whose book Mimesis is still a classic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_Auerbach The idea of "a long series of primal murders, repeated endlessly" he takes from Freud who postulated this as an originary taboo trauma, particularly as parricide. > I still don't see what you meant by bugs and bug exterminators... Did you follow the link to the story about the grasshoppers? Dan From rhayes at unm.edu Sun Jun 13 07:45:02 2010 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2010 07:45:02 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Ethical Dilemmas In-Reply-To: <006901cb0ac4$9c9920e0$2101a8c0@Dan> References: <003501cb0875$a77f6150$2101a8c0@Dan> <002a01cb089f$262bfb70$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C110729.1050303@xs4all.nl><006401cb08b9$708864f0$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C115C12.1000707@xs4all.nl><004601cb0948$2b450530$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C1211E7.5010307@xs4all.nl><008201cb095d$499dadb0$2101a8c0@Dan><4C12ADFE.7040209@xs4all.nl> <003601cb0a12$0f931e60$2101a8c0@Dan> <006901cb0ac4$9c9920e0$2101a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: <71B8E13A-C854-4980-BAB7-CFF09A4BF0D1@unm.edu> On Jun 13, 2010, at 0:49, "Dan Lusthaus" wrote: > > And once again Richard can't tell the difference between description > on the > one hand and name-calling and innuendo on the other It's easy to tell the difference. When a "description" is entirely inaccurate, it's either a sincere delusion or an attempt to discredit through innuendo. I can't always tell when your comments are malicious and when they are delusional. From jehms at xs4all.nl Sun Jun 13 07:53:43 2010 From: jehms at xs4all.nl (Erik Hoogcarspel) Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2010 15:53:43 +0200 Subject: [Buddha-l] Ethical Dilemmas In-Reply-To: <000001cb0af9$89f1c9d0$9dd55d70$@org> References: <003501cb0875$a77f6150$2101a8c0@Dan> <002a01cb089f$262bfb70$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C110729.1050303@xs4all.nl> <006401cb08b9$708864f0$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C115C12.1000707@xs4all.nl> <004601cb0948$2b450530$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C1211E7.5010307@xs4all.nl> <008201cb095d$499dadb0$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C12ADFE.7040209@xs4all.nl> <003601cb0a12$0f931e60$2101a8c0@Dan> <006901cb0ac4$9c9920e0$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C14AB02.2060101@xs4all.nl> <00a601cb0ae7$83a1e720$2101a8c0@Dan> <000001cb0af9$89f1c9d0$9dd55d70$@org> Message-ID: <4C14E2E7.208@xs4all.nl> Op 13-06-10 15:08, Alex Wilding schreef: > Might I raise my head long enough to ask whether there is a shred of > anything more substantial than sheer speculation in this? Is it anything > more than the proverbial "French philosophy"? > AW > > Well, the anthropological examples that Girard gives in order to substantiate his hypothesis are rather one sided. It is true of course that competition is a very common cause for war, but this is not always based on jealousy, but also on scarcity of important goods. If you take for instance the Trojan war, according to the epos it was caused by jealousy, investigations showed that it was probably about economic hegemony and the trade on tin. Girard writes as if his logic is the universal essence of any war in any culture and his anthropological knowledge often falls short to check the details, so he cannot imagine he could be wrong. erik From rhayes at unm.edu Sun Jun 13 08:02:03 2010 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2010 08:02:03 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Ethical Dilemmas In-Reply-To: <00b901cb0af8$672ab390$2101a8c0@Dan> References: <002a01cb089f$262bfb70$2101a8c0@Dan><250367.3520.qm@web86601.mail.ird.yahoo.com><004101cb0942$93129070$2101a8c0@Dan><004001cb09a8$753563a0$2101a8c0@Dan><004301cb0a16$ea764990$2101a8c0@Dan><007201cb0ac6$eec373a0$2101a8c0@Dan> <00b901cb0af8$672ab390$2101a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: <3A70B115-B948-4BC4-B99A-23A478C1BE8C@unm.edu> On Jun 13, 2010, at 7:00, "Dan Lusthaus" wrote: > > I am not for the death penalty. Only a handful of the 50 states have > the > death penalty, and among them only a few actively use it (Texas, > Florida, > etc.). True, only 41 of the 50 states have the death penalty. And only 41 of those 41 states have used it in the past 25 years. And the US federal government has the death penalty. Other than that, the USA has eliminated the practice. Richard of New Mexico (where there is no death penalty, except for systemic poverty) From jehms at xs4all.nl Sun Jun 13 08:26:01 2010 From: jehms at xs4all.nl (Erik Hoogcarspel) Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2010 16:26:01 +0200 Subject: [Buddha-l] Ethical Dilemmas In-Reply-To: <00a601cb0ae7$83a1e720$2101a8c0@Dan> References: <003501cb0875$a77f6150$2101a8c0@Dan> <002a01cb089f$262bfb70$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C110729.1050303@xs4all.nl><006401cb08b9$708864f0$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C115C12.1000707@xs4all.nl><004601cb0948$2b450530$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C1211E7.5010307@xs4all.nl><008201cb095d$499dadb0$2101a8c0@Dan><4C12ADFE.7040209@xs4all.nl> <003601cb0a12$0f931e60$2101a8c0@Dan> <006901cb0ac4$9c9920e0$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C14AB02.2060101@xs4all.nl> <00a601cb0ae7$83a1e720$2101a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: <4C14EA79.8090308@xs4all.nl> Op 13-06-10 12:59, Dan Lusthaus schreef: > > As for the Wilders speech, i realize it is also very popular and much easier > to demonize Wilders than to admit that there might be some grains (or more) > of legitimacy in his diagnosis. > He demonizes himself, because he refuses to investigate his claims and to consult sociologists about the causes of the problems he points to. The solutions he proposes are impossible. He called his fellow representatives 'raving mad', he wants to introduce a 'headragtax', fining every women who wears a headscarf. He wants to prohibit Islam. His economical program used to be not more then 1000 words and has been called by leading economists a real disaster. He does not do this because he is real stupid, but because he is cunning. He enjoys power and he is prepared even to switch sides if he can get it that way. He is not a Don Quichote, he is a Tan Shwe or a Stalin. I have worked with immigrants for almost 15 years and I know their problems and mentality. Most of them are just uneducated, not evil. The politics of fear that Wilders thrives on is the real problem. Dutch soldiers with Maroccan and Turkish pasports die in Afghanistan. If Wilders gets his way Europe will become like Afghanistan and he will be the leader of the white troupes. If you believe in Wilders, you?re believing in an empty shell. >> http://www.krapuul.nl/nieuws/8801/wilders-oproep-tot-genocide-op-mensen-met-wortels-in-de-islam/ >> > (Demonize him by accusing him of demonization... very neat) > > For instance what he says about Israel starting around minute 9 is > absolutely true, though anti-zionism has become so ingrained in many > quarters that it will be easier for some to dismiss what he says than > admitting that he is pointing to a fundamental flaw in the common polemics. > The conflict *is* about ideology and hegemony (who gets to control how you > live), not land. Appeasement didn't prevent WW II, and trying to appease > Arabs with land, etc., will be just as unsuccessful since that is not what > they want (Hamas says so blatantly, the PA will accept land as a temporary > measure toward a final solution). No one is listening, no one wants to admit > that they are saying that, and that they mean what they say. > > That children are brainwashed to think Jews are apes and pigs, that honor > killings are now taking place in Europe, etc., that plane hijacking, murder > at the Olympics, suicide bombers, etc. have been gifts from the Islamic > world to the rest of the globe --- all that is true -- they're not Wilders' > fantasies. > It is also true that Maroccan soldiers fought in WW II against Hitler and that Jews never had any problem in Marocco in the past. Picking the right examples you can suggest almost anything. And what he says about Israel is not factual, just rhetorics. Of course you endorse the present Israeli politics. Let me say that it differs widely from the politics of the Dalai Lama and that it is rather counterproductive. Rage and fear never bring peace. erik From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Sun Jun 13 09:10:37 2010 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2010 11:10:37 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Ethical Dilemmas References: <002a01cb089f$262bfb70$2101a8c0@Dan><250367.3520.qm@web86601.mail.ird.yahoo.com><004101cb0942$93129070$2101a8c0@Dan><004001cb09a8$753563a0$2101a8c0@Dan><004301cb0a16$ea764990$2101a8c0@Dan><007201cb0ac6$eec373a0$2101a8c0@Dan><00b901cb0af8$672ab390$2101a8c0@Dan> <3A70B115-B948-4BC4-B99A-23A478C1BE8C@unm.edu> Message-ID: <00cf01cb0b0a$94a438c0$2101a8c0@Dan> > True, only 41 of the 50 states have the death penalty. And only 41 of > those 41 states have used it in the past 25 years. And the US federal > government has the death penalty. Other than that, the USA has > eliminated the practice. Richard the polemicist (a trait he abhors in Dharmakirti) knows that the situation is more complicated than that. We could go state by state (starting with Illinois) to flesh that out, or explain why Charles Manson, though sentenced to the death penalty in California for the famous Tate-LaBlanca murders is still alive in a California prison and has come up for parole review several times. But I tend to forget, around here polemics seem to trump attention to facts every time. Dan From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Sun Jun 13 09:55:25 2010 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2010 11:55:25 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Ethical Dilemmas References: <003501cb0875$a77f6150$2101a8c0@Dan> <002a01cb089f$262bfb70$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C110729.1050303@xs4all.nl><006401cb08b9$708864f0$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C115C12.1000707@xs4all.nl><004601cb0948$2b450530$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C1211E7.5010307@xs4all.nl><008201cb095d$499dadb0$2101a8c0@Dan><4C12ADFE.7040209@xs4all.nl> <003601cb0a12$0f931e60$2101a8c0@Dan> <006901cb0ac4$9c9920e0$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C14AB02.2060101@xs4all.nl><00a601cb0ae7$83a1e720$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C14EA79.8090308@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <00d401cb0b10$d6d2c2b0$2101a8c0@Dan> Erik, > As for the Wilders speech, i realize it is also very popular and much > easier > to demonize Wilders than to admit that there might be some grains (or > more) > of legitimacy in his diagnosis. > >He demonizes himself, because he refuses to investigate his claims and to consult sociologists about the causes of the problems he points to. The solutions he proposes are impossible. He doesn't demonize himself. He offers bad solutions to problems you still deny exist. That's why people are voting for him and not for you. You leave them no choice. I didn't endorse him. I did say that *some* of what he says is true -- just enough to not be the raving lunatic. I agree he's cunning, and don't know whether, as you say, he is an opportunist or actually believes what he says (I suspect some of both). What I do endorse is clear-headedness, careful analysis instead of cartoon thinking and demonization, and respect for nuances. Richard has fooled you into thinking I am either right-wing, Republican, both or worse, by his constant snipes. Just so you know, and perhaps will try different cartoons next time, my father was a socialist leader in Vienna before the war, and a Democratic committeeman most of his life; my mother was actively against the war in Vietnam already during Kennedy's administration, before most Americans had even heard of Viet Nam. In high school, my in-class debate against the war was so effective, the teacher called in the principal who debate me himself -- and lost. I have never voted for a Republican. Nonetheless where the Left has gone in the last few decades disgusts me as much as where the Right goes, and bothers me more since I would expect them to know better. >It is also true that Maroccan soldiers fought in WW II against Hitler And Sadat collaborated with the Nazis; the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem met with Hitler in Berlin. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3m2OzEvyrsw >and that Jews never had any problem in Marocco in the past. Don't believe the myths. Read from pp. 86-98 (or as much as google books will allow). http://tinyurl.com/33ah2p8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xi7GdviIsjQ (the second is polemical, but it does mention Buddhists). > Picking the right examples you can suggest almost anything. It's even better when you know the real story behind the propoganda! >Rage and fear never bring peace. You are talking about Hamas apparently. Everyone who wants to blame Israel seems to have forgotten that the solution everyone pretends Israel would never agree to was already offered by them at Camp David, and it was not a fluke that the other side turned it down. That was not the "solution" they wanted. But keep ignoring the plain facts and swallowing the myths. Tell yourself I'm demonizing myself and it's the Israelis who infect the region with hatred. Dan From jkirk at spro.net Sun Jun 13 10:02:01 2010 From: jkirk at spro.net (JKirkpatrick) Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2010 10:02:01 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Ethical Dilemmas In-Reply-To: <000001cb0af9$89f1c9d0$9dd55d70$@org> References: <003501cb0875$a77f6150$2101a8c0@Dan> <002a01cb089f$262bfb70$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C110729.1050303@xs4all.nl><006401cb08b9$708864f0$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C115C12.1000707@xs4all.nl><004601cb0948$2b450530$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C1211E7.5010307@xs4all.nl><008201cb095d$499dadb0$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C12ADFE.7040209@xs4all.nl><003601cb0a12$0f931e60$2101a8c0@Dan> <006901cb0ac4$9c9920e0$2101a8c0@Dan><4C14AB02.2060101@xs4all.nl> <00a601cb0ae7$83a1e720$2101a8c0@Dan> <000001cb0af9$89f1c9d0$9dd55d70$@org> Message-ID: It's worse: French literary philosophy, masquerading as anthropology. JK __________ Might I raise my head long enough to ask whether there is a shred of anything more substantial than sheer speculation in this? Is it anything more than the proverbial "French philosophy"? AW _________________________ On Behalf Of Joy Vriens Sent: Sunday, 13 June 2010 2:05 PM ... "According to Ren? Girard, human culture has been founded on two principles, which he calls "mimetic rivalry" and the "surrogate victim mechanism." Mimesis refers to the propensity of humans to imitate other people both consciously and unconsciously. Girard developed a mimetic theory of the self in his early work as a literary critic (Deceit, Desire, and the Novel: Self and Other in Literary Structure [French, 1961; English 1965]). Such novelists as Cervantes, Stendhal, Dostoevsky and Proust taught him that humans learn what to desire by taking other people as models to imitate. Aware of a lack within ourselves, we look to others to teach us what to value and who to be." "During the course of evolution, Girard believes a long series of primal murders, repeated endlessly over possibly a million years, taught early humans that the death of one or more members of the group would bring a mysterious peace and discharge of tension. This pattern is the foundation of what Girard calls the surrogate victim mechanism. Often the dead person was hailed as a bearer of peace, a sacred figure, even a god. Fearful that unrestrained violence would return, early humans sought ritual ways to re-enact and resolve the sacrificial crisis of distinctions in order to channel and contain violence. "Good violence" was invoked to drive out "bad violence." This is why rituals from around the world call for the sacrifice of humans and animals. For Girard, the sacred first appears as violence directed at a sacrificial victim, a scapegoat. Every culture achieves stability by discharging the tensions of mimetic rivalry and violence onto scapegoats. Scapegoating channels and expels violence so that communal life can continue. As mimetic tensions recur, a new crisis threatens, and sacred violence is once again necessary." http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_n36_v113/ai_189629 19/ ... _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From jkirk at spro.net Sun Jun 13 10:46:38 2010 From: jkirk at spro.net (JKirkpatrick) Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2010 10:46:38 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Ethical Dilemmas In-Reply-To: References: <002a01cb089f$262bfb70$2101a8c0@Dan><250367.3520.qm@web86601.mail.ird.yahoo.com><004101cb0942$93129070$2101a8c0@Dan><004001cb09a8$753563a0$2101a8c0@Dan><004301cb0a16$ea764990$2101a8c0@Dan><007201cb0ac6$eec373a0$2101a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: <6CEE60481435470D8E7E8749B745DB36@OPTIPLEX> >>>> "The US legal system's motto is: Innocent until proven guilty." Great motto, we have the same one here. Sarkozy has also adopted the American system of the possibility to plead guilty, offering more clemency in exchange for less hassle. Does a guilty plea *prove* anything? Considering a guilty plea the equivalent of proof, opens the possibility that someone may plead guilty not totally out of their own free will. And that immediately evokes in my poor oversensitive imagination images of the Spanish inquisition. The Spanish inquisition? you may reply, yes the Spanish Inquisition http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tym0MObFpTI&feature=related Joy ========================== We finally have some lawyers (various Innocence Projects around the country) who've been investigating cases of imprisonment with faked or faulty evidence--their main method (not available until sort of recently --sorry I don't have dates) is DNA evidence. Several African-American guys falsely imprisoned for years have finally got their release from prisons because of this project. Our prison system is unethical from the vantage point of anyone who is not a knee-jerk "lock em up & throw away the key" type. Far too many mostly male folks are serving long sentences simply because they were caught more than 2 times with drugs. Result: prison overcrowding around the country, that has led to privatising the building and management of prisons, where much worse often happens because Uncle Sam isn't around (it also happens when he IS around, but perhaps less?). For a review of this situation, see the pdf titled "Judging Innocence" on this page from the Columbia Law Review: http://tinyurl.com/2ak7n7v Another phenom. that seems to be on the rise is cops shooting on flimsy basis people they are trying to detain. The usual excuse is, he raised his hand and I thought I saw a (gun--sword--knife--stick--rock) in it. No point in going on with the long list of civil rights offenses that police get away with--suffice it to remind us of the Rodney King case in LA. The psychotic murderers and child kidnappers in our midst, however, seem to be increasing-- it's not all a matter of condemning the penal system. Many big cities around the country now have Buddhist meditation programs that are allowed into the prisons. Unknown to me if they more than superficially help the prisoners (as they claim). Joanna From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Sun Jun 13 10:56:38 2010 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2010 12:56:38 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Ethical Dilemmas References: <003501cb0875$a77f6150$2101a8c0@Dan> <002a01cb089f$262bfb70$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C110729.1050303@xs4all.nl><006401cb08b9$708864f0$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C115C12.1000707@xs4all.nl><004601cb0948$2b450530$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C1211E7.5010307@xs4all.nl><008201cb095d$499dadb0$2101a8c0@Dan><4C12ADFE.7040209@xs4all.nl> <003601cb0a12$0f931e60$2101a8c0@Dan> <006901cb0ac4$9c9920e0$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C14AB02.2060101@xs4all.nl><00a601cb0ae7$83a1e720$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C14EA79.8090308@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <00f201cb0b19$64797340$2101a8c0@Dan> Erik, >Rage and fear never bring peace. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Gzyeo1Z1I4&NR=1 read the comments that come with this one! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFJYRRLuRSk&feature=related Dan From jkirk at spro.net Sun Jun 13 10:58:51 2010 From: jkirk at spro.net (JKirkpatrick) Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2010 10:58:51 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Ethical Dilemmas----------in addition: In-Reply-To: <6CEE60481435470D8E7E8749B745DB36@OPTIPLEX> References: <002a01cb089f$262bfb70$2101a8c0@Dan><250367.3520.qm@web86601.mail.ird.yahoo.com><004101cb0942$93129070$2101a8c0@Dan><004001cb09a8$753563a0$2101a8c0@Dan><004301cb0a16$ea764990$2101a8c0@Dan><007201cb0ac6$eec373a0$2101a8c0@Dan> <6CEE60481435470D8E7E8749B745DB36@OPTIPLEX> Message-ID: If you don't have time to read through Garret's article (the pdf mentioned in my previous post), it is summarised here: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,330381,00.html ...Garret found that of the 200 people convicted for crimes for which they were later exonerated, just eighteen were granted reversals by the appellate courts. Of the rest, 67 had their appeals denied with no written ruling at all. In 63 cases, the appellate court's opinion referred to the defendant's guilt. In 12 other cases, it referred to the "overwhelming" evidence of guilt. In the remaining cases, the appeals courts either found the defendant's appeal without merit, or found some merit in his claims, but found that the trial court's errors were "harmless," or unlikely to have affected the jury's verdict. Keep in mind, these are all cases in which the defendant was later determined to be actually innocent of the crime for which he was convicted. More alarmingly, Garret found in his research of these 200 cases that "even after DNA testing became available, courts and law enforcement also posed obstacles to conducting DNA testing, and then denied relief even after DNA proved innocence. Many were convicted despite DNA testing pointing to their innocence, and 41 had to rely on the mercy of a governor's pardon power because, despite their proven innocence, they had already exhausted their appeals, and could make no further claims in court. "Thus for some," Garret concludes. "Even once DNA evidence exonerated them, our judicial system was unwilling or unable to provide a remedy." Garret's study is chilling. Even if these 200 cases represent a small percentage of the subset of cases for which DNA testing can conclusively point to a defendant's guilt or innocence - say one or two percent - it's safe to assume that the flaws in the criminal justice system that allowed them to happen exist in all criminal cases, not just rape or murder cases. The same overeager prosecutors, corrupt or incompetent forensics experts and cops, mistaken eyewitnesses, and indifferent courts that prosecute and oversee these cases also move thousands of cases through the system for which there's no safety net of DNA testing. If it's this difficult for an innocent person to clear his name in cases where there's science available to deliver a definitive answer, imagine the people now wrongly sitting in a jail cell for drug offenses, theft, or for violent crimes for which there was no available biological evidence-people for whom science offers little hope for relief. JK _________________ ...."The US legal system's motto is: Innocent until proven guilty." Great motto, we have the same one here. Sarkozy has also adopted the American system of the possibility to plead guilty, offering more clemency in exchange for less hassle. Does a guilty plea *prove* anything? Considering a guilty plea the equivalent of proof, opens the possibility that someone may plead guilty not totally out of their own free will. ........... Joy ========================== We finally have some lawyers (various Innocence Projects around the country) who've been investigating cases of imprisonment with faked or faulty evidence--their main method (not available until sort of recently --sorry I don't have dates) is DNA evidence. Several African-American guys falsely imprisoned for years have finally got their release from prisons because of this project. Our prison system is unethical from the vantage point of anyone who is not a knee-jerk "lock em up & throw away the key" type. Far too many mostly male folks are serving long sentences simply because they were caught more than 2 times with drugs. Result: prison overcrowding around the country, that has led to privatising the building and management of prisons, where much worse often happens because Uncle Sam isn't around (it also happens when he IS around, but perhaps less?). For a review of this situation, see the pdf titled "Judging Innocence" on this page from the Columbia Law Review: http://tinyurl.com/2ak7n7v Another phenom. that seems to be on the rise is cops shooting on flimsy basis people they are trying to detain. The usual excuse is, he raised his hand and I thought I saw a (gun--sword--knife--stick--rock) in it. No point in going on with the long list of civil rights offenses that police get away with--suffice it to remind us of the Rodney King case in LA. The psychotic murderers and child kidnappers in our midst, however, seem to be increasing-- it's not all a matter of condemning the penal system. Many big cities around the country now have Buddhist meditation programs that are allowed into the prisons. Unknown to me if they more than superficially help the prisoners (as they claim). Joanna _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Sun Jun 13 11:27:00 2010 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2010 13:27:00 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Ethical Dilemmas----------in addition: References: <002a01cb089f$262bfb70$2101a8c0@Dan><250367.3520.qm@web86601.mail.ird.yahoo.com><004101cb0942$93129070$2101a8c0@Dan><004001cb09a8$753563a0$2101a8c0@Dan><004301cb0a16$ea764990$2101a8c0@Dan><007201cb0ac6$eec373a0$2101a8c0@Dan><6CEE60481435470D8E7E8749B745DB36@OPTIPLEX> Message-ID: <010101cb0b1d$a24b6bc0$2101a8c0@Dan> Joanna, > The same overeager prosecutors, corrupt or incompetent forensics > experts and cops, mistaken eyewitnesses, and indifferent courts > that prosecute and oversee these cases also move thousands of > cases through the system for which there's no safety net of DNA > testing. > > If it's this difficult for an innocent person to clear his name > in cases where there's science available to deliver a definitive > answer, imagine the people now wrongly sitting in a jail cell for > drug offenses, theft, or for violent crimes for which there was > no available biological evidence-people for whom science offers > little hope for relief. That's all very true. The cultural ethos, as your sense of horror and disdain illustrates, is to fix such things once a light is shown on them. Reform can be slow, and these days it goes against the current of victim's rights, child abuse hysteria (the McMartin trial, etc.), women demanding easier conviction rules for rapists and sexual harrassers, OJ and Robert Blake verdicts, repeated stories of paroled or released prisoners killing and/or raping someone soon after release (prompting people to wonder how many times does this person have to kill someone before he's kept off the streets?), etc. In other words, at the moment there is not a great momentum to further liberalize the judicial and penal systems. Few have any confidence in the various rehabilitation strategies employed, and recidivism rates for many crimes remain high. Many leading law enforcement officials have complained that pursuing drug offenders, especially small time personal use type offenses, is a waste of police resources that would be better spent elsewhere, and at times localities have largely ignored drug crimes -- usually forced back into action by federal politicians (Clinton, eg., not just Republican demagogues). On the other hand, addictive drugs force many people into petty crimes (burglary, armed robbery, mugging, etc.) and sometimes violent versions of these, so that the people incarcerated for drugs may be serving time because that sort of physical evidence was available for trial (or to get a plea), while sufficient evidence for a conviction of a string of burlaries would be harder (just as Al Capone ended up serving time for tax evasion, not ganster dealings). The problem of innocents getting caught up in the system -- I think everyone's secret nightmare -- is real. The good news, if belated (and thus still somewhat tragic), is that at least some of these people are being exonerated, and that efforts to keep reviewing cases and methods, even long after convictions, is a healthy sign. Dan From lemmett at talk21.com Sun Jun 13 11:41:36 2010 From: lemmett at talk21.com (lemmett at talk21.com) Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2010 17:41:36 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [Buddha-l] Ethical Dilemmas are mostly easy? In-Reply-To: <010101cb0b1d$a24b6bc0$2101a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: <95276.82308.qm@web86604.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Hello, I know it was a while ago since anyone mentioned deontology or bribery but this is my two cents. I?think it makes sense to be a consequentialist about things that either way the consequences will be bad. Consequentialism almost seems like justice.?Thinking about bribery thought - surely we do not want to let ourselves be bribed just for some gain? So I think I am a consequentialist unless in the dilemma one may choose something positive. E.g. that you couldn't argue for the benefit of upsetting one person to make two happy, only upsetting one before upsetting two.? Does that make sense: *it seems to fit with my moral intuitions*? Also on the other emails I wanted to make the rather pointless observation that I think that there are less evil people [not less evil] in the world than one may want and that because so much of our morality is from things out of our control I would say that there is more equality of goodness than may be expected. Relevant to the value of different people's lives being incomparable. OK sorry if this email is especially poor: please correct me! From jehms at xs4all.nl Sun Jun 13 14:22:22 2010 From: jehms at xs4all.nl (Erik Hoogcarspel) Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2010 22:22:22 +0200 Subject: [Buddha-l] Ethical Dilemmas In-Reply-To: <00f201cb0b19$64797340$2101a8c0@Dan> References: <003501cb0875$a77f6150$2101a8c0@Dan> <002a01cb089f$262bfb70$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C110729.1050303@xs4all.nl><006401cb08b9$708864f0$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C115C12.1000707@xs4all.nl><004601cb0948$2b450530$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C1211E7.5010307@xs4all.nl><008201cb095d$499dadb0$2101a8c0@Dan><4C12ADFE.7040209@xs4all.nl> <003601cb0a12$0f931e60$2101a8c0@Dan> <006901cb0ac4$9c9920e0$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C14AB02.2060101@xs4all.nl><00a601cb0ae7$83a1e720$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C14EA79.8090308@xs4all.nl> <00f201cb0b19$64797340$2101a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: <4C153DFE.1000301@xs4all.nl> Op 13-06-10 18:56, Dan Lusthaus schreef: > Erik, > > >> Rage and fear never bring peace. >> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Gzyeo1Z1I4&NR=1 > > > read the comments that come with this one! > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFJYRRLuRSk&feature=related > > > Dan > > Ok, I see... if the others do it, we're allowed to act likewise. And we just say in our defence that they started it. erik From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Sun Jun 13 14:38:44 2010 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2010 16:38:44 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Ethical Dilemmas References: <003501cb0875$a77f6150$2101a8c0@Dan> <002a01cb089f$262bfb70$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C110729.1050303@xs4all.nl><006401cb08b9$708864f0$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C115C12.1000707@xs4all.nl><004601cb0948$2b450530$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C1211E7.5010307@xs4all.nl><008201cb095d$499dadb0$2101a8c0@Dan><4C12ADFE.7040209@xs4all.nl> <003601cb0a12$0f931e60$2101a8c0@Dan> <006901cb0ac4$9c9920e0$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C14AB02.2060101@xs4all.nl><00a601cb0ae7$83a1e720$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C14EA79.8090308@xs4all.nl><00f201cb0b19$64797340$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C153DFE.1000301@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <001001cb0b38$6b5ca960$2101a8c0@Dan> Erik, > Ok, I see... if the others do it, we're allowed to act likewise. And we > just say in our defence that they started it. That's not the lesson, and you know it. Dan From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Sun Jun 13 14:54:06 2010 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2010 16:54:06 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Ethical Dilemmas References: <003501cb0875$a77f6150$2101a8c0@Dan> <002a01cb089f$262bfb70$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C110729.1050303@xs4all.nl><006401cb08b9$708864f0$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C115C12.1000707@xs4all.nl><004601cb0948$2b450530$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C1211E7.5010307@xs4all.nl><008201cb095d$499dadb0$2101a8c0@Dan><4C12ADFE.7040209@xs4all.nl> <003601cb0a12$0f931e60$2101a8c0@Dan> <006901cb0ac4$9c9920e0$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C14AB02.2060101@xs4all.nl><00a601cb0ae7$83a1e720$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C14EA79.8090308@xs4all.nl><00f201cb0b19$64797340$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C153DFE.1000301@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <001901cb0b3a$9f6adae0$2101a8c0@Dan> Erik, Do you know what Al Quds day is? It is a national holiday. You have national holidays in Holland. This one is little different. This is genocide dressed up as a religious holiday: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quds_Day This is how it's soft-pedaled to the left-leaning well-intentioned http://alqudsday.org/ and this http://www.ezsoftech.com/ramadan/ramadan21.asp This is how it takes righteous form. Don't skip the comments (or overlook the url's location): http://www.aimislam.com/activities/events/1336-al-quds-day-2009.html That the political nature of Quds Day is not lost on the Iranians http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/09/200991875246806121.html And this (again, don't miss the comments) http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=106510§ionid=351020101 and this http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/909877.html Is there a way to call it what it is without sounding like an extremist? http://www.investigativeproject.org/1428/al-quds-day-celebrating-hate-and-supporting-terror That's the irony -- the bloodthirsty masquerade as the righteous, and those who recognize them for what they are eschewed as illiberal. Yes, Erik, let's demonize those who point out that things like this exist in our world, and let's pretend that if we spank Wilders hard enough this will all go away like a bad dream. Like Holland, Israel has no such holiday. (And for the conflators, while it is not uncommon for nations to have national holidays commemorating PAST wars, or memorials for the fallen, how many countries have holidays celebrating a war that has not happened yet? Certainly no Buddhist holiday I am familiar with. Oh, I forgot... Kalacakra...) Dan From jkirk at spro.net Sun Jun 13 15:19:31 2010 From: jkirk at spro.net (JKirkpatrick) Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2010 15:19:31 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Ethical Dilemmas are mostly easy? In-Reply-To: <95276.82308.qm@web86604.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <010101cb0b1d$a24b6bc0$2101a8c0@Dan> <95276.82308.qm@web86604.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <74BA80F7C6314D39B614314C0391B135@OPTIPLEX> Luke, this is the clearest one you've posted so far. Great--keep it going :) Joanna ____________ Hello, I know it was a while ago since anyone mentioned deontology or bribery but this is my two cents. I?think it makes sense to be a consequentialist about things that either way the consequences will be bad. Consequentialism almost seems like justice.?Thinking about bribery thought - surely we do not want to let ourselves be bribed just for some gain? So I think I am a consequentialist unless in the dilemma one may choose something positive. E.g. that you couldn't argue for the benefit of upsetting one person to make two happy, only upsetting one before upsetting two. Does that make sense: *it seems to fit with my moral intuitions*? Also on the other emails I wanted to make the rather pointless observation that I think that there are less evil people [not less evil] in the world than one may want and that because so much of our morality is from things out of our control I would say that there is more equality of goodness than may be expected. Relevant to the value of different people's lives being incomparable. OK sorry if this email is especially poor: please correct me! _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From jehms at xs4all.nl Sun Jun 13 15:24:08 2010 From: jehms at xs4all.nl (Erik Hoogcarspel) Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2010 23:24:08 +0200 Subject: [Buddha-l] Ethical Dilemmas In-Reply-To: <00d401cb0b10$d6d2c2b0$2101a8c0@Dan> References: <003501cb0875$a77f6150$2101a8c0@Dan> <002a01cb089f$262bfb70$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C110729.1050303@xs4all.nl><006401cb08b9$708864f0$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C115C12.1000707@xs4all.nl><004601cb0948$2b450530$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C1211E7.5010307@xs4all.nl><008201cb095d$499dadb0$2101a8c0@Dan><4C12ADFE.7040209@xs4all.nl> <003601cb0a12$0f931e60$2101a8c0@Dan> <006901cb0ac4$9c9920e0$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C14AB02.2060101@xs4all.nl><00a601cb0ae7$83a1e720$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C14EA79.8090308@xs4all.nl> <00d401cb0b10$d6d2c2b0$2101a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: <4C154C78.1040907@xs4all.nl> Dan, Op 13-06-10 17:55, Dan Lusthaus schreef: > > He doesn't demonize himself. He offers bad solutions to problems you still > deny exist. That's why people are voting for him and not for you. You leave > them no choice. > One: I don't deny the problems, I just put them in perspective (there's also pollution and crime). Two: the reasons people voted W are not quite so simple as your analyses suggests. > Richard has fooled you into thinking I am either right-wing, > Republican, both or worse, by his constant snipes. > Even if this were the case, I'm not interested in judging people. I try just to think about what makes people act and think the way they do. I respect your folks, but that doesn't mean I agree with you. You are desperate to deny any mistake at one side and give no credit whatsoever to the other, like you're dealing with robots. > Everyone who wants to blame Israel seems to have forgotten that the solution > everyone pretends Israel would never agree to was already offered by them at > Camp David, and it was not a fluke that the other side turned it down. > Sure Arafat screwed up, but that's no excuse for Netanyahu. erik From franz at mind2mind.net Sun Jun 13 17:19:19 2010 From: franz at mind2mind.net (Franz Metcalf) Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2010 16:19:19 -0700 Subject: [Buddha-l] Koheleth In-Reply-To: <005f01cb094f$3bfb6a70$2101a8c0@Dan> References: <005f01cb094f$3bfb6a70$2101a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: Gang, Gary, I too am amazed the book is canonical. I suppose it's the last few verses that snuck it in, but they are (at least to my eyes) transparently the interpolation of another author; Dan, Rabbi Schachter-Shalomi is onto something with the "Daoist" comment. I have, open on my desk, a copy of Rami Shapiro's _The Way of Solomon_ , a translation of and commentary on Koheleth/Ecclesiastes. Shapiro translates its first two verses this way: Emptiness! Emptiness upon emptiness! The world is fleeting of form, empty of permanence, void of surety, without certainty. Like a breath breathed once and gone, all things rise and fall. Understand emptiness, and tranquility replaces anxiety. Understand emptiness, and compassion replaces jealousy. Understand emptiness, and you will cease to excuse suffering and begin to alleviate it. Schachter-Shalomi, who was one of Shapiro's teachers, may read the book as Daoist, but in Shapiro's hands it is clearly Buddhish (sic), as we can read above. In any case, it remains emphatically Jewish, and, as Dan's etymological gloss showed, that Jewish insight into hevel is not at all far from the Buddhist insight into ??nyat?. Indeed, Koheleth would tell us the time we waste in distinguishing them is itself hevel. Franz From jkirk at spro.net Sun Jun 13 18:22:15 2010 From: jkirk at spro.net (JKirkpatrick) Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2010 18:22:15 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Koheleth In-Reply-To: References: <005f01cb094f$3bfb6a70$2101a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: <8C9E260A00AC49C4B2E198E1F851290C@OPTIPLEX> Pretty dang amazing, folks. Who'd thunk it in ye olde Bible? Joanna ____________________ Gang, Gary, I too am amazed the book is canonical. I suppose it's the last few verses that snuck it in, but they are (at least to my eyes) transparently the interpolation of another author; Dan, Rabbi Schachter-Shalomi is onto something with the "Daoist" comment. I have, open on my desk, a copy of Rami Shapiro's _The Way of Solomon_ , a translation of and commentary on Koheleth/Ecclesiastes. Shapiro translates its first two verses this way: Emptiness! Emptiness upon emptiness! The world is fleeting of form, empty of permanence, void of surety, without certainty. Like a breath breathed once and gone, all things rise and fall. Understand emptiness, and tranquility replaces anxiety. Understand emptiness, and compassion replaces jealousy. Understand emptiness, and you will cease to excuse suffering and begin to alleviate it. Schachter-Shalomi, who was one of Shapiro's teachers, may read the book as Daoist, but in Shapiro's hands it is clearly Buddhish (sic), as we can read above. In any case, it remains emphatically Jewish, and, as Dan's etymological gloss showed, that Jewish insight into hevel is not at all far from the Buddhist insight into ??nyat?. Indeed, Koheleth would tell us the time we waste in distinguishing them is itself hevel. Franz _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From drbob at comcast.net Sun Jun 13 23:07:57 2010 From: drbob at comcast.net (Bob Woolery) Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2010 22:07:57 -0700 Subject: [Buddha-l] Koheleth In-Reply-To: <8C9E260A00AC49C4B2E198E1F851290C@OPTIPLEX> References: <005f01cb094f$3bfb6a70$2101a8c0@Dan> <8C9E260A00AC49C4B2E198E1F851290C@OPTIPLEX> Message-ID: <3AEE128472BB4FD2A2D879796C74360C@garage> Morris Jastrow, Jr. published books on Koheleth _A gentle Cynic_ and on Job. Ca. 1918, but to be found I can't find my _ Cynic_ tonight for an exact quotation, but the issue of how this subversive literature came to be canonized is discussed at length. The argument runs (after several pious insertions and violations of rhyme and meter in the Hebrew were discussed) that these pious insertions in each book served to supply material attractive to minds that would form canonization councils. "Only two things are worth doing; Making love and Making distinctions." Author forgotten Bob Woolery, DC 326 deAnza dr Vallejo, CA 94589 www.stateoftheartchiro.com (707)557 5471 -----Original Message----- From: buddha-l-bounces at mailman.swcp.com [mailto:buddha-l-bounces at mailman.swcp.com] On Behalf Of JKirkpatrick Sent: Sunday, June 13, 2010 5:22 PM To: 'Buddhist discussion forum' Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] Koheleth Pretty dang amazing, folks. Who'd thunk it in ye olde Bible? Joanna ____________________ Gang, Gary, I too am amazed the book is canonical. I suppose it's the last few verses that snuck it in, but they are (at least to my eyes) transparently the interpolation of another author; Dan, Rabbi Schachter-Shalomi is onto something with the "Daoist" comment. I have, open on my desk, a copy of Rami Shapiro's _The Way of Solomon_ , a translation of and commentary on Koheleth/Ecclesiastes. Shapiro translates its first two verses this way: Emptiness! Emptiness upon emptiness! The world is fleeting of form, empty of permanence, void of surety, without certainty. Like a breath breathed once and gone, all things rise and fall. Understand emptiness, and tranquility replaces anxiety. Understand emptiness, and compassion replaces jealousy. Understand emptiness, and you will cease to excuse suffering and begin to alleviate it. Schachter-Shalomi, who was one of Shapiro's teachers, may read the book as Daoist, but in Shapiro's hands it is clearly Buddhish (sic), as we can read above. In any case, it remains emphatically Jewish, and, as Dan's etymological gloss showed, that Jewish insight into hevel is not at all far from the Buddhist insight into ??nyat?. Indeed, Koheleth would tell us the time we waste in distinguishing them is itself hevel. Franz _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From drbob at comcast.net Sun Jun 13 23:16:44 2010 From: drbob at comcast.net (Bob Woolery) Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2010 22:16:44 -0700 Subject: [Buddha-l] Koheleth In-Reply-To: <8C9E260A00AC49C4B2E198E1F851290C@OPTIPLEX> References: <005f01cb094f$3bfb6a70$2101a8c0@Dan> <8C9E260A00AC49C4B2E198E1F851290C@OPTIPLEX> Message-ID: <2280E5603B2740D29F7D456CC1A19971@garage> Found it online: from p. 11 If we can imagine Homer or Virgil published with the scholia of later com- mentators put into the body of the text, or the Quatrains of Omar Khayyam with the comments and pious reflections of orthodox Mohamme- dans added, as though forming part of the original, in order to counteract unorthodox senti- ments about "wine, woman and song," one will be able to form an impression of the text as finally fixed and as it now stands in our Bible. At the same time, while recognizing what commentators in the interests of orthodoxy have made of Kohe- leth, we must not fall into the error of charging such commentators with any intention to practice a wilful deceit. We must always bear in mind that every production in an age which had not as yet developed the sense of individual authorship was subject to constant modification. Such modifica- tion was in part an index of the interest that a new production had aroused. An ancient book never received a final form, so long as its message retained its vitality. The modifications which a piece of writing underwent might be made by those who agreed with it, or by those who were not in sympathy with it. The manipulators of Koheleth were opposed to its tone and thought, but they were not conscious of any wrong in furnishing through additions their answers to Koheleth's arguments and conclusions. Bob Woolery, DC 326 deAnza dr Vallejo, CA 94589 www.stateoftheartchiro.com (707)557 5471 -----Original Message----- From: buddha-l-bounces at mailman.swcp.com [mailto:buddha-l-bounces at mailman.swcp.com] On Behalf Of JKirkpatrick Sent: Sunday, June 13, 2010 5:22 PM To: 'Buddhist discussion forum' Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] Koheleth Pretty dang amazing, folks. Who'd thunk it in ye olde Bible? Joanna ____________________ Gang, Gary, I too am amazed the book is canonical. I suppose it's the last few verses that snuck it in, but they are (at least to my eyes) transparently the interpolation of another author; Dan, Rabbi Schachter-Shalomi is onto something with the "Daoist" comment. I have, open on my desk, a copy of Rami Shapiro's _The Way of Solomon_ , a translation of and commentary on Koheleth/Ecclesiastes. Shapiro translates its first two verses this way: Emptiness! Emptiness upon emptiness! The world is fleeting of form, empty of permanence, void of surety, without certainty. Like a breath breathed once and gone, all things rise and fall. Understand emptiness, and tranquility replaces anxiety. Understand emptiness, and compassion replaces jealousy. Understand emptiness, and you will cease to excuse suffering and begin to alleviate it. Schachter-Shalomi, who was one of Shapiro's teachers, may read the book as Daoist, but in Shapiro's hands it is clearly Buddhish (sic), as we can read above. In any case, it remains emphatically Jewish, and, as Dan's etymological gloss showed, that Jewish insight into hevel is not at all far from the Buddhist insight into ??nyat?. Indeed, Koheleth would tell us the time we waste in distinguishing them is itself hevel. Franz _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From drbob at comcast.net Mon Jun 14 00:08:34 2010 From: drbob at comcast.net (Bob Woolery) Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2010 23:08:34 -0700 Subject: [Buddha-l] Koheleth In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <88A7E890E80A4B17BC8EA4FD65A41147@garage> The text of Jastrow's translation, with multiply colliding footnotes starts at p. 200 of http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&docId=6919858 Bob Woolery, DC 326 deAnza dr Vallejo, CA 94589 www.stateoftheartchiro.com (707)557 5471 -----Original Message----- From: buddha-l-bounces at mailman.swcp.com [mailto:buddha-l-bounces at mailman.swcp.com] On Behalf Of Gary Gach Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 2:36 AM To: buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com Subject: [Buddha-l] Koheleth You warm the cockles of my heart, Franz, by your reference I've been reading this book in Hebrew for a decade now & am amazed it even "made the cut" for inclusion ... [you might have fun considering the word translated as vanity really means more like a vapor (no thing) ... ] Gary http://www.patheos.com/Religion-Portals/Buddhist.html (thru the end of the month, then onwards) _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From smith at wheelwrightassoc.com Mon Jun 14 00:30:39 2010 From: smith at wheelwrightassoc.com (Timothy Smith) Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2010 23:30:39 -0700 Subject: [Buddha-l] Koheleth In-Reply-To: <2280E5603B2740D29F7D456CC1A19971@garage> References: <005f01cb094f$3bfb6a70$2101a8c0@Dan> <8C9E260A00AC49C4B2E198E1F851290C@OPTIPLEX> <2280E5603B2740D29F7D456CC1A19971@garage> Message-ID: As the co-author of "The Limerick Homer", a not so rigorous transliteration of both great books (I/O) that is alleged to be the longest limerick in the cosmos, I certainly think Bob is right in his assertion that nothing ever receives its final form. Its vitality, we assure along with its impermanence. Gr?cias, El Timo de Irland?s. Timothy Smith 831.624.8138 www.wheelwrightassoc.com On Jun 13, 2010, at 10:16 PM, Bob Woolery wrote: > Found it online: from p. 11 > > If we can imagine Homer > or Virgil published with the scholia of later com- > mentators put into the body of the text, or the > Quatrains of Omar Khayyam with the comments > and pious reflections of orthodox Mohamme- > dans added, as though forming part of the > original, in order to counteract unorthodox senti- > ments about "wine, woman and song," one will be > able to form an impression of the text as finally > fixed and as it now stands in our Bible. At the > same time, while recognizing what commentators > in the interests of orthodoxy have made of Kohe- > leth, we must not fall into the error of charging > such commentators with any intention to practice > a wilful deceit. We must always bear in mind that > every production in an age which had not as yet > developed the sense of individual authorship was > subject to constant modification. Such modifica- > tion was in part an index of the interest that a > new production had aroused. An ancient book > never received a final form, so long as its message > retained its vitality. The modifications which a > piece of writing underwent might be made by > those who agreed with it, or by those who were > not in sympathy with it. The manipulators of > Koheleth were opposed to its tone and thought, > but they were not conscious of any wrong in > furnishing through additions their answers to > Koheleth's arguments and conclusions. > > Bob Woolery, DC > 326 deAnza dr > Vallejo, CA 94589 > www.stateoftheartchiro.com > (707)557 5471 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: buddha-l-bounces at mailman.swcp.com > [mailto:buddha-l-bounces at mailman.swcp.com] On Behalf Of JKirkpatrick > Sent: Sunday, June 13, 2010 5:22 PM > To: 'Buddhist discussion forum' > Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] Koheleth > > Pretty dang amazing, folks. Who'd thunk it in ye olde Bible? > Joanna > > ____________________ > > Gang, > > Gary, I too am amazed the book is canonical. I suppose it's the > last few verses that snuck it in, but they are (at least to my > eyes) transparently the interpolation of another author; > > Dan, Rabbi Schachter-Shalomi is onto something with the "Daoist" > > comment. I have, open on my desk, a copy of Rami Shapiro's _The > Way of Solomon_ , a translation of > and commentary on Koheleth/Ecclesiastes. Shapiro translates its > first two verses this > way: > > Emptiness! Emptiness upon emptiness! > The world is fleeting of form, > empty of permanence, > void of surety, > without certainty. > Like a breath breathed once and gone, > all things rise and fall. > Understand emptiness, and tranquility replaces anxiety. > Understand emptiness, and compassion replaces jealousy. > Understand emptiness, and you will cease to excuse > suffering and begin to alleviate it. > > Schachter-Shalomi, who was one of Shapiro's teachers, may read > the book as Daoist, but in Shapiro's hands it is clearly Buddhish > (sic), as we can read above. In any case, it remains emphatically > Jewish, and, as Dan's etymological gloss showed, that Jewish > insight into hevel is not at all far from the Buddhist insight > into ??nyat?. > Indeed, Koheleth would tell us the time we waste in > distinguishing them is itself hevel. > > Franz > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l > > > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l > > > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From gouin.me at gmail.com Mon Jun 14 00:54:15 2010 From: gouin.me at gmail.com (Margaret Gouin) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 08:54:15 +0200 Subject: [Buddha-l] Koheleth In-Reply-To: <3AEE128472BB4FD2A2D879796C74360C@garage> References: <005f01cb094f$3bfb6a70$2101a8c0@Dan> <8C9E260A00AC49C4B2E198E1F851290C@OPTIPLEX> <3AEE128472BB4FD2A2D879796C74360C@garage> Message-ID: 2010/6/14 Bob Woolery > Morris Jastrow, Jr. published books on Koheleth _A gentle Cynic_ and on > Job. Ca. 1918, but to be found I can't find my _ Cynic_ tonight for an > exact quotation, but the issue of how this subversive literature came to be > canonized is discussed at length. > > 'A Gentle Cynic' is downloadable at http://www.archive.org/details/gentlecynicbeing008439mbp Margaret From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Mon Jun 14 01:59:30 2010 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 03:59:30 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Koheleth References: <005f01cb094f$3bfb6a70$2101a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: <004101cb0b97$945b74e0$2101a8c0@Dan> Hi Franz, > Dan, Rabbi Schachter-Shalomi is onto something with the "Daoist" > comment. I agree. If you look at the beginning, just past the part you've presented, All streams flow into the sea, But the sea is not full. To the place whither the streams flow, From bogus@does.not.exist.com Fri Jun 4 12:07:27 2010 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2010 18:07:27 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: (Jastrow's tr.) This has major resonances with Laozi (various chapters) and Zhuangzi ch. 17. Koheleth, as Jastrow comments, uses the phrase "under the sun" many times, and sometimes "under heaven" to mean "on this earth, in this world". The common classical Chinese expression for "in this world" is "Under Heaven" (tianxia ??????). Jastow speculates (p. 202, n.3, 203 n.10a) that the Hebrew "Under Heaven" [???????????? ?????????????????????? tachat ha-shamayim] may be typo for "under the sun" [???????????? ???????????????????? tachat ha-shemesh] (mistaking shamyim ?????????????????? for shemesh ???????????????? -- i.e., mistaking the last letter shin ???? for the last two letters of shamyim, yod+final-mem ?????? -- I imagine in some ancient scripts there may have been a similarity between ???? and ?????? , but I don't agree in this case with Jastrow that "Under Heaven" should be taken here as a typo. The affinity with the Chinese expression alone gives it some credence as a plausible expression. Jastrow was a great scholar -- for more on "sun/shemesh" confusion pointed out by Jastrow, this time by the Babylonians, see http://www.catastrophism.com/texts/sun-and-saturn/ Note also on p. 203, n.9, he comments: "The Hebrew word is 'heart,' but the heart was supposed by the Hebrews (and other peoples of antiquity) to be the seat of the 'intellect.' Hence, wherever the word 'heart' occurs in the O.T., the mind is meant." One of those "other peoples of antiquity" were the Chinese who used the word xin ??? [lit. a picture of a heart with the arteries protruding from the top] -- one can quickly gauge the orientation of a translator by whether s/he uses "heart" or "mind" to translate xin. Since the Chinese used xin for citta, in Buddhist contexts it usually gets translated mind. These are just the first few lines. Shapiro's "loose" translation also has a very Daoist flavor: > Emptiness! Emptiness upon emptiness! > The world is fleeting of form, > empty of permanence, > void of surety, > without certainty. > Like a breath breathed once and gone, > all things rise and fall. > Understand emptiness, and tranquility replaces anxiety. > Understand emptiness, and compassion replaces jealousy. > Understand emptiness, and you will cease to excuse > suffering and begin to alleviate it. Laozi ch. 16, with supplements from chs. 14, 19, 21, 23, etc. Throughout, Koheleth's sense of cycles, pendulum shifts, etc. -- very yin-yang. Dan From rhayes at unm.edu Mon Jun 14 10:42:27 2010 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 10:42:27 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] One man's meat... Message-ID: It has been a while since we talked about Buddhist attitudes to diet. My favourite radio program, Ideas on CBC Radio One, has produced an interesting series of podcasts on factory farming, the treatment of animals and arguments for an against vegetarianism. None of it is explicitly Buddhist, but the issues should be of interest to Buddhists (and farmers and environmentalists). The first installment can be heard at http://podcast.cbc.ca/mp3/ideas_20100607_32369.mp3 For those of you who are interested in Darwin, Ideas produced an informative four-part series on the life and career of Charles Darwin. If you are already an expert, you may not learn much, but as a fellow who got a C+ in my only biology class some forty-five years ago, I learned quite a it. The programs can be heard at: http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/features/darwin/index.html In the interest of full disclosure, I should mention that CBC radio is Canadian, and I am a Canadian citizen. Richard Hayes From rhayes at unm.edu Mon Jun 14 11:34:58 2010 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 11:34:58 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Accuracy Message-ID: <2A2922A7-2B68-4099-989B-509F4DCBF194@unm.edu> Dan Lusthaus recently said (yet again) that I admire Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Hugo Ch?vez and others who trash America. He also said not long ago, when I questioned the accuracy of his allegation, that anyone interested in verifying his accusation could search the buddha-l archives. Actually, that is not quite true; there is no easy way to search the buddha-l archives. There is a rather difficult way of doing so, which I will describe in another message. Anyway, knowing how much Dan treasures accuracy and hates character assassination, innuendo and carelessly formed allegations, I decided to search back through the archives and find all the messages in which I cheered on the various anti-American tyrants. Here, for everyone's conveniences are all the passages in which I mentioned those people whom I allegedly admire. I'll leave it to those who have the patience to read through them whether this is another case in which, as Dan's favourite Pentecostal Christian, Bob Dylan, once observed: "What looks large from a distance Close up ain't never that big." January 5, 2006 \begin{quote} Hell, if Ahmadinejad can convince himself and his followers that German concentration camps were a hoax, and if George W. Bush can convince himself that the theory of evolution and global warming are hoaxes, and if Pat Robertson can convince himself and his millions of viewers that Ariel Sharon's stroke is punishment from God for letting God's land be divided, I suppose it is possible that the day is coming when we may have to think for ourselves or live with the potentially unpleasant consequences of being duped by our governmental and cultural leaders, and even by newspapers and Curt Stienmetz. \end{quote} On September 21, 2006, in response to Curt Steinmetz's claim that "Buddhism has never promoted radical, much less revolutionary, changes in society": \begin{quotation} In fact, it's almost axiomatic that a Western Buddhist will have a leftist orientation. (I imagine more than a few of us cheered wildly as we listened to the speeches by Ahmadinejad and Chavez in the UN. We love it when people speak truth to power.) What is one to make of that? That Western Buddhists aren't Buddhist after all? That Western Buddhists are somehow unique in the history of Buddhism for their penchant for reinventing Buddhism to suit their own psychological needs? On another list, Dan Lusthaus speaks of how many Westerners are drawn to Buddhism because of a "carefully crafted" image of Buddhism as non-violent. I think that's an example of bovine feces. It's not that crafty Buddhists made up an image of Buddhism to draw gullible Westerners in. Rather, I think, it's that Westerners who were sick of wars turned to a contemplative tradition and thought of that tradition as they wished to think about it. That was certainly true of a lot of Buddhists I knew back in the 1960s and 1970s. Many of us were pacifists and wanted our Buddhism to be pacifistic, so we made it that way. Nothing wrong with that. Indeed, there is a name for any tradition that isn't constantly reinventing itself to meet new conditions; extinct. \end{quotation} September 21, 2006 \begin{quote} Ahmadinejad's critique of the USA and Israel was right on target. His reference to the coming of the Mahdi left me cold. Chavez's critique of the USA was brilliant. His reference to Bush as el diablo was stupid and regrettable. Not everything said by someone who says some worthwhile things is worthwhile. Hence the need for discernment. \end{quote} September 22, 2006, in response to Dan's observation that Ahmadinejad is anti-Semitic: \begin{quote} Yes, he is anti-Semitic. No one would deny that. But you glide past my point that it is not that particular predicate that wins my admiration. What I admire is his courage to come to the USA and to offer an accurate portrayal of the Bush administration. One need not be 100% admirable to be admirable. I admire some of what Ahmadinejad says, and cringe at the rest. As a Buddhist, I follow the principle: Look at the saying, not the speaker. \end{quote} October 18, 2007, with reference to the Ahmadinejad's treatment at Columbia University and on the program "60 Minutes": \begin{quote} I have never seen any situation improved by rudeness and hostility. If Ahmadinejad is aggressive (a claim for which I see no evidence whatsoever, but I'll let that pass), then surely his character is not going to be improved by being treated rudely. Someone I once heard of said that hatred is never overcome by hatred; it is overcome only by love. Suffice it so say that Ahmadinejad's reception at Columbia University and by the boorish twit who interviewed him on the "60 Minutes" television tabloid was hardly what one would hope for if one took Buddhist principles at all seriously. \end{quote} October 18, 2007 as a response to someone's quoting Saddam Hussein as saying "I call on you not to hate because hate does not leave space for a person to be fair and it makes you blind and closes all doors of thinking." \begin{quote} Again, the man speaks wisely. It just goes to show how much wisdom we fail to attribute to a person when we choose to see only the person's villainy. What bothers me most about the way discourse has gone in America lately is that some profoundly important and insightful statements have been made in this country by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and by Hugo Chavez, but they have been completely ignored because these same people also said some offensive things. This is even more the case with Osama bin Laden. The man makes some very good criticisms of American policy, but because he has been seen as a villain, we collectively turn a deaf ear to him. We are become a nation built upon the fallacy of ad hominem arguments. \end{quote} Richard Hayes Department of Philosophy MSC03 2140 1 University of New Mexico Albuquerque, NM 87131-0001 From drbob at comcast.net Mon Jun 14 11:52:08 2010 From: drbob at comcast.net (Bob Woolery) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 10:52:08 -0700 Subject: [Buddha-l] Accuracy In-Reply-To: <2A2922A7-2B68-4099-989B-509F4DCBF194@unm.edu> References: <2A2922A7-2B68-4099-989B-509F4DCBF194@unm.edu> Message-ID: I suggest that if I cannot find _something_ admirable in any person, that is evidence that I am not well acquainted with the person's qualities, or that I lack discernment. Bob Woolery, DC 326 deAnza dr Vallejo, CA 94589 www.stateoftheartchiro.com (707)557 5471 -----Original Message----- From: buddha-l-bounces at mailman.swcp.com [mailto:buddha-l-bounces at mailman.swcp.com] On Behalf Of Richard Hayes Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 10:35 AM To: Buddhist discussion forum Subject: [Buddha-l] Accuracy Dan Lusthaus recently said (yet again) that I admire Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Hugo Ch?vez and others who trash America. He also said not long ago, when I questioned the accuracy of his allegation, that anyone interested in verifying his accusation could search the buddha-l archives. Actually, that is not quite true; there is no easy way to search the buddha-l archives. There is a rather difficult way of doing so, which I will describe in another message. Anyway, knowing how much Dan treasures accuracy and hates character assassination, innuendo and carelessly formed allegations, I decided to search back through the archives and find all the messages in which I cheered on the various anti-American tyrants. Here, for everyone's conveniences are all the passages in which I mentioned those people whom I allegedly admire. I'll leave it to those who have the patience to read through them whether this is another case in which, as Dan's favourite Pentecostal Christian, Bob Dylan, once observed: "What looks large from a distance Close up ain't never that big." January 5, 2006 \begin{quote} Hell, if Ahmadinejad can convince himself and his followers that German concentration camps were a hoax, and if George W. Bush can convince himself that the theory of evolution and global warming are hoaxes, and if Pat Robertson can convince himself and his millions of viewers that Ariel Sharon's stroke is punishment from God for letting God's land be divided, I suppose it is possible that the day is coming when we may have to think for ourselves or live with the potentially unpleasant consequences of being duped by our governmental and cultural leaders, and even by newspapers and Curt Stienmetz. \end{quote} On September 21, 2006, in response to Curt Steinmetz's claim that "Buddhism has never promoted radical, much less revolutionary, changes in society": \begin{quotation} In fact, it's almost axiomatic that a Western Buddhist will have a leftist orientation. (I imagine more than a few of us cheered wildly as we listened to the speeches by Ahmadinejad and Chavez in the UN. We love it when people speak truth to power.) What is one to make of that? That Western Buddhists aren't Buddhist after all? That Western Buddhists are somehow unique in the history of Buddhism for their penchant for reinventing Buddhism to suit their own psychological needs? On another list, Dan Lusthaus speaks of how many Westerners are drawn to Buddhism because of a "carefully crafted" image of Buddhism as non-violent. I think that's an example of bovine feces. It's not that crafty Buddhists made up an image of Buddhism to draw gullible Westerners in. Rather, I think, it's that Westerners who were sick of wars turned to a contemplative tradition and thought of that tradition as they wished to think about it. That was certainly true of a lot of Buddhists I knew back in the 1960s and 1970s. Many of us were pacifists and wanted our Buddhism to be pacifistic, so we made it that way. Nothing wrong with that. Indeed, there is a name for any tradition that isn't constantly reinventing itself to meet new conditions; extinct. \end{quotation} September 21, 2006 \begin{quote} Ahmadinejad's critique of the USA and Israel was right on target. His reference to the coming of the Mahdi left me cold. Chavez's critique of the USA was brilliant. His reference to Bush as el diablo was stupid and regrettable. Not everything said by someone who says some worthwhile things is worthwhile. Hence the need for discernment. \end{quote} September 22, 2006, in response to Dan's observation that Ahmadinejad is anti-Semitic: \begin{quote} Yes, he is anti-Semitic. No one would deny that. But you glide past my point that it is not that particular predicate that wins my admiration. What I admire is his courage to come to the USA and to offer an accurate portrayal of the Bush administration. One need not be 100% admirable to be admirable. I admire some of what Ahmadinejad says, and cringe at the rest. As a Buddhist, I follow the principle: Look at the saying, not the speaker. \end{quote} October 18, 2007, with reference to the Ahmadinejad's treatment at Columbia University and on the program "60 Minutes": \begin{quote} I have never seen any situation improved by rudeness and hostility. If Ahmadinejad is aggressive (a claim for which I see no evidence whatsoever, but I'll let that pass), then surely his character is not going to be improved by being treated rudely. Someone I once heard of said that hatred is never overcome by hatred; it is overcome only by love. Suffice it so say that Ahmadinejad's reception at Columbia University and by the boorish twit who interviewed him on the "60 Minutes" television tabloid was hardly what one would hope for if one took Buddhist principles at all seriously. \end{quote} October 18, 2007 as a response to someone's quoting Saddam Hussein as saying "I call on you not to hate because hate does not leave space for a person to be fair and it makes you blind and closes all doors of thinking." \begin{quote} Again, the man speaks wisely. It just goes to show how much wisdom we fail to attribute to a person when we choose to see only the person's villainy. What bothers me most about the way discourse has gone in America lately is that some profoundly important and insightful statements have been made in this country by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and by Hugo Chavez, but they have been completely ignored because these same people also said some offensive things. This is even more the case with Osama bin Laden. The man makes some very good criticisms of American policy, but because he has been seen as a villain, we collectively turn a deaf ear to him. We are become a nation built upon the fallacy of ad hominem arguments. \end{quote} Richard Hayes Department of Philosophy MSC03 2140 1 University of New Mexico Albuquerque, NM 87131-0001 _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From rhayes at unm.edu Mon Jun 14 12:02:34 2010 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 12:02:34 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Koheleth In-Reply-To: References: <005f01cb094f$3bfb6a70$2101a8c0@Dan> <8C9E260A00AC49C4B2E198E1F851290C@OPTIPLEX> <3AEE128472BB4FD2A2D879796C74360C@garage> Message-ID: <641357C0-A504-4546-A9AB-8D526056ABE7@unm.edu> The recent discussion of Koheleth/Ecclesiastes has been interesting. It has brought back warm memories of my maternal grandfather, who was a 32nd-degree Mason (and, being a farmer from Kansas, a Republican). He loved to quote passages from Ecclesiastes. It was the only book of the Bible I ever heard him quote or refer to. When he died, a local funeral parlor in Albuquerque put together a standard funeral. The funeral director asked my mother which Bible passages to cite during the funeral. At first, my mother said nothing from the Bible would be suitable, because my grandfather was not especially religious. Then she recalled his love of the book of Ecclesiastes and chose a couple of passages that she knew he liked to quote. The funeral director was reluctant to read the passages, because they did not seem uplifting enough. My mother stood her ground, and the funeral director gritted his teeth and complied with her wishes. Months later my mother was going through some papers and learned that her father had left behind instructions that when he died he would like to have two passages from Ecclesiastes read at his funeral. They were, or of course, the very ones she had chosen. Pretty supernatural, eh? Richard From rhayes at unm.edu Mon Jun 14 12:10:08 2010 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 12:10:08 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Accuracy In-Reply-To: References: <2A2922A7-2B68-4099-989B-509F4DCBF194@unm.edu> Message-ID: On Jun 14, 2010, at 11:52 AM, Bob Woolery wrote: > I suggest that if I cannot find _something_ admirable in any person, that is > evidence that I am not well acquainted with the person's qualities, or that > I lack discernment. That describes well how my parents taught me to think. (Maybe we're brothers, Bob!) Failure to see something good in everyone was just that: failure. Similarly with the failure to notice that everyone has weaknesses and makes some mistakes. But I have been assured by well-meaning friends that I suffer from a kind of moral blindness that hampers my ability to see things as pure black and white. Br'er Richard From jmp at peavler.org Mon Jun 14 12:14:07 2010 From: jmp at peavler.org (Jim Peavler) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 12:14:07 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Ethical Dilemmas and Death Penalties and malicious zombies for governor. In-Reply-To: <3A70B115-B948-4BC4-B99A-23A478C1BE8C@unm.edu> References: <002a01cb089f$262bfb70$2101a8c0@Dan><250367.3520.qm@web86601.mail.ird.yahoo.com><004101cb0942$93129070$2101a8c0@Dan><004001cb09a8$753563a0$2101a8c0@Dan><004301cb0a16$ea764990$2101a8c0@Dan><007201cb0ac6$eec373a0$2101a8c0@Dan> <00b901cb0af8$672ab390$2101a8c0@Dan> <3A70B115-B948-4BC4-B99A-23A478C1BE8C@unm.edu> Message-ID: <0E082306-2F1F-4DA1-AAF5-BBC6081D1DCB@peavler.org> There will be a death penalty as soon as our new female governor takes over. They both favor the death penalty, deporting all aliens, having your birth certificate tattooed on your forehead (Armageddon is here and it starts in New Mexico and Arizona!) Or perhaps I am just paranoid since none of their TV commercials allow me to tell them apart. They may both may be tea-baggerss for all I can tell. Richard, can you help me? On Jun 13, 2010, at 8:02 AM, Richard Hayes wrote: > True, only 41 of the 50 states have the death penalty. And only 41 of > those 41 states have used it in the past 25 years. And the US federal > government has the death penalty. Other than that, the USA has > eliminated the practice. > > Richard of New Mexico (where there is no death penalty, except for > systemic poverty) Jim Peavler jmp at peavler.org "Be good. Be just." John Adams From jmp at peavler.org Mon Jun 14 12:23:25 2010 From: jmp at peavler.org (Jim Peavler) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 12:23:25 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Accuracy In-Reply-To: <2A2922A7-2B68-4099-989B-509F4DCBF194@unm.edu> References: <2A2922A7-2B68-4099-989B-509F4DCBF194@unm.edu> Message-ID: On Jun 14, 2010, at 11:34 AM, Richard Hayes wrote: > Dan's favourite Pentecostal Christian, Bob Dylan, once observed: > "What looks large from a distance > Close up ain't never that big." Jeez. I enjoyed reading that stuff. What if Hayes is a subversive propagandist? Jim Peavler jmp at peavler.org "Be good. Be just." John Adams From jmp at peavler.org Mon Jun 14 12:31:39 2010 From: jmp at peavler.org (Jim Peavler) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 12:31:39 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Accuracy In-Reply-To: References: <2A2922A7-2B68-4099-989B-509F4DCBF194@unm.edu> Message-ID: <143E0289-AA1C-445E-B6D4-77D63B8B33E7@peavler.org> On Jun 14, 2010, at 12:10 PM, Richard Hayes wrote: > On Jun 14, 2010, at 11:52 AM, Bob Woolery wrote: > >> I suggest that if I cannot find _something_ admirable in any person, that is >> evidence that I am not well acquainted with the person's qualities, or that >> I lack discernment. Aha! This might help me explain to myself why I worked with public relations for the Chicago Black Panthers (pretty bad failure, eh?. I seldom used the experience on my resume.) I liked some things about the panthers --like the thousands of poor kids that they provided breakfasts to before school. They would have otherwise gone to school hungry. I will admit that some of those fellows were scary, but I was truly fond of some of them too. Jim Peavler jmp at peavler.org "Be good. Be just." John Adams From rhayes at unm.edu Mon Jun 14 12:40:33 2010 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 12:40:33 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Ethical Dilemmas and Death Penalties and malicious zombies for governor. In-Reply-To: <0E082306-2F1F-4DA1-AAF5-BBC6081D1DCB@peavler.org> References: <002a01cb089f$262bfb70$2101a8c0@Dan><250367.3520.qm@web86601.mail.ird.yahoo.com><004101cb0942$93129070$2101a8c0@Dan><004001cb09a8$753563a0$2101a8c0@Dan><004301cb0a16$ea764990$2101a8c0@Dan><007201cb0ac6$eec373a0$2101a8c0@Dan> <00b901cb0af8$672ab390$2101a8c0@Dan> <3A70B115-B948-4BC4-B99A-23A478C1BE8C@unm.edu> <0E082306-2F1F-4DA1-AAF5-BBC6081D1DCB@peavler.org> Message-ID: <1DD529B5-CA82-4263-84A0-4164DDB6FA3B@unm.edu> On Jun 14, 2010, at 12:14 PM, Jim Peavler wrote: > There will be a death penalty as soon as our new female governor takes over. They both favor the death penalty, deporting all aliens, having your birth certificate tattooed on your forehead (Armageddon is here and it starts in New Mexico and Arizona!) Or perhaps I am just paranoid since none of their TV commercials allow me to tell them apart. They may both may be tea-baggerss for all I can tell. > > Richard, can you help me? How is the project to recreate a living Seismosaur from DNA coming along? Will it happen in time to step on these two ladies before one of them becomes governor of New Mexico? Seeing the vicious attack ads that the indistinguishable Democratic and the Republican candidates for governor are putting on the television already, I can only say I hope they both lose. The only difference I can see between them is that one of them has a hispanic surname and will therefore win. I'll write to you from Canada. There's an underground railway that goes there, I hear. The problem is, Canada may not be far enough away from New Mexico to do any good. I'm fairly confident no place between here and Mars is far enough away from New Mexico. your discouraged brother-in-chile, Ricardo From smith at wheelwrightassoc.com Mon Jun 14 12:51:49 2010 From: smith at wheelwrightassoc.com (Timothy Smith) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 11:51:49 -0700 Subject: [Buddha-l] Ethical Dilemmas and Death Penalties and malicious zombies for governor. In-Reply-To: <1DD529B5-CA82-4263-84A0-4164DDB6FA3B@unm.edu> References: <002a01cb089f$262bfb70$2101a8c0@Dan><250367.3520.qm@web86601.mail.ird.yahoo.com><004101cb0942$93129070$2101a8c0@Dan><004001cb09a8$753563a0$2101a8c0@Dan><004301cb0a16$ea764990$2101a8c0@Dan><007201cb0ac6$eec373a0$2101a8c0@Dan> <00b901cb0af8$672ab390$2101a8c0@Dan> <3A70B115-B948-4BC4-B99A-23A478C1BE8C@unm.edu> <0E082306-2F1F-4DA1-AAF5-BBC6081D1DCB@peavler.org> <1DD529B5-CA82-4263-84A0-4164DDB6FA3B@unm.edu> Message-ID: <292FC2C6-398B-49E9-B37C-3AE1EECB1B32@wheelwrightassoc.com> Poor New Mexico, so close to Texas and so far from heaven. Timothy Smith 831.624.8138 www.wheelwrightassoc.com On Jun 14, 2010, at 11:40 AM, Richard Hayes wrote: > On Jun 14, 2010, at 12:14 PM, Jim Peavler wrote: > >> There will be a death penalty as soon as our new female governor takes over. They both favor the death penalty, deporting all aliens, having your birth certificate tattooed on your forehead (Armageddon is here and it starts in New Mexico and Arizona!) Or perhaps I am just paranoid since none of their TV commercials allow me to tell them apart. They may both may be tea-baggerss for all I can tell. >> >> Richard, can you help me? > > How is the project to recreate a living Seismosaur from DNA coming along? Will it happen in time to step on these two ladies before one of them becomes governor of New Mexico? > > Seeing the vicious attack ads that the indistinguishable Democratic and the Republican candidates for governor are putting on the television already, I can only say I hope they both lose. The only difference I can see between them is that one of them has a hispanic surname and will therefore win. > > I'll write to you from Canada. There's an underground railway that goes there, I hear. The problem is, Canada may not be far enough away from New Mexico to do any good. I'm fairly confident no place between here and Mars is far enough away from New Mexico. > > your discouraged brother-in-chile, > Ricardo > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l > From jmp at peavler.org Mon Jun 14 13:17:20 2010 From: jmp at peavler.org (Jim Peavler) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 13:17:20 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Ethical Dilemmas and Death Penalties and malicious zombies for governor. In-Reply-To: <292FC2C6-398B-49E9-B37C-3AE1EECB1B32@wheelwrightassoc.com> References: <002a01cb089f$262bfb70$2101a8c0@Dan><250367.3520.qm@web86601.mail.ird.yahoo.com><004101cb0942$93129070$2101a8c0@Dan><004001cb09a8$753563a0$2101a8c0@Dan><004301cb0a16$ea764990$2101a8c0@Dan><007201cb0ac6$eec373a0$2101a8c0@Dan> <00b901cb0af8$672ab390$2101a8c0@Dan> <3A70B115-B948-4BC4-B99A-23A478C1BE8C@unm.edu> <0E082306-2F1F-4DA1-AAF5-BBC6081D1DCB@peavler.org> <1DD529B5-CA82-4263-84A0-4164DDB6FA3B@unm.edu> <292FC2C6-398B-49E9-B37C-3AE1EECB1B32@wheelwrightassoc.com> Message-ID: We have a hole in the earth out here near Chaco Canyon that goes all the way through the earth to Tibet. I think maybe Hayes and I can bundle our selves up, gird out loins, and head off to the opposite side of the planet. On Jun 14, 2010, at 12:51 PM, Timothy Smith wrote: > Poor New Mexico, so close to Texas and so far from heaven. > > > Timothy Smith > 831.624.8138 > www.wheelwrightassoc.com > > > > > > > On Jun 14, 2010, at 11:40 AM, Richard Hayes wrote: > >> On Jun 14, 2010, at 12:14 PM, Jim Peavler wrote: >> >>> There will be a death penalty as soon as our new female governor takes over. They both favor the death penalty, deporting all aliens, having your birth certificate tattooed on your forehead (Armageddon is here and it starts in New Mexico and Arizona!) Or perhaps I am just paranoid since none of their TV commercials allow me to tell them apart. They may both may be tea-baggerss for all I can tell. >>> >>> Richard, can you help me? >> >> How is the project to recreate a living Seismosaur from DNA coming along? Will it happen in time to step on these two ladies before one of them becomes governor of New Mexico? >> >> Seeing the vicious attack ads that the indistinguishable Democratic and the Republican candidates for governor are putting on the television already, I can only say I hope they both lose. The only difference I can see between them is that one of them has a hispanic surname and will therefore win. >> >> I'll write to you from Canada. There's an underground railway that goes there, I hear. The problem is, Canada may not be far enough away from New Mexico to do any good. I'm fairly confident no place between here and Mars is far enough away from New Mexico. >> >> your discouraged brother-in-chile, >> Ricardo >> _______________________________________________ >> buddha-l mailing list >> buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com >> http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l >> > > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l Jim Peavler jmp at peavler.org "Be good. Be just." John Adams From smith at wheelwrightassoc.com Mon Jun 14 14:14:06 2010 From: smith at wheelwrightassoc.com (Timothy Smith) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 13:14:06 -0700 Subject: [Buddha-l] Ethical Dilemmas and Death Penalties and malicious zombies for governor. In-Reply-To: References: <002a01cb089f$262bfb70$2101a8c0@Dan><250367.3520.qm@web86601.mail.ird.yahoo.com><004101cb0942$93129070$2101a8c0@Dan><004001cb09a8$753563a0$2101a8c0@Dan><004301cb0a16$ea764990$2101a8c0@Dan><007201cb0ac6$eec373a0$2101a8c0@Dan> <00b901cb0af8$672ab390$2101a8c0@Dan> <3A70B115-B948-4BC4-B99A-23A478C1BE8C@unm.edu> <0E082306-2F1F-4DA1-AAF5-BBC6081D1DCB@peavler.org> <1DD529B5-CA82-4263-84A0-4164DDB6FA3B@unm.edu> <292FC2C6-398B-49E9-B37C-3AE1EECB1B32@wheelwrightassoc.com> Message-ID: <8A45FE07-6B60-4AF8-A55D-56C0FE6D370B@wheelwrightassoc.com> Drop by on your way. Poor Tibet, so close to heaven, so close to China. Timothy Smith 831.624.8138 www.wheelwrightassoc.com On Jun 14, 2010, at 12:17 PM, Jim Peavler wrote: > We have a hole in the earth out here near Chaco Canyon that goes all the way through the earth to Tibet. I think maybe Hayes and I can bundle our selves up, gird out loins, and head off to the opposite side of the planet. > > > On Jun 14, 2010, at 12:51 PM, Timothy Smith wrote: > >> Poor New Mexico, so close to Texas and so far from heaven. >> >> >> Timothy Smith >> 831.624.8138 >> www.wheelwrightassoc.com >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Jun 14, 2010, at 11:40 AM, Richard Hayes wrote: >> >>> On Jun 14, 2010, at 12:14 PM, Jim Peavler wrote: >>> >>>> There will be a death penalty as soon as our new female governor takes over. They both favor the death penalty, deporting all aliens, having your birth certificate tattooed on your forehead (Armageddon is here and it starts in New Mexico and Arizona!) Or perhaps I am just paranoid since none of their TV commercials allow me to tell them apart. They may both may be tea-baggerss for all I can tell. >>>> >>>> Richard, can you help me? >>> >>> How is the project to recreate a living Seismosaur from DNA coming along? Will it happen in time to step on these two ladies before one of them becomes governor of New Mexico? >>> >>> Seeing the vicious attack ads that the indistinguishable Democratic and the Republican candidates for governor are putting on the television already, I can only say I hope they both lose. The only difference I can see between them is that one of them has a hispanic surname and will therefore win. >>> >>> I'll write to you from Canada. There's an underground railway that goes there, I hear. The problem is, Canada may not be far enough away from New Mexico to do any good. I'm fairly confident no place between here and Mars is far enough away from New Mexico. >>> >>> your discouraged brother-in-chile, >>> Ricardo >>> _______________________________________________ >>> buddha-l mailing list >>> buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com >>> http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> buddha-l mailing list >> buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com >> http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l > > Jim Peavler > jmp at peavler.org > > "Be good. Be just." John Adams > > > > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l > From jkirk at spro.net Mon Jun 14 15:22:12 2010 From: jkirk at spro.net (JKirkpatrick) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 15:22:12 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Accuracy In-Reply-To: <2A2922A7-2B68-4099-989B-509F4DCBF194@unm.edu> References: <2A2922A7-2B68-4099-989B-509F4DCBF194@unm.edu> Message-ID: <9AC50A8B36A64E9EA0439408FA1C7059@OPTIPLEX> We are become a nation built upon the fallacy of ad hominem arguments. \end{quote} Richard Hayes ________________ I agree with your point about listening carefully to these various reviled folks --wheat from chaffly. However, ad hominem arguments and statements are a universal human practice--they often include praise (often flattery) as well as opprobrium--so probably not limited to this nation nor to Buddhism where, if I recall right, Hizzoner made a few choice ad hominem remarks Hizzelf. Ad feminemly/hominemly yours, Joanna From jmp at peavler.org Mon Jun 14 15:37:01 2010 From: jmp at peavler.org (Jim Peavler) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 15:37:01 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Accuracy In-Reply-To: <9AC50A8B36A64E9EA0439408FA1C7059@OPTIPLEX> References: <2A2922A7-2B68-4099-989B-509F4DCBF194@unm.edu> <9AC50A8B36A64E9EA0439408FA1C7059@OPTIPLEX> Message-ID: <6AF78641-B063-4AF5-A162-E3F21A81E9C6@peavler.org> On Jun 14, 2010, at 3:22 PM, JKirkpatrick wrote: If I remember my classical rhetoric (which I may not) Aristotle himself inveighed against it in some of his carryings on. > However, ad hominem > arguments and statements are a universal human practice Jim Peavler jmp at peavler.org "Be good. Be just." John Adams From jkirk at spro.net Mon Jun 14 15:48:50 2010 From: jkirk at spro.net (JKirkpatrick) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 15:48:50 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Accuracy In-Reply-To: <6AF78641-B063-4AF5-A162-E3F21A81E9C6@peavler.org> References: <2A2922A7-2B68-4099-989B-509F4DCBF194@unm.edu><9AC50A8B36A64E9EA0439408FA1C7059@OPTIPLEX> <6AF78641-B063-4AF5-A162-E3F21A81E9C6@peavler.org> Message-ID: <6B0D6B3EEC974D6485A309758E7A9C23@OPTIPLEX> On Jun 14, 2010, at 3:22 PM, JKirkpatrick wrote: If I remember my classical rhetoric (which I may not) Aristotle himself inveighed against it in some of his carryings on. > However, ad hominem > arguments and statements are a universal human practice Jim Peavler jmp at peavler.org "Be good. Be just." John Adams ________________ It seems to me that since Obama got elected, ad hominem orating has taken on a more fulsome turn among the pols of left and right, but especially right, since before or even during Bush Jr. The new turn seems to have started with the advent of the sainted R. Limbaugh and others of that ilk. Joanna K. From jkirk at spro.net Mon Jun 14 16:34:33 2010 From: jkirk at spro.net (JKirkpatrick) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 16:34:33 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Ethical Dilemmas and Death Penalties and maliciouszombies for governor. In-Reply-To: <1DD529B5-CA82-4263-84A0-4164DDB6FA3B@unm.edu> References: <002a01cb089f$262bfb70$2101a8c0@Dan><250367.3520.qm@web86601.mail.ird.yahoo.com><004101cb0942$93129070$2101a8c0@Dan><004001cb09a8$753563a0$2101a8c0@Dan><004301cb0a16$ea764990$2101a8c0@Dan><007201cb0ac6$eec373a0$2101a8c0@Dan><00b901cb0af8$672ab390$2101a8c0@Dan><3A70B115-B948-4BC4-B99A-23A478C1BE8C@unm.edu><0E082306-2F1F-4DA1-AAF5-BBC6081D1DCB@peavler.org> <1DD529B5-CA82-4263-84A0-4164DDB6FA3B@unm.edu> Message-ID: <2C8E61C087B44510AA9A4B3687E4D8F3@OPTIPLEX> I'll write to you from Canada. There's an underground railway that goes there, I hear. The problem is, Canada may not be far enough away from New Mexico to do any good. I'm fairly confident no place between here and Mars is far enough away from New Mexico. your discouraged brother-in-chile, Ricardo ______________ Same goes for Idaho. However, although I don't enjoy saying it, CA isn't that much better than these places--they have redneck areas too and CA politics is almost as influenced by right-wingnuts as US politics. JK From donnab at hawaii.edu Mon Jun 14 17:36:53 2010 From: donnab at hawaii.edu (Donna Bair-Mundy) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 13:36:53 -1000 (HST) Subject: [Buddha-l] Ethical Dilemmas In-Reply-To: <007201cb0ac6$eec373a0$2101a8c0@Dan> References: <002a01cb089f$262bfb70$2101a8c0@Dan> <250367.3520.qm@web86601.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <004101cb0942$93129070$2101a8c0@Dan> <004001cb09a8$753563a0$2101a8c0@Dan> <004301cb0a16$ea764990$2101a8c0@Dan> <007201cb0ac6$eec373a0$2101a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: Aloha, The equation of Aztec sacrifice and the entire current U.S. legal system is unfortunate. However, when reading the description of Aztec sacrifice I couldn't help but recall a painting of people (including children, as I recall) having a picnic around the bodies of African-Americans who had been lynched and were still hanging from the trees. I'm not sure we Americans still can make a claim to having totally civilized legal system. We have had great difficulty seeing the barbarity of executing children or persons with severe learning disabilities, let alone incongruity of our celebration of "right to life" while still extinguishing life in the name of the state, something our European cousins appear to have figured out awhile back. I attended a law forum awhile back that included Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Yoo (the person who thinks torture if done by Americans is not in violation of the Geneva conventions). The discussion was on the concept of _jus cogens_, which Black's Dictionary defines as: "A mandatory norm of general international law from which no two or more nations may exempt themselves or release one another." In layperson's terms, a concept that would compel us to take into account an international legal norm such as abandoning the death penalty. Not surprisingly, the conservatives were adamant that the U.S. should not be influenced by anything other countries say or do. How does this relate to Buddhism? I realize that I'm one of those knee-jerk, bleeding-heart liberal, vegetarian former flower children Buddhists that have been referred to with some disdain in the past on Buddha-l. But I will hold to my image of the Buddha as a man who would not have been enthusiastic about watching someone be lynched, especially for the crime of having a different skin color and whistling at a woman with paler skin. Have a safe and joyful day, donna Bair-Mundy, Ph.D. Instructor, LIS Program Information & Computer Sci. Dept. POST Bldg., Room 314-D University of Hawai`i at Manoa 1680 East-West Road Honolulu, HI 96822 Voice: 808-956-3973 Fax: 808-956-3548 From jmp at peavler.org Mon Jun 14 21:32:24 2010 From: jmp at peavler.org (Jim Peavler) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 21:32:24 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Accuracy In-Reply-To: <6B0D6B3EEC974D6485A309758E7A9C23@OPTIPLEX> References: <2A2922A7-2B68-4099-989B-509F4DCBF194@unm.edu><9AC50A8B36A64E9EA0439408FA1C7059@OPTIPLEX> <6AF78641-B063-4AF5-A162-E3F21A81E9C6@peavler.org> <6B0D6B3EEC974D6485A309758E7A9C23@OPTIPLEX> Message-ID: <6F6D3F2D-9B6A-420D-9222-71FB96A8D8F5@peavler.org> The latest issue of the annual report on hate crimes by the Southern Poverty Law people seems to support your suppositions. On Jun 14, 2010, at 3:48 PM, JKirkpatrick wrote: > > It seems to me that since Obama got elected, ad hominem orating > has taken > on a more fulsome turn among the pols of left and right, but > especially right, > since before or even during Bush Jr. The new turn seems to have > started with > the advent of the sainted R. Limbaugh and others of that ilk. > jmp at peavler.org "Be good. Be just." John Adams From jmp at peavler.org Mon Jun 14 21:36:55 2010 From: jmp at peavler.org (Jim Peavler) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 21:36:55 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Ethical Dilemmas and Death Penalties and maliciouszombies for governor. In-Reply-To: <2C8E61C087B44510AA9A4B3687E4D8F3@OPTIPLEX> References: <002a01cb089f$262bfb70$2101a8c0@Dan><250367.3520.qm@web86601.mail.ird.yahoo.com><004101cb0942$93129070$2101a8c0@Dan><004001cb09a8$753563a0$2101a8c0@Dan><004301cb0a16$ea764990$2101a8c0@Dan><007201cb0ac6$eec373a0$2101a8c0@Dan><00b901cb0af8$672ab390$2101a8c0@Dan><3A70B115-B948-4BC4-B99A-23A478C1BE8C@unm.edu><0E082306-2F1F-4DA1-AAF5-BBC6081D1DCB@peavler.org> <1DD529B5-CA82-4263-84A0-4164DDB6FA3B@unm.edu> <2C8E61C087B44510AA9A4B3687E4D8F3@OPTIPLEX> Message-ID: <87CFB69B-C024-4C35-B8DE-F665BB5689EE@peavler.org> Fallbrook, CA the head of the 'American Nazi party lives, and Riverside County ain't far behind. (I won't even mention Orange county and Irvine. (I used to try to play golf in Fallbrook and my ball always landed way left of the hole.) Should'a kept my head down.. On Jun 14, 2010, at 4:34 PM, JKirkpatrick wrote: > > > I'll write to you from Canada. There's an underground railway > that goes there, I hear. The problem is, Canada may not be far > enough away from New Mexico to do any good. I'm fairly confident > no place between here and Mars is far enough away from New > Mexico. > > your discouraged brother-in-chile, > Ricardo > ______________ > Same goes for Idaho. > However, although I don't enjoy saying it, CA isn't that much > better than these places--they have redneck areas too and CA > politics is almost as influenced by right-wingnuts as US > politics. > > JK > > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l Jim Peavler jmp at peavler.org "Be good. Be just." John Adams From rhayes at unm.edu Mon Jun 14 21:51:50 2010 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 21:51:50 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Accuracy In-Reply-To: <9AC50A8B36A64E9EA0439408FA1C7059@OPTIPLEX> References: <2A2922A7-2B68-4099-989B-509F4DCBF194@unm.edu> <9AC50A8B36A64E9EA0439408FA1C7059@OPTIPLEX> Message-ID: <2CCB7E0E-4AEA-4C9A-A3D8-20DDA07A34A3@unm.edu> On Jun 14, 2010, at 3:22 PM, JKirkpatrick wrote: > I agree with your point about listening carefully to these > various reviled folks --wheat from chaffly. However, ad hominem > arguments and statements are a universal human practice--they > often include praise (often flattery) as well as opprobrium--so > probably not limited to this nation nor to Buddhism where I did not say that fallacy was limited to this nation or to Buddhism. I simply suggested it is a practice that is common in the United States. Arguments based on praising a person and then citing the person as an authority in a field unrelated to the area in which the person has been praised are usually given their own special name: argumentum ad verecundiam. It is a favorite of advertisers and political campaigners. The argument that has the form "the practice is universal, so there must be some validity to it" (which was NOT the argument Joanna was making) is called fallacy of consensus gentium. Jim Peavler makes a good green chile stew. And he says that learning the names of fallacies is a good way to brush up on one's Latin. So it must be. Richard From rhayes at unm.edu Mon Jun 14 21:56:21 2010 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 21:56:21 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Ethical Dilemmas and Death Penalties and maliciouszombies for governor. In-Reply-To: <2C8E61C087B44510AA9A4B3687E4D8F3@OPTIPLEX> References: <002a01cb089f$262bfb70$2101a8c0@Dan><250367.3520.qm@web86601.mail.ird.yahoo.com><004101cb0942$93129070$2101a8c0@Dan><004001cb09a8$753563a0$2101a8c0@Dan><004301cb0a16$ea764990$2101a8c0@Dan><007201cb0ac6$eec373a0$2101a8c0@Dan><00b901cb0af8$672ab390$2101a8c0@Dan><3A70B115-B948-4BC4-B99A-23A478C1BE8C@unm.edu><0E082306-2F1F-4DA1-AAF5-BBC6081D1DCB@peavler.org> <1DD529B5-CA82-4263-84A0-4164DDB6FA3B@unm.edu> <2C8E61C087B44510AA9A4B3687E4D8F3@OPTIPLEX> Message-ID: <3F593449-BE57-4CBC-A6AD-8212D952FAD0@unm.edu> On Jun 14, 2010, at 4:34 PM, JKirkpatrick wrote: > However, although I don't enjoy saying it, CA isn't that much > better than these places--they have redneck areas too and CA > politics is almost as influenced by right-wingnuts as US > politics. Yes, California is filled with rednecks and right-wing politicians. But I wasn't thinking of going there. I was thinking of going back to Canada. People at the far right of the political spectrum in Canada are approximately aligned with Dennis Kucinich. From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Mon Jun 14 22:17:22 2010 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 00:17:22 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Ethical Dilemmas References: <002a01cb089f$262bfb70$2101a8c0@Dan><250367.3520.qm@web86601.mail.ird.yahoo.com><004101cb0942$93129070$2101a8c0@Dan><004001cb09a8$753563a0$2101a8c0@Dan><004301cb0a16$ea764990$2101a8c0@Dan><007201cb0ac6$eec373a0$2101a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: <000c01cb0c41$a78ec3f0$2101a8c0@Dan> Aloha, Donna. > The equation of Aztec sacrifice and the entire current U.S. legal system > is unfortunate. Agreed. Lynching, racism, etc., you might have also mentioned the Dred Scott decision in which the Supreme Court showed how racist it could be. Similarly abhorrent racist decisions flowed from the Court against Asian immigration and Asian immigrants in the early 20th century, with decisions and precedents that only began to be overturned during the 1960s. Today I live in Boston which even 20 years ago was largely an Irish and Italian town with severe racial discrimination against African-americans. Today it is multicultural -- the Irish and Italians have become a minority (though still over-represented in local govt, the police force, and other state and municipal offices, though the current Massachussetts governor is African-American, a Harvard buddy of Obama). In my neighborhood of Brookline, when I leave my building the languages I hear on the street are Japanese, Russian, Hebrew, Korean, Chinese, Haitian French, some English, Spanish, and a smattering of other tongues -- roughly in that proportion. Before moving to Brookline I lived in Malden (another Boston neighborhood), which has sizeable Chinese, Indian, Tibetan, Southeast Asian, etc., communities; when I got on the subway in the morning, for a stop or two I would usually be the only non-Asian for a stop or two -- listening in to Mandarin, Cantonese, Japanese, Vietmanese, Thai, etc. conversations. Having come to Malden from Columbia, Missouri, where non-whites are a rarity, I was overjoyed to have returned to civilization. One day another non-Asian, late teens, was in the car -- I glanced over at what he was reading and working on... his Japanese homework. Other neighborhoods have likewise been undergoing major demographic changes, and the old Boston is becoming a mere memory (one not possessed by many of its current inhabitants). Is everything peace and love and harmony here now? No, but it's a major improvement over what used to be, and seeming to be moving in the right direction. White Boston is enthusiastically cheering for an all-black Boston Celtics team that is closing in on the championship. This would have been inconceivable 20 years ago here. The Asian communities would have been legally impossible prior to the 1960s. That is why I stressed a distinction between a certain ethos -- in the culture at large and in the legal system -- and the everyday reality. And progress is clearly uneven, since this is a huge country. The Bible Belt (where I lived for too many years) is decades behind this, and fighting it all the way, with increasingly sophisticated means. Boston is behind San Francisco, but catching up. Sounds like the Southwest is going back through the Texas time-machine to some imaginary 1950s when damn furners and colored people knew their place (also a popular sentiment in the South). In the South "damn furners and colored people" includes anyone from New York or Jewish (a double hex if one is both). The ethos is aimed in the right direction, while the everyday reality varies from place to place, but is gradually getting better in most places. Plenty of unwilling obstructionists throwing up roadblocks, but the march seems to be pretty steady in the right direction, so despite the annoyances and loud noises, there is reason for much optimism. >How does this relate to Buddhism? I realize that I'm one of those > knee-jerk, bleeding-heart liberal, vegetarian former flower children > Buddhists that have been referred to with some disdain in the past on > Buddha-l. As a current vegetarian and former flower child (actually we called ourselves "freaks," not "flower children," the latter mostly a media term, along with "hippies"), I have no disdain for that life-style (in whatever forms it survives today in places like Boulder and Key West). There is a problem, however, when this sentiment is projected inaccurately onto an Asian religion, obscuring the historical and political-theoretical reality of that tradition, particularly when that relgion itself stresses seeing things as they are (yatha-bhuta), unlike some religions that encourage people to believe that believing the ridiculous is truer than truth. Unquestionably, of the three major missionary religions -- Christianity, Islam and Buddhism -- Buddhism has far less blood on its hands, but it is not bloodless. Not in the past, not in the 21st century. To borrow Al Gore's line, that's an inconvenient truth for some, a shock for many, but it is true, and the sooner and better we acknowledge and deal with it, the sooner we can move from platitudes or outrage to actual effective strategies. >But I will hold to my image of the Buddha as a man who would > not have been enthusiastic about watching someone be lynched, especially > for the crime of having a different skin color and whistling at a woman > with paler skin. That was never in doubt. Dan From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Mon Jun 14 23:11:30 2010 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 01:11:30 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Accuracy References: <2A2922A7-2B68-4099-989B-509F4DCBF194@unm.edu> Message-ID: <006701cb0c49$37606040$2101a8c0@Dan> To respond briefly to Richard's spiel on accuracy: I have indeed accused him of cheering for Ahmadinejad (and Chavez) for trash-talking the US. Oh, I'm so embarrassed. What he actually said was: {QUOTE} In fact, it's almost axiomatic that a Western Buddhist will have a leftist orientation. (I imagine more than a few of us cheered wildly as we listened to the speeches by Ahmadinejad and Chavez in the UN. We love it when people speak truth to power.) {END QUOTE} Gee, how inaccurate of me! They are the power, and they trash-talk the US (and Zionists) to win admirers and supporters among the fuzzy-headed leftists who will then look the other way when they go home and oppress their own citizens. (At Columbia U Ahmadinejad learned that he could trash talk the US and Israel, and even demand the right to nuke Israel without anyone batting an eyelash, but he can't say anything negative about gays without creating a memorable uproar. Must have confirmed for him what a decadent, infidel society we are.) Richard writes: "Ahmadinejad's critique of the USA and Israel was right on target." Which part? About the holocaust that never happened being the cause of the State (so they should all go back to where they came from)? That secular Israel and the US are not good leftists like the facist theocrats who run Iran and have national holidays celebrating their genocidal antisemitism? You are drawing from the wrong well and bad information, but, as this list continually evidences, malicious myths are hard to squelch. Richard also writes: {QUOTE} On another list, Dan Lusthaus speaks of how many Westerners are drawn to Buddhism because of a "carefully crafted" image of Buddhism as non-violent. I think that's an example of bovine feces. {END QUOTE} As I mentioned, a book review of the Jerryson and Juergensmeyer book _Buddhist Warfare_ is in the H-Net queue, and as soon as it passes through the editorial gauntlet I will forward a copy of that here (it wouldn't be cricket to post it here before it's been through its final revision). Then we can revisit who is covered in cow pies. Richard also writes: "As a Buddhist, I follow the principle: Look at the saying, not the speaker." Which Bob Wooley morphs into: {QUOTE} if I cannot find _something_ admirable in any person, that is evidence that I am not well acquainted with the person's qualities, or that I lack discernment. {END QUOTE} What a gracious, magnanimous sentiment. Sounds very noble. The citizens of Iran applaud your generosity http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/13/world/middleeast/13iran.html?scp=1&sq=iran%20protests&st=cse I also have some admiration for a quality in Ahmadinejad, viz. his rhetorical skill at finding supporters for his hate-speech -- and by current evidence supporters who then pat themselves on the back for being righteous in giving that suipport. What a marvelous skill he has! Please don't associate that delusional attitude with Buddhism, thank you. That's exactly the sort of mara-ish delusion one is supposed to learn to see through. Dan From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Tue Jun 15 00:25:47 2010 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 02:25:47 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Ethical Dilemmas and Death Penalties andmaliciouszombies for governor. References: <002a01cb089f$262bfb70$2101a8c0@Dan><250367.3520.qm@web86601.mail.ird.yahoo.com><004101cb0942$93129070$2101a8c0@Dan><004001cb09a8$753563a0$2101a8c0@Dan><004301cb0a16$ea764990$2101a8c0@Dan><007201cb0ac6$eec373a0$2101a8c0@Dan><00b901cb0af8$672ab390$2101a8c0@Dan><3A70B115-B948-4BC4-B99A-23A478C1BE8C@unm.edu><0E082306-2F1F-4DA1-AAF5-BBC6081D1DCB@peavler.org><1DD529B5-CA82-4263-84A0-4164DDB6FA3B@unm.edu><2C8E61C087B44510AA9A4B3687E4D8F3@OPTIPLEX> <3F593449-BE57-4CBC-A6AD-8212D952FAD0@unm.edu> Message-ID: <00b301cb0c53$97d81210$2101a8c0@Dan> The issue of ethicality of legal systems, etc. has come up, and the question of how ethical such things are in the real world. Fans of the film "Network" might remember Ned Beatty's inspiring Huayan-ish speech about how there are no longer nations or corporations but a huge, interpenetrating,... From bogus@does.not.exist.com Fri Jun 4 12:07:27 2010 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2010 18:07:27 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: Foreign flagging of offshore rigs skirts U.S. safety rules The Marshall Islands, not the U.S., had the main responsibility for safety inspections on the Deepwater Horizon. By Tom Hamburger and Kim Geiger, Tribune Washington Bureau Reporting from Washington - The Deepwater Horizon oil rig that exploded in the Gulf of Mexico was built in South Korea. It was operated by a Swiss company under contract to a British oil firm. Primary responsibility for safety and other inspections rested not with the U.S. government but with the Republic of the Marshall Islands - a tiny, impoverished nation in the Pacific Ocean. And the Marshall Islands, a maze of tiny atolls, many smaller than the ill-fated oil rig, outsourced many of its responsibilities to private companies. Now, as the government tries to figure out what went wrong in the worst environmental catastrophe in U.S. history, this international patchwork of divided authority and sometimes conflicting priorities is emerging as a crucial underlying factor in the explosion of the rig. Under International law, offshore oil rigs like the Deepwater Horizon are treated as ships, and companies are allowed to "register" them in unlikely places such as the Marshall Islands, Panama and Liberia - reducing the U.S. government's role in inspecting and enforcing safety and other standards. "Today, these oil rigs can operate under different, very minimal standards of inspection established by international maritime treaties," said Rep. James L. Oberstar (D-Minn.), chairman of the House Transportation Committee. Some offshore drilling experts, as well as some survivors of the explosion that led to the massive spill, say foreign registration also permitted a confusing command structure and understaffing - factors that may have contributed to the disaster. read the rest at http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-oil-inspection-20100615,0,7349376.story or http://tinyurl.com/33azxxz Such is how the real world works... Dan From stefan.detrez at gmail.com Tue Jun 15 00:56:16 2010 From: stefan.detrez at gmail.com (Stefan Detrez) Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 08:56:16 +0200 Subject: [Buddha-l] Ethical Dilemmas and Death Penalties andmaliciouszombies for governor. In-Reply-To: <00b301cb0c53$97d81210$2101a8c0@Dan> References: <002a01cb089f$262bfb70$2101a8c0@Dan> <250367.3520.qm@web86601.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <004101cb0942$93129070$2101a8c0@Dan> <004001cb09a8$753563a0$2101a8c0@Dan> <004301cb0a16$ea764990$2101a8c0@Dan> <007201cb0ac6$eec373a0$2101a8c0@Dan> <00b901cb0af8$672ab390$2101a8c0@Dan> <3A70B115-B948-4BC4-B99A-23A478C1BE8C@unm.edu> <0E082306-2F1F-4DA1-AAF5-BBC6081D1DCB@peavler.org> <1DD529B5-CA82-4263-84A0-4164DDB6FA3B@unm.edu> <2C8E61C087B44510AA9A4B3687E4D8F3@OPTIPLEX> <3F593449-BE57-4CBC-A6AD-8212D952FAD0@unm.edu> <00b301cb0c53$97d81210$2101a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: People are opposed to the death penalty for a range of reasons, yet those very same people plead for euthanasia and other forms of life ending measures. I don't see why they are so categorically opposed to the death penalty but are prepared to offer sophisticated defenses based on the 'right to choose', 'a person owns his body' and 'the avoidance of pain' etc. I wrote a letter to Amnesty International with the question what they think of a 'voluntary death penalty' - meaning you either do the life sentence or voluntarily opt for the death penaly - and they replied they have no position on this issue. A voluntary death penalty respects both a person's rights and a government's right to punish a criminal. So, what's the deal? From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Tue Jun 15 01:22:20 2010 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 03:22:20 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Ethical Dilemmas and Death Penaltiesandmaliciouszombies for governor. References: <002a01cb089f$262bfb70$2101a8c0@Dan><250367.3520.qm@web86601.mail.ird.yahoo.com><004101cb0942$93129070$2101a8c0@Dan><004001cb09a8$753563a0$2101a8c0@Dan><004301cb0a16$ea764990$2101a8c0@Dan><007201cb0ac6$eec373a0$2101a8c0@Dan><00b901cb0af8$672ab390$2101a8c0@Dan><3A70B115-B948-4BC4-B99A-23A478C1BE8C@unm.edu><0E082306-2F1F-4DA1-AAF5-BBC6081D1DCB@peavler.org><1DD529B5-CA82-4263-84A0-4164DDB6FA3B@unm.edu><2C8E61C087B44510AA9A4B3687E4D8F3@OPTIPLEX><3F593449-BE57-4CBC-A6AD-8212D952FAD0@unm.edu><00b301cb0c53$97d81210$2101a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: <00e201cb0c5b$7e7b2cf0$2101a8c0@Dan> > I > wrote a letter to Amnesty International with the question what they think > of > a 'voluntary death penalty' - meaning you either do the life sentence or > voluntarily opt for the death penaly - and they replied they have no > position on this issue. A voluntary death penalty respects both a person's > rights and a government's right to punish a criminal. So, what's the deal? Interesting attempt at a middle road, Stefan. Opponents of the death penalty will offer a range of objections, from (i) anyone who would choose death is suicidal, and hence not sane, and hence not competent to make such decisions, to (ii) the State has no right to execute anyone, no matter what that individual might want at the moment. Proponents of the death penalty will object that leaving such things to the discretion of someone deserving of capital punishment is an affront to justice; the guilty party relinquished the right to make such decisions when they committed murder (or whatever the capital offense). Like most compromises, no one would be happy. There is a certain percentage of death row inmates who actively pursue their own death (a few notable cases where prisoners sue for the right to die), but this is a tiny minority, so it probably wouldn't be worth the effort it would take to pass it through legislation. Perhaps someone with a "kavorkian, inc" tray can scuttle up and down the row of cells looking for takers or selling cyanide candy? As is well known, Buddha apparently condoned suicides on occasion. Dan From stefan.detrez at gmail.com Tue Jun 15 01:56:16 2010 From: stefan.detrez at gmail.com (Stefan Detrez) Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 09:56:16 +0200 Subject: [Buddha-l] Ethical Dilemmas and Death Penaltiesandmaliciouszombies for governor. In-Reply-To: <00e201cb0c5b$7e7b2cf0$2101a8c0@Dan> References: <002a01cb089f$262bfb70$2101a8c0@Dan> <250367.3520.qm@web86601.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <004101cb0942$93129070$2101a8c0@Dan> <004001cb09a8$753563a0$2101a8c0@Dan> <004301cb0a16$ea764990$2101a8c0@Dan> <007201cb0ac6$eec373a0$2101a8c0@Dan> <00b901cb0af8$672ab390$2101a8c0@Dan> <3A70B115-B948-4BC4-B99A-23A478C1BE8C@unm.edu> <0E082306-2F1F-4DA1-AAF5-BBC6081D1DCB@peavler.org> <1DD529B5-CA82-4263-84A0-4164DDB6FA3B@unm.edu> <2C8E61C087B44510AA9A4B3687E4D8F3@OPTIPLEX> <3F593449-BE57-4CBC-A6AD-8212D952FAD0@unm.edu> <00b301cb0c53$97d81210$2101a8c0@Dan> <00e201cb0c5b$7e7b2cf0$2101a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: Dear Dan, > > I > > wrote a letter to Amnesty International with the question what they think > > of > > a 'voluntary death penalty' - meaning you either do the life sentence or > > voluntarily opt for the death penaly - and they replied they have no > > position on this issue. A voluntary death penalty respects both a > person's > > rights and a government's right to punish a criminal. So, what's the > deal? > > Interesting attempt at a middle road, Stefan. > > Opponents of the death penalty will offer a range of objections, from (i) > anyone who would choose death is suicidal, and hence not sane, and hence > not > competent to make such decisions, to (ii) the State has no right to execute > anyone, no matter what that individual might want at the moment. > > Not sane? Would they carry the same reasoning to euthanasia? Here in Belgium it is respected, at least by law, to sign a paper saying you don't want to go through the suffering of decaying and that you're prepared to be put to death with medical assistance. Erik can confirm this legality for the Netherlands. Minors too have this right now. Few folks would consider you sane if you wanted to go all the way to death with all the pain. Of course the State has the right to execute persons: triggerhappy gangsters are shot when they pose a threat to society and killing a person in a serious and life threatening situation is excused too. The Police don't go asking a would-be murderer if he or she is ok with being shot to death. If one can avoid more suffering, putting one person to death is warranted according to the utilitarian calculus. But so too from a Kantian point of view: if everyone around the world would put to death a person who has killed for the wrong reasons the world would be a better place. But I suppose the reasons advanced by utilitarians and deontologists need finetuning. > Proponents of the death penalty will object that leaving such things to the > discretion of someone deserving of capital punishment is an affront to > justice; the guilty party relinquished the right to make such decisions > when > they committed murder (or whatever the capital offense). > > Justice is served when he is locked behind bars. If that person would like to undergo euthanasia, would they stop him? If he still has human rights in prison, they'll want to honour his choice to want to die, I should think. Perhaps someone with a "kavorkian, inc" tray can scuttle up and down the row > of cells looking for takers or selling cyanide candy? > > As is well known, Buddha apparently condoned suicides on occasion. > > On occasion? That leaves room for non-condoning. And I'm not sure the Buddha's social reality has the same complexity as ours, so I think it would be wise to leave some of his decesions for his own age and refrain from 'recontextualizing.' To refrain from killing or harming as a precept is vague enough to exclude taking one's life, and I explicitly think of Thich Quang Duc and Jaina Santhara. Some Jataka stories present self sacrifice as a noble thing too. Being alive might not be so holy after all. Stefan From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Tue Jun 15 02:05:31 2010 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 04:05:31 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Ethical Dilemmas and Death Penaltiesandmaliciouszombies for governor. References: <002a01cb089f$262bfb70$2101a8c0@Dan><250367.3520.qm@web86601.mail.ird.yahoo.com><004101cb0942$93129070$2101a8c0@Dan><004001cb09a8$753563a0$2101a8c0@Dan><004301cb0a16$ea764990$2101a8c0@Dan><007201cb0ac6$eec373a0$2101a8c0@Dan><00b901cb0af8$672ab390$2101a8c0@Dan><3A70B115-B948-4BC4-B99A-23A478C1BE8C@unm.edu><0E082306-2F1F-4DA1-AAF5-BBC6081D1DCB@peavler.org><1DD529B5-CA82-4263-84A0-4164DDB6FA3B@unm.edu><2C8E61C087B44510AA9A4B3687E4D8F3@OPTIPLEX><3F593449-BE57-4CBC-A6AD-8212D952FAD0@unm.edu> <00b301cb0c53$97d81210$2101a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: <00f501cb0c61$866d6b70$2101a8c0@Dan> For those unfamiliar with the Ned Beatty scene from "Network" -- or anyone wishing to see it again -- here it is on youtube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BVqIjKyJh0 Enjoy. Dan From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Tue Jun 15 02:41:39 2010 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 04:41:39 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Ethical Dilemmas and DeathPenaltiesandmaliciouszombies for governor. References: <002a01cb089f$262bfb70$2101a8c0@Dan><250367.3520.qm@web86601.mail.ird.yahoo.com><004101cb0942$93129070$2101a8c0@Dan><004001cb09a8$753563a0$2101a8c0@Dan><004301cb0a16$ea764990$2101a8c0@Dan><007201cb0ac6$eec373a0$2101a8c0@Dan><00b901cb0af8$672ab390$2101a8c0@Dan><3A70B115-B948-4BC4-B99A-23A478C1BE8C@unm.edu><0E082306-2F1F-4DA1-AAF5-BBC6081D1DCB@peavler.org><1DD529B5-CA82-4263-84A0-4164DDB6FA3B@unm.edu><2C8E61C087B44510AA9A4B3687E4D8F3@OPTIPLEX><3F593449-BE57-4CBC-A6AD-8212D952FAD0@unm.edu><00b301cb0c53$97d81210$2101a8c0@Dan><00e201cb0c5b$7e7b2cf0$2101a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: <010a01cb0c66$92da03f0$2101a8c0@Dan> Dear Stefan, >Would they carry the same reasoning to euthanasia? Here in Belgium > it is respected, at least by law, to sign a paper saying you don't want to > go through the suffering of decaying and that you're prepared to be put to > death with medical assistance. Euthenasia, as far as I know, has only been legalized in the states of Oregon, Washington, and maybe Montana -- their assisted suicide laws require various criteria be met. For instance http://law.jrank.org/pages/6602/Euthanasia-Oregon-s-Euthanasia-Law.html What one finds, instead, in most states is something called a "living will," which is a legal document one can compose and sign that explains that one wants no heroic measures of life extension. There is a standard generic version that one can often find in a stationary store or online, and there are more detailed ones that lawyers can draft that specifiy in great detail what one will allow or one doesn't want done (e.g., no rescucitation if breathing or heart stops, no respirators, no machine-assisted vegetative states, etc.). The details can run many pages (as challenges and legal snags have arisen over time, to address them). This is usually accompanied by a "health care proxy", another form that designates who will make medical decisions for one if one is incapable or incapacitated. One should make sure that the health care proxy understands the living will and agrees with it, since they can easily override it when a situation arises. That's as far as we go in most States (some states may even ban living wills, I'm not sure). Since the Oregon, et al. assisted suicide laws are still considered very controversial in most of the US, the analogy between choosing to die from the death penalty and euthenasia wouldn't have much traction here. > Justice is served when he is locked behind bars. If that person would like > to undergo euthanasia, would they stop him? If he still has human rights > in > prison, they'll want to honour his choice to want to die, I should think. There have actually been some notable cases where prisoners have sued to be executed -- they don't always win their suit, and even when they do, the legal process is usally quite drawn out and lengthy. > On occasion? That leaves room for non-condoning. And I'm not sure the > Buddha's social reality has the same complexity as ours, I'm not sure "complexity" would be the differentiating factor. Since we don't live in ancient India we probably should be cautious about adopting its norms for ourselves, just as the diet and dress code of Buddhists changed as it left India. Dan From rhayes at unm.edu Tue Jun 15 08:01:55 2010 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 08:01:55 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Accuracy In-Reply-To: <006701cb0c49$37606040$2101a8c0@Dan> References: <2A2922A7-2B68-4099-989B-509F4DCBF194@unm.edu> <006701cb0c49$37606040$2101a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: <251C7AE7-F3DB-4829-9F18-5842237CB562@unm.edu> On Jun 14, 2010, at 11:11 PM, Dan Lusthaus wrote: > Gee, how inaccurate of me! No one said or implied that you remembered inaccurately. The point is that you remember partially. You remember what you can use to denigrate another and forget the rest. > "Ahmadinejad's critique of the USA and Israel was right on target." > > Which part? Iran's claim is that it is hypocritical of the United States to have the largest arsenal of nuclear weapons in the world and then to deny those weapons to countries that its leaders have declared to be evil. Israel, of course, has no nuclear arsenal. How do we know that? Because they don't admit to having one. Iran's critique of the policies of the USA as an empire are valid, although most of their rhetoric is objectionable. > About the holocaust that never happened being the cause of the > State (so they should all go back to where they came from)? Well, no. If you'll go back and reread my quotations, I did say that view was as ridiculous and George Bush's denial of global warming and evolution. > {QUOTE} > On another list, Dan Lusthaus speaks of how many Westerners are drawn to > Buddhism because of a "carefully crafted" image of Buddhism as non-violent. > I > think that's an example of bovine feces. > {END QUOTE} > > As I mentioned, a book review of the Jerryson and Juergensmeyer book > _Buddhist Warfare_ is in the H-Net queue, and as soon as it passes through > the editorial gauntlet I will forward a copy of that here (it wouldn't be > cricket to post it here before it's been through its final revision). Then > we can revisit who is covered in cow pies. That is one recent book. My point was that many of us became interested in Buddhism during the Vietnam era and continued being interested in Buddhism because it seemed to us to have the promise of offering an alternative to the almost constant warfare we have witnessed for our entire lives. We were not attracted to Buddhism because of any carefully crafted images, unless your claim is that Buddhist canonical literature consists of nothing but carefully crafted images. There is a sense in which that is true, of course, so you can be forgiven for heaping scorn on those of us who find those images inspiring enough to build our lives upon them. > I also have some admiration for a quality in Ahmadinejad, viz. his > rhetorical skill at finding supporters for his hate-speech I see no evidence that anyone on buddha-l admires anyone's hate speech---not even yours. Indeed, there is ample evidence that we all disdain the hate speech of those who indulge in it. But one can disdain hate speech and still recognize that even those who indulge in it occasionally make valuable contributions to human discourse. > Please don't associate that delusional attitude with Buddhism, thank you. No one has associated delusional attitudes with Buddhism. As for judgements as to exactly what is delusional, there is room for disagreement. One hopes that when such disagreements arise, they will be voiced in a courteous, respectful and civil way. That way of using language is an attitude I treasure in Buddhism. > That's exactly the sort of mara-ish delusion one is supposed to learn to see > through. Delusion is simply delusion. No need to invoke Mara's name. As the Buddha said often enough, delusion is not easy to eradicate. It takes lifetimes to identify and eliminate. Because it is not easy for anyone, the Buddha recommends showing kindness toward those afflicted by it. Richard From rhayes at unm.edu Tue Jun 15 08:06:10 2010 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 08:06:10 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Ethical Dilemmas and Death Penaltiesandmaliciouszombies for governor. In-Reply-To: <00e201cb0c5b$7e7b2cf0$2101a8c0@Dan> References: <002a01cb089f$262bfb70$2101a8c0@Dan><250367.3520.qm@web86601.mail.ird.yahoo.com><004101cb0942$93129070$2101a8c0@Dan><004001cb09a8$753563a0$2101a8c0@Dan><004301cb0a16$ea764990$2101a8c0@Dan><007201cb0ac6$eec373a0$2101a8c0@Dan><00b901cb0af8$672ab390$2101a8c0@Dan><3A70B115-B948-4BC4-B99A-23A478C1BE8C@unm.edu><0E082306-2F1F-4DA1-AAF5-BBC6081D1DCB@peavler.org><1DD529B5-CA82-4263-84A0-4164DDB6FA3B@unm.edu><2C8E61C087B44510AA9A4B3687E4D8F3@OPTIPLEX><3F593449-BE57-4CBC-A6AD-8212D952FAD0@unm.edu><00b301cb0c53$97d81210$2101a8c0@Dan> <00e201cb0c5b$7e7b2cf0$2101a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: <8BEC01A8-FCAC-4B9E-A209-25D13CA93302@unm.edu> On Jun 15, 2010, at 1:22 AM, Dan Lusthaus wrote: > As is well known, Buddha apparently condoned suicides on occasion. Well, yes, on one occasion the Buddha said that a man who had committed suicide became an arhant just at the moment of death. That is the sole incident in which a suicide was "condoned," but as Damien Keown has pointed it, that incident was probably included in the canon not to condone suicide but to emphasize that 1) a person may be mistaken in thinking himself or herself an arhant, and 2) it is possible to attain arhanthood in one's final moment of life. Richard From jehms at xs4all.nl Tue Jun 15 09:42:18 2010 From: jehms at xs4all.nl (Erik Hoogcarspel) Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 17:42:18 +0200 Subject: [Buddha-l] Accuracy In-Reply-To: <9AC50A8B36A64E9EA0439408FA1C7059@OPTIPLEX> References: <2A2922A7-2B68-4099-989B-509F4DCBF194@unm.edu> <9AC50A8B36A64E9EA0439408FA1C7059@OPTIPLEX> Message-ID: <4C179F5A.4080706@xs4all.nl> Op 14-06-10 23:22, JKirkpatrick schreef: > ________________ > I agree with your point about listening carefully to these > various reviled folks --wheat from chaffly. However, ad hominem > arguments and statements are a universal human practice-- > That doesn't make it right. There are many human practices I'm not particularly fond of. erik From jehms at xs4all.nl Tue Jun 15 09:58:14 2010 From: jehms at xs4all.nl (Erik Hoogcarspel) Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 17:58:14 +0200 Subject: [Buddha-l] Ethical Dilemmas and Death Penalties andmaliciouszombies for governor. In-Reply-To: References: <002a01cb089f$262bfb70$2101a8c0@Dan> <250367.3520.qm@web86601.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <004101cb0942$93129070$2101a8c0@Dan> <004001cb09a8$753563a0$2101a8c0@Dan> <004301cb0a16$ea764990$2101a8c0@Dan> <007201cb0ac6$eec373a0$2101a8c0@Dan> <00b901cb0af8$672ab390$2101a8c0@Dan> <3A70B115-B948-4BC4-B99A-23A478C1BE8C@unm.edu> <0E082306-2F1F-4DA1-AAF5-BBC6081D1DCB@peavler.org> <1DD529B5-CA82-4263-84A0-4164DDB6FA3B@unm.edu> <2C8E61C087B44510AA9A4B3687E4D8F3@OPTIPLEX> <3F593449-BE57-4CBC-A6AD-8212D952FAD0@unm.edu> <00b301cb0c53$97d81210$2101a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: <4C17A316.2050406@xs4all.nl> Op 15-06-10 08:56, Stefan Detrez schreef: > People are opposed to the death penalty for a range of reasons, yet those > very same people plead for euthanasia and other forms of life ending > measures. I never saw anybody pleading for euthanasia, nor abortion. Some only want to have the right to do it, and they want it out of the penal system. Capital punishment is not the same. I have the right to brush my own teeth and not the right to brush yours. So ending your own life is not on a par with ending someone elses. Many sensible people prefer to end their life before they turn into an plant and I don't see what's wrong with it. In fact the Buddha ended his own social life in order to become a buddha. Voluntary death penalty is nonsense, euthanasia is not about punishing yourself. erik From stefan.detrez at gmail.com Tue Jun 15 10:17:37 2010 From: stefan.detrez at gmail.com (Stefan Detrez) Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 18:17:37 +0200 Subject: [Buddha-l] Ethical Dilemmas and Death Penalties andmaliciouszombies for governor. In-Reply-To: <4C17A316.2050406@xs4all.nl> References: <002a01cb089f$262bfb70$2101a8c0@Dan> <250367.3520.qm@web86601.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <004101cb0942$93129070$2101a8c0@Dan> <004001cb09a8$753563a0$2101a8c0@Dan> <004301cb0a16$ea764990$2101a8c0@Dan> <007201cb0ac6$eec373a0$2101a8c0@Dan> <00b901cb0af8$672ab390$2101a8c0@Dan> <3A70B115-B948-4BC4-B99A-23A478C1BE8C@unm.edu> <0E082306-2F1F-4DA1-AAF5-BBC6081D1DCB@peavler.org> <1DD529B5-CA82-4263-84A0-4164DDB6FA3B@unm.edu> <2C8E61C087B44510AA9A4B3687E4D8F3@OPTIPLEX> <3F593449-BE57-4CBC-A6AD-8212D952FAD0@unm.edu> <00b301cb0c53$97d81210$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C17A316.2050406@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: > Op 15-06-10 08:56, Stefan Detrez schreef: > > People are opposed to the death penalty for a range of reasons, yet those > > very same people plead for euthanasia and other forms of life ending > > measures. > I never saw anybody pleading for euthanasia, nor abortion. Some only > want to have the right to do it, and they want it out of the penal > system. Capital punishment is not the same. Those who plead for euthanasia or abortion want a legal framework to allow it. Capital punishment, abortion and euthanasia are about bringing about death. > I have the right to brush my own teeth and not the right to brush yours. So > ending your own life is > not on a par with ending someone elses. Many sensible people prefer to end > their life before they turn into an plant and I don't see what's wrong with > it. That's exactly my point. What's wrong with a government asking a convicted person whether they want to end their life prematurely OR stay in prison until they die without parole. It can be seen separately from a punishment, but as a basic right to die (as Dan pointed out). > In fact the Buddha ended his own social life in order to > become a buddha. Voluntary death penalty is nonsense, euthanasia is not > about punishing yourself. > > Maybe 'voluntary death penalty' is not a good label, but I stand by it that prisoners with a life term should be provided the means to end their lives prematurely if they wish to do so with medical or other help. It's better to call it 'Life imprisonment with the right to die on demand.' If capital punishment is too harsh a punishment, than being forced to stay alive too. Stefan From jkirk at spro.net Tue Jun 15 11:02:50 2010 From: jkirk at spro.net (JKirkpatrick) Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 11:02:50 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Accuracy In-Reply-To: <4C179F5A.4080706@xs4all.nl> References: <2A2922A7-2B68-4099-989B-509F4DCBF194@unm.edu><9AC50A8B36A64E9EA0439408FA1C7059@OPTIPLEX> <4C179F5A.4080706@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <77F82FAF813642F683D603BD7EADA53C@OPTIPLEX> Op 14-06-10 23:22, JKirkpatrick schreef: > ________________ > I agree with your point about listening carefully to these various > reviled folks --wheat from chaffly. However, ad hominem arguments and > statements are a universal human practice-- > That doesn't make it right. There are many human practices I'm not particularly fond of. erik ____________________ Obviously Erik, I didn't SAY it "makes it right". J From rhayes at unm.edu Tue Jun 15 11:05:37 2010 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 11:05:37 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Accuracy In-Reply-To: <4C179F5A.4080706@xs4all.nl> References: <2A2922A7-2B68-4099-989B-509F4DCBF194@unm.edu> <9AC50A8B36A64E9EA0439408FA1C7059@OPTIPLEX> <4C179F5A.4080706@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: On Jun 15, 2010, at 9:42 AM, Erik Hoogcarspel wrote: > There are many human practices I'm not > particularly fond of. More and more I find myself looking in vain for any human practice I DO approve of. The most cheerful news I heard recently was from a biologist who thinks the human race is on the brink of extinction, but the cockroaches will probably survive. It was almost enough to make me believe in God. On the second of the CBC Ideas programs on the pros and cons of a vegetarian diet that I mentioned yesterday, someone suggested that the earth can probably sustain a human population of around 2,000,000,000 (which in American English is called two billion but in civilized parts of the world is called two thousand million). That figure seems a bit high, but perhaps he was right. What is interesting is to contemplate what will happen to the 4,800,000,000 human beings that the earth cannot support. I think we are already seeing the answer in the form of famine, pandemics of antibiotic-resistant diseases, "ethnic cleansing" in places like Kyrgyzstan (although I never did trust those shifty-eyed Uzbekis!) and Sierra Leone, brutal executions of peasants by Mexican drug cartels and by Los Federales who are busy trying to execute peasants before the drug cartels get to them, assassinations of indigenous people in Bolivia and Peru probably sponsored by various international mining corporations who can't understand why those primitive native people don't want their environment destroyed so that people can have lithium batteries for their mobile phones and laptop computers, and the desiccation of two-thirds of the planet as the other one-third consumes products the manufacture of which contaminates waterways and takes it out of agricultural use. The richest people on the planet are irreversibly into unsustainable patterns of exploitation of the earth's resources, and the remainder can't wait to get into those patterns themselves. Oh, did I forget to mention all the people dying in senseless wars waged by nations led by governments for which greed, hatred and delusion are considered virtues to cultivate rather than vices to discard? Taken together, it is not difficult to look forward to the human race either going extinct or evolving into an intelligent life form. On the other hand, thank God there are people like Geert Wilders around who have seen clearly that all this malaise is being caused by Muslims. Richard From drbob at comcast.net Tue Jun 15 10:08:11 2010 From: drbob at comcast.net (Bob Woolery) Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 09:08:11 -0700 Subject: [Buddha-l] Accuracy In-Reply-To: <006701cb0c49$37606040$2101a8c0@Dan> References: <2A2922A7-2B68-4099-989B-509F4DCBF194@unm.edu> <006701cb0c49$37606040$2101a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: <8AC6D551AB404733B7DF0000BA9CE830@garage> Dan wrote: Please don't associate that delusional attitude with Buddhism, thank you. That's exactly the sort of mara-ish delusion one is supposed to learn to see through. The implied, or inferred action on the part of one who has heard the teachings would seem to be to take no part in praise or detraction, viewing both, directed to self or other, as distractions from the work of being awake. By our presence here, we have all forfeit our defense on that ground Or am I as badly deluded as ever? Bob Woolery, DC 326 deAnza dr Vallejo, CA 94589 www.stateoftheartchiro.com (707)557 5471 -----Original Message----- From: buddha-l-bounces at mailman.swcp.com [mailto:buddha-l-bounces at mailman.swcp.com] On Behalf Of Dan Lusthaus Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 10:12 PM To: Buddhist discussion forum Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] Accuracy To respond briefly to Richard's spiel on accuracy: I have indeed accused him of cheering for Ahmadinejad (and Chavez) for trash-talking the US. Oh, I'm so embarrassed. What he actually said was: {QUOTE} In fact, it's almost axiomatic that a Western Buddhist will have a leftist orientation. (I imagine more than a few of us cheered wildly as we listened to the speeches by Ahmadinejad and Chavez in the UN. We love it when people speak truth to power.) {END QUOTE} Gee, how inaccurate of me! They are the power, and they trash-talk the US (and Zionists) to win admirers and supporters among the fuzzy-headed leftists who will then look the other way when they go home and oppress their own citizens. (At Columbia U Ahmadinejad learned that he could trash talk the US and Israel, and even demand the right to nuke Israel without anyone batting an eyelash, but he can't say anything negative about gays without creating a memorable uproar. Must have confirmed for him what a decadent, infidel society we are.) Richard writes: "Ahmadinejad's critique of the USA and Israel was right on target." Which part? About the holocaust that never happened being the cause of the State (so they should all go back to where they came from)? That secular Israel and the US are not good leftists like the facist theocrats who run Iran and have national holidays celebrating their genocidal antisemitism? You are drawing from the wrong well and bad information, but, as this list continually evidences, malicious myths are hard to squelch. Richard also writes: {QUOTE} On another list, Dan Lusthaus speaks of how many Westerners are drawn to Buddhism because of a "carefully crafted" image of Buddhism as non-violent. I think that's an example of bovine feces. {END QUOTE} As I mentioned, a book review of the Jerryson and Juergensmeyer book _Buddhist Warfare_ is in the H-Net queue, and as soon as it passes through the editorial gauntlet I will forward a copy of that here (it wouldn't be cricket to post it here before it's been through its final revision). Then we can revisit who is covered in cow pies. Richard also writes: "As a Buddhist, I follow the principle: Look at the saying, not the speaker." Which Bob Wooley morphs into: {QUOTE} if I cannot find _something_ admirable in any person, that is evidence that I am not well acquainted with the person's qualities, or that I lack discernment. {END QUOTE} What a gracious, magnanimous sentiment. Sounds very noble. The citizens of Iran applaud your generosity http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/13/world/middleeast/13iran.html?scp=1&sq=iran %20protests&st=cse I also have some admiration for a quality in Ahmadinejad, viz. his rhetorical skill at finding supporters for his hate-speech -- and by current evidence supporters who then pat themselves on the back for being righteous in giving that suipport. What a marvelous skill he has! Please don't associate that delusional attitude with Buddhism, thank you. That's exactly the sort of mara-ish delusion one is supposed to learn to see through. Dan _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Tue Jun 15 11:27:29 2010 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 13:27:29 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Accuracy References: <2A2922A7-2B68-4099-989B-509F4DCBF194@unm.edu><006701cb0c49$37606040$2101a8c0@Dan> <251C7AE7-F3DB-4829-9F18-5842237CB562@unm.edu> Message-ID: <003d01cb0cb0$0859a060$2101a8c0@Dan> Dear Richard, > No one said or implied that you remembered inaccurately. Thank you for that clarification. >The point is that you remember partially. You remember what you can use to >denigrate another and forget the rest. That's one way to take it. Another is that one might see implications in your statements that you are hesitant to own. I never denied that, when pushed, you have offered up qualifications to your enthusiasm for Ahmadinejad. Nonetheless you continue to defend him for precisely the reason I attributed to you, namely trash-talking the US. By your own words, they make you want to stand up and cheer. You don't deny that, yet you compose a long message titled "accuracy" designed to denigrate me. But of course, you don't own what you say. I think I'm not the only reader of this list who notices that pattern. > Iran's claim is that it is hypocritical of the United States to have the > largest arsenal of nuclear weapons in the world and then to deny those > weapons to countries that its leaders have declared to be evil. I would have expected you to be against nuclear proliferation, not for it. I guess all one needs to get a pass on wanting a nuclear weapon is to trash-talk the US and Israel. >> As I mentioned, a book review of the Jerryson and Juergensmeyer book >> _Buddhist Warfare_ is in the H-Net queue, > > That is one recent book. A major essay in it is an English translation of an important essay on Buddhism and war by Paul Demieville, originally published in French, back in 1957. We discussed these issues and this article many years ago on buddha-l -- Nobumi Iyanaga even provided some of his own translations of the Demieville article, with snippets from the buddha-l discussion http://www.bekkoame.ne.jp/~n-iyanag/buddhism/buddhism_war.html (you will find yours truly quoted in the exchange) So this is nothing new, but something ignored. The question of whether preferring a Buddhism that lacked such elements (or preferring a Catholicism that lacked Inquisitions, or Leftists that lacked anti-zionism, etc.) is a good thing is a different matter than saying that the historical and present reality of Buddhism is not as nonviolent as one would wish. You're too busy villifying me to understand that distinction, apparently. >> I also have some admiration for a quality in Ahmadinejad, viz. his >> rhetorical skill at finding supporters for his hate-speech > > I see no evidence that anyone on buddha-l admires anyone's hate speech You don't recognize it as such, since you are too busy applauding. Dan From rhayes at unm.edu Tue Jun 15 11:30:05 2010 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 11:30:05 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Accuracy In-Reply-To: <8AC6D551AB404733B7DF0000BA9CE830@garage> References: <2A2922A7-2B68-4099-989B-509F4DCBF194@unm.edu> <006701cb0c49$37606040$2101a8c0@Dan> <8AC6D551AB404733B7DF0000BA9CE830@garage> Message-ID: On Jun 15, 2010, at 10:08 AM, Bob Woolery wrote: > Or am I as badly deluded as ever? I think it's safe to say that all buddha-l subscribers who are still experiencing episodes of du?kha are ipso facto deluded. In traditional Buddhist usage, delusion means a bit more (and less) than disagreeing with the feverish prejudices of those who rant and rave on buddha-l. As I understand the term, delusion refers to nothing more or less than being mistaken about effective ways to achieve contentment and to avoid those kinds of pain that are avoidable and to accept patiently those kinds of pain that are not avoidable. Given that the principal effect of delusion is avoidable unhappiness, and given that no one but oneself is in a position to know whether or not one is unhappy, it follows that no one can know that another is deluded. The interesting thing about delusion is that it is something that, by its very nature, one is disinclined to realize that one has. At best, one can know that one is unhappy and that the unhappiness is probably the result of some kind of mistaken view about how to go about being content. But of all the views one has, which ones are the mistaken ones that are causing pain? THAT, of course, is the question we all wish we could easily answer. Not being able to find the right answer to that question, most human beings do the next best thing: they blame someone else for all their unhappiness. Human beings are very good at imagining demons (as the world's religious and political literature eloquently attests.) But of course it's just plain dumb to blame all the unhappiness in the world on IMAGINED demons when in fact it is all caused by Republicans. Richard From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Tue Jun 15 11:45:30 2010 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 13:45:30 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Accuracy References: <2A2922A7-2B68-4099-989B-509F4DCBF194@unm.edu><006701cb0c49$37606040$2101a8c0@Dan><8AC6D551AB404733B7DF0000BA9CE830@garage> Message-ID: <007101cb0cb2$8c4698e0$2101a8c0@Dan> Richard writes: > Given that the principal effect of delusion is avoidable unhappiness, and > given that no one but oneself is in a position to know whether or not one > is unhappy, it follows that no one can know that another is deluded. There's not a therapist -- Buddhist or non-Buddhist -- who would agree with that definition or its premises. Nor does mundane experience confirm it. It's well known, for instance, that it is much easier to recognize when someone else is in a bad relationship and what to do about it, than when one is oneself in such a relationship. *That's* why it's called delusion. Dan From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Tue Jun 15 11:54:05 2010 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 13:54:05 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Accuracy References: <2A2922A7-2B68-4099-989B-509F4DCBF194@unm.edu><006701cb0c49$37606040$2101a8c0@Dan> <8AC6D551AB404733B7DF0000BA9CE830@garage> Message-ID: <007601cb0cb3$bfad5c40$2101a8c0@Dan> Bob, > The implied, or inferred action on the part of one who has heard the > teachings would seem to be to take no part in praise or detraction, > viewing > both, directed to self or other, as distractions from the work of being > awake. By our presence here, we have all forfeit our defense on that > ground Close, but too ostrich-like. What Buddha actually recommends in the Brahmajala sutta, the first sutta in the Digha Nikaya, is somewhat more active: Bhikkhus! if others should malign the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha, you must not feel resentment, nor displeasure, nor anger on that account. Bhikkhus! If you feel angry or displeased when others malign the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha, it will only be harmful to you (because then you will not be able to practise the dhamma). Bhikkhus! If you feel angry or displeased when others malign the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha, will you be able to discriminatc their good speech from bad? "No, indeed, Venerable Sir!" said the bhikkhus. If others malign me or the Dhamma, or the Sangha, you should explain (to them what is false as false, saying 'It is not so. It is not true. It is, indeed, not thus with us. Such fault is not to be found among us.' Bhikkhus! If others should praise the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha, you should not, feel pleased, or delighted, or elated on that account. Bhikkhus! If you feel pleased, or delighted, or elated, when others praise me, or the Dhamma, or the Sangha, it will only be harmful to you. Bhikkhus! If others praise me, or the Dhamma, or the Samgha, you should admit what is true as true, saying 'It is so. It is true. It is, indeed, thus with us. In fact, it is to be found among us.' Don't ignore or act aloof, but point out what's wrong in wrong views, and what's right in right views, letting accuracy -- rather than emotions or preservation of home turf -- be the guiding principle. Richard and I both agree on that, I think. We just draw the line between right and wrong on different planets. Dan From rhayes at unm.edu Tue Jun 15 11:55:26 2010 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 11:55:26 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Accuracy In-Reply-To: <003d01cb0cb0$0859a060$2101a8c0@Dan> References: <2A2922A7-2B68-4099-989B-509F4DCBF194@unm.edu><006701cb0c49$37606040$2101a8c0@Dan> <251C7AE7-F3DB-4829-9F18-5842237CB562@unm.edu> <003d01cb0cb0$0859a060$2101a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: On Jun 15, 2010, at 11:27 AM, Dan Lusthaus wrote: > I never denied that, when > pushed, you have offered up qualifications to your enthusiasm for > Ahmadinejad. I have no enthusiasm for Ahmadinejad as such. If you will read carefully what I wrote, I said I applauded what he said about the United States in his speech at the United Nations. The particular things he said there pertained to policies of the Bush administration (most of which, regrettably, the Obama administration is continuing). I am grateful that he, and several others, have had the courage to criticize US policies that should be criticized. To call that gratitude enthusiasm is to take a careless liberty with speech. > Nonetheless you continue to defend him for precisely the reason > I attributed to you, namely trash-talking the US. No, I do not defend Ahmadinejad for trash-talking the US. I am grateful that he identified a few areas in US policy that should be criticized. I am grateful to everyone who voices criticisms of bad policies wherever they occur. > By your own words, they > make you want to stand up and cheer. And, as I have said repeatedly, I cheer only those observations that strike me as legitimate. I have also said that most of what Ahmadinejad says makes me cringe. I have used the word "stupid" to refer to things said by Ahmadinejad and Ch?vez (another character who in your imagination ranks as one of my heroes). On reflection, I regret using the word "stupid", since it is an unrefined word that carries very little meaning but disapproval. I hereby apologize for using that word. > You don't deny that, yet you compose a > long message titled "accuracy" designed to denigrate me. No, that was not my intention at all. I was more interested in showing that my positions are more nuanced than the positions you sometimes attribute to me. > I would have expected you to be against nuclear proliferation, not for it. Yes, I am completely against it. I am for total nuclear disarmament by every nation and sub-national group. And I find it hypocritical for the world's largest nuclear power to take efforts to prevent others from having weapons that it refuses to divest itself of. Like most people, I think it would be a complete disaster if Iran and North Korea developed a nuclear arsenal. But that does not alter the fact that I also think it is a complete disaster for the United States to have a nuclear arsenal (about half of which is located less than five miles from my house in Albuquerque). > I > guess all one needs to get a pass on wanting a nuclear weapon is to > trash-talk the US and Israel. Bad guess. But why make guesses at all? > The question of whether preferring a Buddhism that lacked such elements (or > preferring a Catholicism that lacked Inquisitions, or Leftists that lacked > anti-zionism, etc.) is a good thing is a different matter than saying that > the historical and present reality of Buddhism is not as nonviolent as one > would wish. You're too busy villifying me to understand that distinction, > apparently. On the contrary, it is a distinction I have made repeatedly in my own writings, both in print and in blogs and in graffiti in bogs. >> I see no evidence that anyone on buddha-l admires anyone's hate speech > > You don't recognize it as such, since you are too busy applauding. I see no evidence that anyone on buddha-l admires anyone's hate speech. I say that without applauding anyone, not even with one hand. Richard From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Tue Jun 15 12:15:31 2010 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 14:15:31 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Accuracy References: <2A2922A7-2B68-4099-989B-509F4DCBF194@unm.edu><006701cb0c49$37606040$2101a8c0@Dan><251C7AE7-F3DB-4829-9F18-5842237CB562@unm.edu><003d01cb0cb0$0859a060$2101a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: <009b01cb0cb6$bdf36fe0$2101a8c0@Dan> Richard wrote: >I have no enthusiasm for Ahmadinejad as such. Nice to hear that. >> Nonetheless you continue to defend him for precisely the reason >> I attributed to you, namely trash-talking the US. >No, I do not defend Ahmadinejad for trash-talking the US. I am grateful >that he identified a few areas in US policy that should be criticized. I am >grateful to everyone who voices criticisms of bad policies wherever they >occur. Tomatoes, tomahtoes. >> I would have expected you to be against nuclear proliferation, not for >> it. >>Yes, I am completely against it. I am for total nuclear disarmament by >>every nation and sub-national group. And I find it hypocritical for the >>world's largest nuclear power to take efforts to prevent others from >>having weapons that it refuses to divest itself of. Like most people, I >>think it would be a complete disaster if Iran and North Korea developed a >>nuclear arsenal. But that does not alter the fact that I also think it is >>a complete disaster for the United States to have a nuclear arsenal (about >>half of which is located less than five miles from my house in >>Albuquerque). Well, I'll resist using the disapproving word "stupid", and use the Buddhist word for disapproval: "extremist." I would add, dangerous and naive. North Korea is holding its own people and the world hostage, while they starve to death, impoverish their population and rattle their swords. Do you sleep better knowing that amidst all the current turmoil in Pakistan, there is a nuclear arsenal available as a prize? Of course not. You think unilateral disarmament by the US would improve that? That's one reason why the word "delusion" has been appearing on this list so much recently. >>> I see no evidence that anyone on buddha-l admires anyone's hate speech > >> You don't recognize it as such, since you are too busy applauding. > >I see no evidence that anyone on buddha-l admires anyone's hate speech. Yes, I understand that you don't see it. That was my point. Another reason why the word "delusion" has appeared in these messages. Dan From bshmr at aol.com Tue Jun 15 12:55:28 2010 From: bshmr at aol.com (R B Basham) Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 12:55:28 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Accuracy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1276628128.18214.91.camel@aims110> {Lusthaus}: Gee, how inaccurate of me! {Hayes}: No one said or implied that you remembered inaccurately. The point is that you remember partially. You remember what you can use to denigrate another and forget the rest. ?If I may summarize my experience: The issue and dynamic seems to be not about 'right' but rather 'might', more precisely compensatory domination. Being Canadian you are in a class, with ?the alleged unblessed of world and the courts of alleged damned tribes, which can never trump obvious, doubled particularism. One solution, not one that I would choose, is to join those fantasizing themselves as being elite Exceptionals based on their caste, place, rote, or purchase -- in this case, members of the imperial USA or the mythical Zion. Personally, far too much delusion, greed, and fear in that path -- constant contention, etc. -- definitely at odds with reality. Another that I would not choose, be Palestinian. dalit. or imported indentured. A third, surround yourself with folks who 'have their sheit together' -- say 'meeting Quakers', JFP's, UUA's, CJME's, Doves, and the like. It is not that their 'clans' feel elite merely that their members' behaviors are more sustainable and evolved -- from a lay buddhist point of view less suffering. Fourth, the ancient adage DNFTT and updated DNFTT+CP is hard, especially for competent, sufficient persoms; plus, extinguishing ugly troll-ing or re-training ugly trolls is damned near impossible because it takes persistent, all encompassing discipline. But, one or two "nice scholarship" when deserved, along with twenty "cut the baiting/crap, asshole" when appropriate (personal emails) can shape behavior (even mine ). Richard Basham From jmp at peavler.org Tue Jun 15 13:13:03 2010 From: jmp at peavler.org (Jim Peavler) Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 13:13:03 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Access to Archives: Housekeeping In-Reply-To: <009b01cb0cb6$bdf36fe0$2101a8c0@Dan> References: <2A2922A7-2B68-4099-989B-509F4DCBF194@unm.edu><006701cb0c49$37606040$2101a8c0@Dan><251C7AE7-F3DB-4829-9F18-5842237CB562@unm.edu><003d01cb0cb0$0859a060$2101a8c0@Dan> <009b01cb0cb6$bdf36fe0$2101a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: There have been some recent complaints about difficulty using the archives. No one gave an explicit reason for their troubles, but upon trying to access the archives myself, I found the first stump I plowed into was the password. If the password was your first problem here is the solution. At the bottom of every page is this line: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l Click on this line and you will get your membership management page. At the bottom of this page you may (confusingly, in my opinion) to either "unsubscribe or edit options". Click this button. At the bottom of this page you are allowed to ask the system to send you your password. Type in the email address that buddha-l uses for you Ignore the "password" button Click on "Remind" button at bottom of page You will receive your password by email. Use this password to access the archives. If this ISN'T your problem with archives, please let me know. From jkirk at spro.net Tue Jun 15 13:21:58 2010 From: jkirk at spro.net (JKirkpatrick) Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 13:21:58 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Accuracy In-Reply-To: <1276628128.18214.91.camel@aims110> References: <1276628128.18214.91.camel@aims110> Message-ID: <959424F939F84ABC8812DE3221E1C6C8@OPTIPLEX> Mr Basham------------Well put, ol' thing. Let the RH/DL sort of carping go private for a change, OK? Joanna --------------------------- {Lusthaus}: Gee, how inaccurate of me! {Hayes}: No one said or implied that you remembered inaccurately. The point is that you remember partially. You remember what you can use to denigrate another and forget the rest. ?If I may summarize my experience: The issue and dynamic seems to be not about 'right' but rather 'might', more precisely compensatory domination. Being Canadian you are in a class, with ?the alleged unblessed of world and the courts of alleged damned tribes, which can never trump obvious, doubled particularism. One solution, not one that I would choose, is to join those fantasizing themselves as being elite Exceptionals based on their caste, place, rote, or purchase -- in this case, members of the imperial USA or the mythical Zion. Personally, far too much delusion, greed, and fear in that path -- constant contention, etc. -- definitely at odds with reality. Another that I would not choose, be Palestinian. dalit. or imported indentured. A third, surround yourself with folks who 'have their sheit together' -- say 'meeting Quakers', JFP's, UUA's, CJME's, Doves, and the like. It is not that their 'clans' feel elite merely that their members' behaviors are more sustainable and evolved -- from a lay buddhist point of view less suffering. Fourth, the ancient adage DNFTT and updated DNFTT+CP is hard, especially for competent, sufficient persoms; plus, extinguishing ugly troll-ing or re-training ugly trolls is damned near impossible because it takes persistent, all encompassing discipline. But, one or two "nice scholarship" when deserved, along with twenty "cut the baiting/crap, asshole" when appropriate (personal emails) can shape behavior (even mine ). Richard Basham _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From rhayes at unm.edu Tue Jun 15 14:22:04 2010 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 14:22:04 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Accuracy In-Reply-To: <009b01cb0cb6$bdf36fe0$2101a8c0@Dan> References: <2A2922A7-2B68-4099-989B-509F4DCBF194@unm.edu><006701cb0c49$37606040$2101a8c0@Dan><251C7AE7-F3DB-4829-9F18-5842237CB562@unm.edu><003d01cb0cb0$0859a060$2101a8c0@Dan> <009b01cb0cb6$bdf36fe0$2101a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: On Jun 15, 2010, at 12:15 PM, Dan Lusthaus wrote: > You think unilateral > disarmament by the US would improve that? That's one reason why the word > "delusion" has been appearing on this list so much recently. Do you think I advocated unilateral disarmament? That could be why the word "careless" has been appearing on this list so much lately. You read carelessly, attribute views to people they do not have and call what you falsely depict them as saying "delusional." >> I see no evidence that anyone on buddha-l admires anyone's hate speech. > > Yes, I understand that you don't see it. That was my point. Another reason > why the word "delusion" has appeared in these messages. At last I see evidence of a kind of hateful speech on buddha-l. But I don't see anyone using it other than you. Then again, as you keep pointing out, people are not always aware of how hateful their use of language sounds to others. From rhayes at unm.edu Tue Jun 15 14:40:09 2010 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 14:40:09 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Access to Archives: Housekeeping In-Reply-To: References: <2A2922A7-2B68-4099-989B-509F4DCBF194@unm.edu><006701cb0c49$37606040$2101a8c0@Dan><251C7AE7-F3DB-4829-9F18-5842237CB562@unm.edu><003d01cb0cb0$0859a060$2101a8c0@Dan> <009b01cb0cb6$bdf36fe0$2101a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: <5DA2FCB0-00FF-44CB-8CC9-308039CABE35@unm.edu> In addition to the lucid explanations Jim gave on how to get your password, you may be able to wait until the first of every month, at which time your password is automatically mailed to you. I am assuming everyone receives that message every month. I do. I am also assuming most of you who get it delete it. I do. As for searching the archives, I have not yet found any way other than downloading the gzipped file that is produced each month, unzipping it into a directory on my own computer and then using a search tool on my computer (such as grep in Linux or Spotlight on a Mac) to search through all the files in that directory. As Jim and I have begged everyone many times, PLEASE when responding to a message on buddha-l, trim away everything from the message to which you are commenting except the very passage you are commenting upon. If that is not done, then people doing searches will find not only the message they are seeking but all those messages that quote the message they are seeking. Follow the example of Dan Lusthaus, who is admirably conscientious in the practice of leaving only the passages he is actually commenting upon. Do not, if you can help it, follow Dan's practice of offering ridiculously distorted interpretations of the passages he has quoted. He can't help it. He reads Buddhist texts in the original languages, and he is simply following the practices used by the authors of Buddhist texts. The Buddhists do not have a methodology on the methodology. The technique is pretty much the same everywhere. Quote, distort, refute the distortion. While that hermeneutical strategy is universal, it is not, as Erik will probably agree, commendable. Richard Hayes From rhayes at unm.edu Tue Jun 15 14:41:44 2010 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 14:41:44 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Accuracy In-Reply-To: <959424F939F84ABC8812DE3221E1C6C8@OPTIPLEX> References: <1276628128.18214.91.camel@aims110> <959424F939F84ABC8812DE3221E1C6C8@OPTIPLEX> Message-ID: On Jun 15, 2010, at 1:21 PM, JKirkpatrick wrote: > > Mr Basham------------Well put, ol' thing. > Let the RH/DL sort of carping go private for a change, OK? No, thank you. We'd rather discuss these things in the open. Richard From rhayes at unm.edu Tue Jun 15 14:46:15 2010 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 14:46:15 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Access to Archives: Housekeeping In-Reply-To: <1229_1276634505_4C17E588_1229_32_1_5DA2FCB0-00FF-44CB-8CC9-308039CABE35@unm.edu> References: <2A2922A7-2B68-4099-989B-509F4DCBF194@unm.edu><006701cb0c49$37606040$2101a8c0@Dan><251C7AE7-F3DB-4829-9F18-5842237CB562@unm.edu><003d01cb0cb0$0859a060$2101a8c0@Dan> <009b01cb0cb6$bdf36fe0$2101a8c0@Dan> <1229_1276634505_4C17E588_1229_32_1_5DA2FCB0-00FF-44CB-8CC9-308039CABE35@unm.edu> Message-ID: On Jun 15, 2010, at 2:40 PM, Richard Hayes wrote: > The Buddhists do not have a methodology on the methodology. What I meant to say, of course, is that Buddhists do not have a methodology on the monopoly. Or maybe I meant they do not have a monopoly on the methodology. Or perhaps I meant that methodology is not the only fallacious move that Buddhists make; like most religious writers, they make good use of the full range of specious and fallacious arguments. From lidewij at gmail.com Tue Jun 15 15:35:36 2010 From: lidewij at gmail.com (Lidewij Niezink) Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 23:35:36 +0200 Subject: [Buddha-l] Ethical Dilemmas and Death Penalties andmaliciouszombies for governor. In-Reply-To: References: <002a01cb089f$262bfb70$2101a8c0@Dan> <250367.3520.qm@web86601.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <004101cb0942$93129070$2101a8c0@Dan> <004001cb09a8$753563a0$2101a8c0@Dan> <004301cb0a16$ea764990$2101a8c0@Dan> <007201cb0ac6$eec373a0$2101a8c0@Dan> <00b901cb0af8$672ab390$2101a8c0@Dan> <3A70B115-B948-4BC4-B99A-23A478C1BE8C@unm.edu> <0E082306-2F1F-4DA1-AAF5-BBC6081D1DCB@peavler.org> <1DD529B5-CA82-4263-84A0-4164DDB6FA3B@unm.edu> <2C8E61C087B44510AA9A4B3687E4D8F3@OPTIPLEX> <3F593449-BE57-4CBC-A6AD-8212D952FAD0@unm.edu> <00b301cb0c53$97d81210$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C17A316.2050406@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: > It's better to > call it 'Life imprisonment with the right to die on demand.' If capital > punishment is too harsh a punishment, than being forced to stay alive too. > > Stefan > _______________________________________________ What, do you think, would be the consequence of that 'right to die on demand' in terms of prison daily life? -- Milton said: "They also serve who only stand and wait." http://www.linkedin.com/in/lniezink From rhayes at unm.edu Tue Jun 15 16:02:15 2010 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 16:02:15 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Ethical Dilemmas and Death Penalties andmaliciouszombies for governor. In-Reply-To: References: <002a01cb089f$262bfb70$2101a8c0@Dan> <250367.3520.qm@web86601.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <004101cb0942$93129070$2101a8c0@Dan> <004001cb09a8$753563a0$2101a8c0@Dan> <004301cb0a16$ea764990$2101a8c0@Dan> <007201cb0ac6$eec373a0$2101a8c0@Dan> <00b901cb0af8$672ab390$2101a8c0@Dan> <3A70B115-B948-4BC4-B99A-23A478C1BE8C@unm.edu> <0E082306-2F1F-4DA1-AAF5-BBC6081D1DCB@peavler.org> <1DD529B5-CA82-4263-84A0-4164DDB6FA3B@unm.edu> <2C8E61C087B44510AA9A4B3687E4D8F3@OPTIPLEX> <3F593449-BE57-4CBC-A6AD-8212D952FAD0@unm.edu> <00b301cb0c53$97d81210$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C17A316.2050406@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: On Jun 15, 2010, at 3:35 PM, Lidewij Niezink wrote: > What, do you think, would be the consequence of that 'right to die on > demand' in terms of prison daily life? In my correspondence with prisoners, I get the impression that in most California prisons an inmate can exercise his right to die rather easily. All one needs to do is to walk up to a very big guy with lots of tattoos and accuse him of being an eel-wriggler or an icchantika. Death before midnight is pretty much guaranteed. Richard From jmp at peavler.org Tue Jun 15 17:30:17 2010 From: jmp at peavler.org (Jim Peavler) Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 17:30:17 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Mailman techniques: Housekeeping In-Reply-To: References: <2A2922A7-2B68-4099-989B-509F4DCBF194@unm.edu><006701cb0c49$37606040$2101a8c0@Dan><251C7AE7-F3DB-4829-9F18-5842237CB562@unm.edu><003d01cb0cb0$0859a060$2101a8c0@Dan> <009b01cb0cb6$bdf36fe0$2101a8c0@Dan> <1229_1276634505_4C17E588_1229_32_1_5DA2FCB0-00FF-44CB-8CC9-308039CABE35@unm.edu> Message-ID: Probably the most important technique for buddha-l denizens: Please do not read messages that you know will offend you, piss you off, bore you, or otherwise cause the least discomfort to you. You will find this can save you several hours/week and save us all from having to delete the messages where you express your displeasure with the displeasure of others who are displeasing each other. Or just read one out of five with the same subject line and you can usually follow the main gist. Jim Peavler jmp at peavler.org "Be good. Be just." John Adams From rhayes at unm.edu Tue Jun 15 18:30:53 2010 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 18:30:53 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Mailman techniques: Housekeeping In-Reply-To: References: <2A2922A7-2B68-4099-989B-509F4DCBF194@unm.edu><006701cb0c49$37606040$2101a8c0@Dan><251C7AE7-F3DB-4829-9F18-5842237CB562@unm.edu><003d01cb0cb0$0859a060$2101a8c0@Dan> <009b01cb0cb6$bdf36fe0$2101a8c0@Dan> <1229_1276634505_4C17E588_1229_32_1_5DA2FCB0-00FF-44CB-8CC9-308039CABE35@unm.edu> Message-ID: <2CAF5967-D4A2-4408-B952-4FB24F654AF5@unm.edu> On Jun 15, 2010, at 17:30, Jim Peavler wrote: > Probably the most important technique for buddha-l denizens: > > Please do not read messages that you know will offend you, piss you > off, bore you, or otherwise cause the least discomfort to you. The best way to know in advance what will cause dukkha is to be omniscient. In the absence of that, prejudice will do the trick. > Or just read one out of five with the same subject line and you can > usually follow the main gist. This is potentially dangerous advice. What if someone fails to read important warnings about all the dangerously naive and delusional anti- Buddhist rhetoric of left-wing hate-mongers? Better advice would be to avoid reading anything by Hayes, the Glenn Beck of Buddhism. > > > "Be good. Be just." John Adams > > > > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Wed Jun 16 01:54:01 2010 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 03:54:01 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Accuracy References: <1276628128.18214.91.camel@aims110> Message-ID: <01a601cb0d29$15e9b890$2101a8c0@Dan> Dear Richard B. Thank you for making very clear and explicit the party line and affiliations which are to be lauded and reviled in this group. What that translates into is that trash-talking the US and Israel is laudable, while defending either is cause for being reviled. By that definition, only the defenders can be accused of hate-speech, as the other Richard kindly reminds us repeatedly; the trash-talkers are beacons of truth. Thank you for making my point for me. As I asked and commented in a message to Erik a short while back: --- Is there a way to call it what it is without sounding like an extremist? http://www.investigativeproject.org/1428/al-quds-day-celebrating-hate-and-supporting-terror That's the irony -- the bloodthirsty masquerade as the righteous, and those who recognize them for what they are eschewed as illiberal. --- So the answer to my question seems to be a resounding "no." Knowing that that is the general ethos it would be very easy to stay silent when the party-line sermons are broadcast. I choose not to. I know it's unpopular. I also know there are more prudent lurkers who appreciate my efforts. I do what's right, not what's popular. >members of the imperial USA or the > mythical Zion. That, of course, is the purpose. Making Israel illegitimate. Thank you for making that clear as well. Anyone else care to stand up and cheer besides Joanna? Viparyasa. Dan From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Wed Jun 16 01:56:05 2010 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 03:56:05 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Access to Archives: Housekeeping References: <2A2922A7-2B68-4099-989B-509F4DCBF194@unm.edu><006701cb0c49$37606040$2101a8c0@Dan><251C7AE7-F3DB-4829-9F18-5842237CB562@unm.edu><003d01cb0cb0$0859a060$2101a8c0@Dan><009b01cb0cb6$bdf36fe0$2101a8c0@Dan> <5DA2FCB0-00FF-44CB-8CC9-308039CABE35@unm.edu> Message-ID: <01b901cb0d29$5fb615e0$2101a8c0@Dan> Richard H. wrote: > Do not, if you can help it, follow Dan's practice of offering ridiculously > distorted interpretations of the passages he has quoted. A few messages ago the estimable Dr. Hayes wrote: > No one said or implied that you remembered inaccurately. Were you lying then or are you lying now? Dan From jehms at xs4all.nl Wed Jun 16 02:36:20 2010 From: jehms at xs4all.nl (Erik Hoogcarspel) Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 10:36:20 +0200 Subject: [Buddha-l] Accuracy In-Reply-To: <01a601cb0d29$15e9b890$2101a8c0@Dan> References: <1276628128.18214.91.camel@aims110> <01a601cb0d29$15e9b890$2101a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: <4C188D04.5000009@xs4all.nl> Op 16-06-10 09:54, Dan Lusthaus schreef: > As I asked and commented in a message to Erik a short while back: > > --- > Is there a way to call it what it is without sounding like an extremist? > http://www.investigativeproject.org/1428/al-quds-day-celebrating-hate-and-supporting-terror > > That's the irony -- the bloodthirsty masquerade as the righteous, and those > who recognize them for what they are eschewed as illiberal. > --- > Dan, there are many ways to call something what it is, without sounding like an extremist. Unlike Wittgenstein thought language is not a projection of a state of affairs, but an interpretation. So if the speaker is not an extremist, she will not flip into an extremist position and will therefore not speak out in an extremist way. The make sure this happens some Buddhists have the technique of mindfulness others like to maintain an empty mind. In the video we see angry people talking angrily and waving symbols. If we would get angry or upset about it, we wouldn't be mindful or have an empty mind, we also would forget all about compassion and wisdom and we would speak like an extremist. Why don't we try to stop these people and give them what they need? They just need sympathy and respect, and then also some good education. erik From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Wed Jun 16 04:04:35 2010 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 06:04:35 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Accuracy References: <1276628128.18214.91.camel@aims110><01a601cb0d29$15e9b890$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C188D04.5000009@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <01d701cb0d3b$53849320$2101a8c0@Dan> >> That's the irony -- the bloodthirsty masquerade as the righteous, and >> those >> who recognize them for what they are eschewed as illiberal. > Dan, Erik replies: > there are many ways to call something what it is, without sounding like > an extremist. Unlike Wittgenstein thought language is not a projection > of a state of affairs, but an interpretation. So if the speaker is not > an extremist, she will not flip into an extremist position and will > therefore not speak out in an extremist way. You seem to be contradicting yourself here. You are saying since the speaker *is* reflecting the state of affairs underlying the speech (i.e., not being an extremist), she cannot be misconstrued to be something she's not. Let's complicate the picture -- there is a speaker. There is the speaker's utterance(s). There is an audience (lit. means "hearers", "sraavakas), composed of a multiplicity of ears and minds who don't necessarily hear the same things in the same ways. There is that about which the speaker speaks (a state of affairs?). There are the personal and collective experiences of the audience, which may or may not overlap with each other, or with the speaker's experiences, and may or may not have had prior or current encounters with the same or similar states of affairs. There are the ambiguities that language usage brings to any communication between people. We could extend this list. Each of these is subject to multiple interpretations. So someone who is not an extremist (in her own mind) might be *heard* as an extremist by some portion of the audience. Conversely, someone who *is* an extremist might NOT be heard as such by some portion of the audience. Much of the current exchanges has revolved around who gets to legitimately pin which labels on whom. I say Ahmadinejad is an extremist whose hate-speech is not recognized as such by those who share his loathing (though they wouldn't be comfortable with that characterization). Conversely, while I am not an extremist, many on this list prefer to think of me as one. Obiously the inverse of both these statements has been asserted as well. Due to the ambiguity of language -- and perhaps my lack of clarity -- the question was not directed at how to look at the people in the video, but whether one can bring up the subject of things like what Al Quds (or political Islam, etc.) really is (as opposed to how it is packaged for European consumption) without sounding like an extremist or someone in the Wilders/Tea Party camp. Note that among the numerous links that I supplied, one which pointed out strong actual historical links between Hitler and the Nazis and the Arabs (esp. Arafat's predecessor) -- which could be dismissed as the alarmist propoganda of Widers-ites -- and another link by people who themselves not only acknowledge but celebrate that history, taken together this dramatically reduces the issue of "interpretation" in this matter. The former site cannot be dismissed as distorting propogandists, since what they present as representing that ideology is identical to the self-declarations of those subscribing to that ideology. In other words, the description is *accurate.* All that remains for interpretation is whether to be concerned or celebratory about such ideology. (On could just pretend it's not important, or devote energy to mounting arguments designed to minimize it, but then one leaves that arena open to Wilders, et al.) And if concerned, what to do about it. (But at least we will have gone beyond the denial stage of labeling those who point out that such things are the case as extremists or worse.) Not only are each of the items listed above in the complication paragraph subject to interpretation, the relations between each item is also subject to interpretation. If there are states of affairs anywhere in this (meaning, in this context, some basic data underlying the varying interpretations), then each item -- including the role of a state of affairs in being that about which a speaker speaks as opposed to being simply a state of affairs -- can be construed in terms of its proximity or distance from that state of affairs, i.e., more or less accurate. One thing Richard is dead right about: I do love the word "accuracy." Any activity that brings clarity about what is the case, brings one closer to seeing yatha-bhuta, things just as they are. Accuracy. That, for me, is what Buddhism is about. > If > we would get angry or upset about it, we wouldn't be mindful or have an > empty mind, we also would forget all about compassion and wisdom and we > would speak like an extremist. Why don't we try to stop these people and > give them what they need? They just need sympathy and respect, and then > also some good education. In fact, many of them are highly educated. (Education seems to increase rather than decrease the likelihood of extremist behavior, contrary to the popular sociological myth: Aum Shin Rikyo, the 9/11 hijackers, Bin Laden. student movements... [pace Marx, the revolutions have come from the intellectual elites, not the peasants]; perhaps a subject for another day. Mythbusting is hard on this list.) What do you think of Karl Popper? Did you know he is popular in certain quarters in Iran? http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/15/opinion/15gerecht.html Dan From jehms at xs4all.nl Wed Jun 16 09:32:24 2010 From: jehms at xs4all.nl (Erik Hoogcarspel) Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 17:32:24 +0200 Subject: [Buddha-l] Accuracy In-Reply-To: <01d701cb0d3b$53849320$2101a8c0@Dan> References: <1276628128.18214.91.camel@aims110><01a601cb0d29$15e9b890$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C188D04.5000009@xs4all.nl> <01d701cb0d3b$53849320$2101a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: <4C18EE88.20804@xs4all.nl> Op 16-06-10 12:04, Dan Lusthaus schreef: > Let's complicate the picture -- there is a speaker. There is the speaker's > utterance(s). There is an audience (lit. means "hearers", "sraavakas), > composed of a multiplicity of ears and minds who don't necessarily hear the > same things in the same ways. There is that about which the speaker speaks > (a state of affairs?). There are the personal and collective experiences of > the audience, which may or may not overlap with each other, or with the > speaker's experiences, and may or may not have had prior or current > encounters with the same or similar states of affairs. There are the > ambiguities that language usage brings to any communication between people. > We could extend this list. Each of these is subject to multiple > interpretations. > In this you need what is usually translated as 'skilfull means' and what Aristotle called 'rhetorics'. > > Due to the ambiguity of language -- and perhaps my lack of clarity -- > How about 'due to the clarity of language and my lack of ambiguity' ? Perhaps being less accurate helps to get your meaning across more clearly. Accuracy is very good when you plan to bring a satellite into orbit, but when describing people's intentions you may just be saying too much. By not being accurate you let others interpretate for themselves, you only have to send them in the right direction. > One thing Richard is dead right about: I do love the word "accuracy." > It's worse: you love the meaning as well. Perhaps it are your German roots. > Any activity that brings clarity about what is the case, brings one closer > to seeing yatha-bhuta, things just as they are. Accuracy. That, for me, is > what Buddhism is about. > Buddhism also has it's Dionysian sides. I used to read tantric texts and I loved the chaos, what Roland Barthes called 'the pleasure of the text' . > >> > If >> > we would get angry or upset about it, we wouldn't be mindful or have an >> > empty mind, we also would forget all about compassion and wisdom and we >> > would speak like an extremist. Why don't we try to stop these people and >> > give them what they need? They just need sympathy and respect, and then >> > also some good education. >> > In fact, many of them are highly educated. (Education seems to increase > rather than decrease the likelihood of extremist behavior, contrary to the > popular sociological myth: Aum Shin Rikyo, the 9/11 hijackers, Bin Laden. > student movements... [pace Marx, the revolutions have come from the > intellectual elites, not the peasants]; perhaps a subject for another day. > Mythbusting is hard on this list.) > I had the honour of discussing this with late Arne Naess and he mentioned the difference between wisdom and knowledge. An education that only brings knowledge is not very good. > What do you think of Karl Popper? Did you know he is popular in certain > quarters in Iran? > Thanks, very interesting. Check out the website of Soroush. http://www.drsoroush.com/English.htm erik From stefan.detrez at gmail.com Wed Jun 16 11:34:58 2010 From: stefan.detrez at gmail.com (Stefan Detrez) Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 19:34:58 +0200 Subject: [Buddha-l] Ethical Dilemmas and Death Penalties andmaliciouszombies for governor. In-Reply-To: References: <002a01cb089f$262bfb70$2101a8c0@Dan> <250367.3520.qm@web86601.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <004101cb0942$93129070$2101a8c0@Dan> <004001cb09a8$753563a0$2101a8c0@Dan> <004301cb0a16$ea764990$2101a8c0@Dan> <007201cb0ac6$eec373a0$2101a8c0@Dan> <00b901cb0af8$672ab390$2101a8c0@Dan> <3A70B115-B948-4BC4-B99A-23A478C1BE8C@unm.edu> <0E082306-2F1F-4DA1-AAF5-BBC6081D1DCB@peavler.org> <1DD529B5-CA82-4263-84A0-4164DDB6FA3B@unm.edu> <2C8E61C087B44510AA9A4B3687E4D8F3@OPTIPLEX> <3F593449-BE57-4CBC-A6AD-8212D952FAD0@unm.edu> <00b301cb0c53$97d81210$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C17A316.2050406@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: 2010/6/15 Lidewij Niezink > > It's better to > > call it 'Life imprisonment with the right to die on demand.' If capital > > punishment is too harsh a punishment, than being forced to stay alive > too. > > > > Stefan > > _______________________________________________ > > What, do you think, would be the consequence of that 'right to die on > demand' in terms of prison daily life? > > Some would do it, others wouldn't. Being imprisoned for life is enough punishment. The right to die on demand stand separate from the idea of being punished. If capital punishment is considered inhumane, than being forced to stay alive in a prison until one dies a natural death seems to be even more inhumane. Stefan From stefan.detrez at gmail.com Wed Jun 16 11:40:00 2010 From: stefan.detrez at gmail.com (Stefan Detrez) Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 19:40:00 +0200 Subject: [Buddha-l] Ethical Dilemmas and Death Penalties andmaliciouszombies for governor. In-Reply-To: References: <002a01cb089f$262bfb70$2101a8c0@Dan> <250367.3520.qm@web86601.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <004101cb0942$93129070$2101a8c0@Dan> <004001cb09a8$753563a0$2101a8c0@Dan> <004301cb0a16$ea764990$2101a8c0@Dan> <007201cb0ac6$eec373a0$2101a8c0@Dan> <00b901cb0af8$672ab390$2101a8c0@Dan> <3A70B115-B948-4BC4-B99A-23A478C1BE8C@unm.edu> <0E082306-2F1F-4DA1-AAF5-BBC6081D1DCB@peavler.org> <1DD529B5-CA82-4263-84A0-4164DDB6FA3B@unm.edu> <2C8E61C087B44510AA9A4B3687E4D8F3@OPTIPLEX> <3F593449-BE57-4CBC-A6AD-8212D952FAD0@unm.edu> <00b301cb0c53$97d81210$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C17A316.2050406@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: > > > What, do you think, would be the consequence of that 'right to die on > > demand' in terms of prison daily life? > > In my correspondence with prisoners, I get the impression that in most > California prisons an inmate can exercise his right to die rather easily. > All one needs to do is to walk up to a very big guy with lots of tattoos and > accuse him of being an eel-wriggler or an icchantika. Death before midnight > is pretty much guaranteed. > > Any idea if some of them would like to have assisted suicide for non-medical reasons? Would there be room for assisted suicide as a bodhisattvic gesture? Stefan, unobligatorily alive From jmp at peavler.org Thu Jun 17 17:10:45 2010 From: jmp at peavler.org (Jim Peavler) Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 17:10:45 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] bounce test In-Reply-To: References: <002a01cb089f$262bfb70$2101a8c0@Dan> <250367.3520.qm@web86601.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <004101cb0942$93129070$2101a8c0@Dan> <004001cb09a8$753563a0$2101a8c0@Dan> <004301cb0a16$ea764990$2101a8c0@Dan> <007201cb0ac6$eec373a0$2101a8c0@Dan> <00b901cb0af8$672ab390$2101a8c0@Dan> <3A70B115-B948-4BC4-B99A-23A478C1BE8C@unm.edu> <0E082306-2F1F-4DA1-AAF5-BBC6081D1DCB@peavler.org> <1DD529B5-CA82-4263-84A0-4164DDB6FA3B@unm.edu> <2C8E61C087B44510AA9A4B3687E4D8F3@OPTIPLEX> <3F593449-BE57-4CBC-A6AD-8212D952FAD0@unm.edu> <00b301cb0c53$97d81210$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C17A316.2050406@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <9D3BDA0B-03FF-4199-9A73-CE3715F5E98A@peavler.org> nonsense from administrator's test Jim Peavler jmp at peavler.org "Be good. Be just." John Adams From rhayes at unm.edu Thu Jun 17 18:26:42 2010 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 18:26:42 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] bounce test In-Reply-To: <9D3BDA0B-03FF-4199-9A73-CE3715F5E98A@peavler.org> References: <002a01cb089f$262bfb70$2101a8c0@Dan> <250367.3520.qm@web86601.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <004101cb0942$93129070$2101a8c0@Dan> <004001cb09a8$753563a0$2101a8c0@Dan> <004301cb0a16$ea764990$2101a8c0@Dan> <007201cb0ac6$eec373a0$2101a8c0@Dan> <00b901cb0af8$672ab390$2101a8c0@Dan> <3A70B115-B948-4BC4-B99A-23A478C1BE8C@unm.edu> <0E082306-2F1F-4DA1-AAF5-BBC6081D1DCB@peavler.org> <1DD529B5-CA82-4263-84A0-4164DDB6FA3B@unm.edu> <2C8E61C087B44510AA9A4B3687E4D8F3@OPTIPLEX> <3F593449-BE57-4CBC-A6AD-8212D952FAD0@unm.edu> <00b301cb0c53$97d81210$2101a8c0@Dan> <4C17A316.2050406@xs4all.nl> <9D3BDA0B-03FF-4199-9A73-CE3715F5E98A@peavler.org> Message-ID: On Jun 17, 2010, at 17:10, Jim Peavler wrote: > nonsense from administrator's test You passed the nonsense test! > "Be good. Be just." John Adams "Just be." Laozi From mb.schiekel at arcor.de Sat Jun 19 00:42:32 2010 From: mb.schiekel at arcor.de (M.B. Schiekel) Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 08:42:32 +0200 Subject: [Buddha-l] Satipatthana in Kanjur? Message-ID: <4C1C66D8.8070609@arcor.de> Hello all, in his 'Confession of a Buddhist Atheist' Stephen Batchelor writes, that the Satipatthana-Sutta is, like many other Suttas of the Pali-Suttapitaka, not found in the Kanjur. Analayo in his 'Satipatthana: The Direct Path to Realization' cites Schmithausen, that the Satipatthana-Sutta is found in the Sravakabhumi-part of the Kanjur. Is here anybody, who can say something to this question? Thank you very much. with metta, bernhard -- http://www.mb-schiekel.de/ GPG-Key available: GnuPG-2.0.12 From mb.schiekel at arcor.de Sat Jun 19 00:54:44 2010 From: mb.schiekel at arcor.de (M.B. Schiekel) Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 08:54:44 +0200 Subject: [Buddha-l] searching the buddha-l archive Message-ID: <4C1C69B4.8030809@arcor.de> > This was discussed a while back. Check the archives. Dear Richard, searching the buddh-l archive is until now not so user-friendly. If there is no easy way to implement a search-function, might be one could provide the old discussions as ZIP-files on a 'year-basis', and not on a 'month-basis'? Thank you and with metta, bernhard -- http://www.mb-schiekel.de/ GPG-Key available: GnuPG-2.0.12 From rhayes at unm.edu Sat Jun 19 07:37:04 2010 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 07:37:04 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] searching the buddha-l archive In-Reply-To: <4C1C69B4.8030809@arcor.de> References: <4C1C69B4.8030809@arcor.de> Message-ID: <066DA584-4F9A-434A-ACC3-C4968B6C9ACA@unm.edu> On Jun 19, 2010, at 12:54 AM, M.B. Schiekel wrote: > searching the buddh-l archive is until now not so user-friendly. If > there is no easy way to implement a search-function, might be one could > provide the old discussions as ZIP-files on a 'year-basis', and not on a > 'month-basis'? It is possible to set the archives to generate a zipped (using Unix gzip) file daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly or yearly. It is now set to monthly archiving. Our archives go back to March 2005. I believe that those monthly archives would remain unchanged even if we set the archiving to yearly or quarterly. The change would affect only future archives, I think. But I'm not sure. I'm never sure about anything, I think. But I'm not sure. I have no preferences in this matter. Does anyone else have anything to say about the amount of time between generating new archives? Richard From jmp at peavler.org Sat Jun 19 13:41:10 2010 From: jmp at peavler.org (Jim Peavler) Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 13:41:10 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] searching the buddha-l archive In-Reply-To: <066DA584-4F9A-434A-ACC3-C4968B6C9ACA@unm.edu> References: <4C1C69B4.8030809@arcor.de> <066DA584-4F9A-434A-ACC3-C4968B6C9ACA@unm.edu> Message-ID: <37DF2AC2-8BD2-4C96-A861-9F95AE35BB5B@peavler.org> On Jun 19, 2010, at 7:37 AM, Richard Hayes wrote: > I have no preferences in this matter. Does anyone else have anything to say about the amount of time between generating new archives? Never look back? Jim Peavler jmp at peavler.org "Be good. Be just." John Adams From rhayes at unm.edu Sat Jun 19 15:37:36 2010 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 15:37:36 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] searching the buddha-l archive In-Reply-To: <37DF2AC2-8BD2-4C96-A861-9F95AE35BB5B@peavler.org> References: <4C1C69B4.8030809@arcor.de> <066DA584-4F9A-434A-ACC3-C4968B6C9ACA@unm.edu> <37DF2AC2-8BD2-4C96-A861-9F95AE35BB5B@peavler.org> Message-ID: On Jun 19, 2010, at 1:41 PM, Jim Peavler wrote: > > On Jun 19, 2010, at 7:37 AM, Richard Hayes wrote: > >> I have no preferences in this matter. Does anyone else have anything to say about the amount of time between generating new archives? > > Never look back? That also is an option. We are not required to have any archives at all. Let those who are obsessed with pointing out how what one is saying now contradicts what one said in October 2005 keep their own damn archives, eh? Richard From mgessex at yahoo.com Sat Jun 19 17:12:53 2010 From: mgessex at yahoo.com (Michael Essex) Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 16:12:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Buddha-l] satipattna Message-ID: <721890.83883.qm@web65605.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Quote: in his 'Confession of a Buddhist Atheist' Stephen Batchelor writes, that the Satipatthana-Sutta is, like many other Suttas of the Pali-Suttapitaka, not found in the Kanjur. Analayo in his 'Satipatthana: The Direct Path to Realization' cites Schmithausen, that the Satipatthana-Sutta is found in the Sravakabhumi-part of the Kanjur. Is here anybody, who can say something to this question? Thank you very much. with metta, bernhard Hi Bernard,I find in bka' 'gyur (sde dge par phud) volume 68 'phags pa dam pa'i chos dran pa nye bar bzhag pa - titlePageTitle saddharmasmrtyupasthana it is 500+ folios and have not looked at the texts. hope this is helpful Mike From mgessex at yahoo.com Sat Jun 19 17:32:59 2010 From: mgessex at yahoo.com (Michael Essex) Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 16:32:59 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Buddha-l] buddha-l Digest, Vol 64, Issue 48 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <555510.17337.qm@web65604.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> It also seems to extend through volume 69 and into volume 70.Mike -------------------- Message: 1 Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 08:42:32 +0200 From: "M.B. Schiekel" Subject: [Buddha-l] Satipatthana in Kanjur? To: buddha-l Message-ID: <4C1C66D8.8070609 at arcor.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Hello all, in his 'Confession of a Buddhist Atheist' Stephen Batchelor writes, that the Satipatthana-Sutta is, like many other Suttas of the Pali-Suttapitaka, not found in the Kanjur. Analayo in his 'Satipatthana: The Direct Path to Realization' cites Schmithausen, that the Satipatthana-Sutta is found in the Sravakabhumi-part of the Kanjur. Is here anybody, who can say something to this question? Thank you very much. with metta, bernhard -- http://www.mb-schiekel.de/ GPG-Key available: GnuPG-2.0.12 From jkirk at spro.net Sun Jun 20 17:24:25 2010 From: jkirk at spro.net (JKirkpatrick) Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2010 17:24:25 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] the 4 ages: age of alone Message-ID: <455EF07282A748C397FBC91E175288C6@OPTIPLEX> One of the un-rewards of old age is the slow die-off of old friends and family, distant or close. Sort of prepares one for the final aloneness. I just saw an article about how Pakistan's PM--Asif Ali Zardari-- has to figure out some kind of an energy plan, at this late date, of course. He is not known for looking far ahead. It prompted thoughts of an old pleasure--discussing S Asia politics with my first and late husband--who was an Indian but a Muslim too, and so had interesting analyses of doings in Pakistan. I live in a desert--no really: literally, in Idaho, and figuratively in a very provincial ultra Republican place. They don't even have S. Asia on the curriculum at the state U nearby. Nobody here for such chins chins, except our son. I can't of course go after him every time I want to talk about India or Pakistan. Or even about Buddhism. One mindful thing he and his wife did was to dump TV when it went digital. Meanwhile, I'm back on TV watching the Pebble Beach golf tournament. I'm a native of California and the vistas around this golf club are pristine California as I remember it back in the 40's. Some things resist impermanence, but nostalgia probably is not a mood that's all that beneficial? Joanna From sjziobro at cs.com Sun Jun 20 17:47:31 2010 From: sjziobro at cs.com (sjziobro at cs.com) Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2010 19:47:31 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] the 4 ages: age of alone In-Reply-To: <455EF07282A748C397FBC91E175288C6@OPTIPLEX> References: <455EF07282A748C397FBC91E175288C6@OPTIPLEX> Message-ID: <8CCDEEA15839FCA-12C8-1DC28@Webmail-m116.sysops.aol.com> Joanna, Why could nostalgia not be beneficial in some manner when it figuratively brings one to a state of mind where harmony, love, and goodness enlivened one and energized unsuspected potentialities? Stan -----Original Message----- From: JKirkpatrick To: 'Buddhist discussion forum' Sent: Sun, Jun 20, 2010 7:24 pm Subject: [Buddha-l] the 4 ages: age of alone One of the un-rewards of old age is the slow die-off of old friends and family, distant or close. Sort of prepares one for the final aloneness. I just saw an article about how Pakistan's PM--Asif Ali Zardari-- has to figure out some kind of an energy plan, at this late date, of course. He is not known for looking far ahead. It prompted thoughts of an old pleasure--discussing S Asia politics with my first and late husband--who was an Indian but a Muslim too, and so had interesting analyses of doings in Pakistan. I live in a desert--no really: literally, in Idaho, and figuratively in a very provincial ultra Republican place. They don't even have S. Asia on the curriculum at the state U nearby. Nobody here for such chins chins, except our son. I can't of course go after him every time I want to talk about India or Pakistan. Or even about Buddhism. One mindful thing he and his wife did was to dump TV when it went digital. Meanwhile, I'm back on TV watching the Pebble Beach golf tournament. I'm a native of California and the vistas around this golf club are pristine California as I remember it back in the 40's. Some things resist impermanence, but nostalgia probably is not a mood that's all that beneficial? Joanna _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From jkirk at spro.net Sun Jun 20 18:22:04 2010 From: jkirk at spro.net (JKirkpatrick) Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2010 18:22:04 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] the 4 ages: age of alone In-Reply-To: <8CCDEEA15839FCA-12C8-1DC28@Webmail-m116.sysops.aol.com> References: <455EF07282A748C397FBC91E175288C6@OPTIPLEX> <8CCDEEA15839FCA-12C8-1DC28@Webmail-m116.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <9F7F7A3149654560B2CBAC991F837BF1@OPTIPLEX> Perhaps what you describe, Stan, isn't nostalgia but memory? Nostalgia is craving........ -----Original Message----- From: buddha-l-bounces at mailman.swcp.com [mailto:buddha-l-bounces at mailman.swcp.com] On Behalf Of sjziobro at cs.com Sent: Sunday, June 20, 2010 5:48 PM To: buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] the 4 ages: age of alone Joanna, Why could nostalgia not be beneficial in some manner when it figuratively brings one to a state of mind where harmony, love, and goodness enlivened one and energized unsuspected potentialities? Stan -----Original Message----- From: JKirkpatrick To: 'Buddhist discussion forum' Sent: Sun, Jun 20, 2010 7:24 pm Subject: [Buddha-l] the 4 ages: age of alone One of the un-rewards of old age is the slow die-off of old friends and family, distant or close. Sort of prepares one for the final aloneness. I just saw an article about how Pakistan's PM--Asif Ali Zardari-- has to figure out some kind of an energy plan, at this late date, of course. He is not known for looking far ahead. It prompted thoughts of an old pleasure--discussing S Asia politics with my first and late husband--who was an Indian but a Muslim too, and so had interesting analyses of doings in Pakistan. I live in a desert--no really: literally, in Idaho, and figuratively in a very provincial ultra Republican place. They don't even have S. Asia on the curriculum at the state U nearby. Nobody here for such chins chins, except our son. I can't of course go after him every time I want to talk about India or Pakistan. Or even about Buddhism. One mindful thing he and his wife did was to dump TV when it went digital. Meanwhile, I'm back on TV watching the Pebble Beach golf tournament. I'm a native of California and the vistas around this golf club are pristine California as I remember it back in the 40's. Some things resist impermanence, but nostalgia probably is not a mood that's all that beneficial? Joanna _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From sjziobro at cs.com Sun Jun 20 18:36:03 2010 From: sjziobro at cs.com (sjziobro at cs.com) Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2010 20:36:03 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] the 4 ages: age of alone In-Reply-To: <9F7F7A3149654560B2CBAC991F837BF1@OPTIPLEX> References: <455EF07282A748C397FBC91E175288C6@OPTIPLEX><8CCDEEA15839FCA-12C8-1DC28@Webmail-m116.sysops.aol.com> <9F7F7A3149654560B2CBAC991F837BF1@OPTIPLEX> Message-ID: <8CCDEF0DCD0612A-12C8-1E1A9@Webmail-m116.sysops.aol.com> Wouldn't nostalgia be better characterized as memory with a certain affective dimension? The affective dimension might comprise craving of a sort, which would rightly be let go, or it might comprise an existential recognition of past beauty, goodness, truth, etc., which is not a failing in itself, but is better let go, as well. Would you agree, at least somewhat, Joanna? Stan -----Original Message----- From: JKirkpatrick To: 'Buddhist discussion forum' Sent: Sun, Jun 20, 2010 8:22 pm Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] the 4 ages: age of alone Perhaps what you describe, Stan, isn't nostalgia but memory? Nostalgia is craving........ -----Original Message----- From: buddha-l-bounces at mailman.swcp.com [mailto:buddha-l-bounces at mailman.swcp.com] On Behalf Of sjziobro at cs.com Sent: Sunday, June 20, 2010 5:48 PM To: buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] the 4 ages: age of alone Joanna, Why could nostalgia not be beneficial in some manner when it figuratively brings one to a state of mind where harmony, love, and goodness enlivened one and energized unsuspected potentialities? Stan -----Original Message----- From: JKirkpatrick To: 'Buddhist discussion forum' Sent: Sun, Jun 20, 2010 7:24 pm Subject: [Buddha-l] the 4 ages: age of alone One of the un-rewards of old age is the slow die-off of old friends and family, distant or close. Sort of prepares one for the final aloneness. I just saw an article about how Pakistan's PM--Asif Ali Zardari-- has to figure out some kind of an energy plan, at this late date, of course. He is not known for looking far ahead. It prompted thoughts of an old pleasure--discussing S Asia politics with my first and late husband--who was an Indian but a Muslim too, and so had interesting analyses of doings in Pakistan. I live in a desert--no really: literally, in Idaho, and figuratively in a very provincial ultra Republican place. They don't even have S. Asia on the curriculum at the state U nearby. Nobody here for such chins chins, except our son. I can't of course go after him every time I want to talk about India or Pakistan. Or even about Buddhism. One mindful thing he and his wife did was to dump TV when it went digital. Meanwhile, I'm back on TV watching the Pebble Beach golf tournament. I'm a native of California and the vistas around this golf club are pristine California as I remember it back in the 40's. Some things resist impermanence, but nostalgia probably is not a mood that's all that beneficial? Joanna _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From rhayes at unm.edu Sun Jun 20 18:50:46 2010 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2010 18:50:46 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] the 4 ages: age of alone In-Reply-To: <9F7F7A3149654560B2CBAC991F837BF1@OPTIPLEX> References: <455EF07282A748C397FBC91E175288C6@OPTIPLEX> <8CCDEEA15839FCA-12C8-1DC28@Webmail-m116.sysops.aol.com> <9F7F7A3149654560B2CBAC991F837BF1@OPTIPLEX> Message-ID: On Jun 20, 2010, at 18:22, "JKirkpatrick" wrote: > > Nostalgia is craving........ Etymologically, algia means pain (dukkha). The word literally means the pain of returning home. Pain, of course is overdetermined. It can be caused by desire, but desire is not necessary. The pain of returning home could be caused by memories that home was an awful place to be in the first place. Richard From jkirk at spro.net Sun Jun 20 18:51:05 2010 From: jkirk at spro.net (JKirkpatrick) Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2010 18:51:05 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] the 4 ages: age of alone In-Reply-To: <8CCDEF0DCD0612A-12C8-1E1A9@Webmail-m116.sysops.aol.com> References: <455EF07282A748C397FBC91E175288C6@OPTIPLEX><8CCDEEA15839FCA-12C8-1DC28@Webmail-m116.sysops.aol.com><9F7F7A3149654560B2CBAC991F837BF1@OPTIPLEX> <8CCDEF0DCD0612A-12C8-1E1A9@Webmail-m116.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: Yes, of course--------it's just all more complicated than that for me. The past beauty is today more of a 'mono aware' feeling than a memory of the good, the true and the beautiful. The apparent permanence of this place by the sea is real in its own way but also inaccessible, and as if set in a mold. One could imagine it set under glass for a paperweight. But the beach with cliffs and surf panoramas hold their own-- beaches change with the weeks and years, yet they remain beaches, but like the famous river analogy, you can't step on the same beach twice. The beach element does inspire memories rather than nostalgia. -----Original Message----- From: buddha-l-bounces at mailman.swcp.com [mailto:buddha-l-bounces at mailman.swcp.com] On Behalf Of sjziobro at cs.com Sent: Sunday, June 20, 2010 6:36 PM To: buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] the 4 ages: age of alone Wouldn't nostalgia be better characterized as memory with a certain affective dimension? The affective dimension might comprise craving of a sort, which would rightly be let go, or it might comprise an existential recognition of past beauty, goodness, truth, etc., which is not a failing in itself, but is better let go, as well. Would you agree, at least somewhat, Joanna? Stan -----Original Message----- From: JKirkpatrick To: 'Buddhist discussion forum' Sent: Sun, Jun 20, 2010 8:22 pm Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] the 4 ages: age of alone Perhaps what you describe, Stan, isn't nostalgia but memory? Nostalgia is craving........ -----Original Message----- From: buddha-l-bounces at mailman.swcp.com [mailto:buddha-l-bounces at mailman.swcp.com] On Behalf Of sjziobro at cs.com Sent: Sunday, June 20, 2010 5:48 PM To: buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] the 4 ages: age of alone Joanna, Why could nostalgia not be beneficial in some manner when it figuratively brings one to a state of mind where harmony, love, and goodness enlivened one and energized unsuspected potentialities? Stan -----Original Message----- From: JKirkpatrick To: 'Buddhist discussion forum' Sent: Sun, Jun 20, 2010 7:24 pm Subject: [Buddha-l] the 4 ages: age of alone One of the un-rewards of old age is the slow die-off of old friends and family, distant or close. Sort of prepares one for the final aloneness. I just saw an article about how Pakistan's PM--Asif Ali Zardari-- has to figure out some kind of an energy plan, at this late date, of course. He is not known for looking far ahead. It prompted thoughts of an old pleasure--discussing S Asia politics with my first and late husband--who was an Indian but a Muslim too, and so had interesting analyses of doings in Pakistan. I live in a desert--no really: literally, in Idaho, and figuratively in a very provincial ultra Republican place. They don't even have S. Asia on the curriculum at the state U nearby. Nobody here for such chins chins, except our son. I can't of course go after him every time I want to talk about India or Pakistan. Or even about Buddhism. One mindful thing he and his wife did was to dump TV when it went digital. Meanwhile, I'm back on TV watching the Pebble Beach golf tournament. I'm a native of California and the vistas around this golf club are pristine California as I remember it back in the 40's. Some things resist impermanence, but nostalgia probably is not a mood that's all that beneficial? Joanna _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From jkirk at spro.net Sun Jun 20 19:12:55 2010 From: jkirk at spro.net (JKirkpatrick) Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2010 19:12:55 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] the 4 ages: age of alone In-Reply-To: References: <455EF07282A748C397FBC91E175288C6@OPTIPLEX><8CCDEEA15839FCA-12C8-1DC28@Webmail-m116.sysops.aol.com><9F7F7A3149654560B2CBAC991F837BF1@OPTIPLEX> Message-ID: The 'home' part is more poetic than literal, could suggest places, people, events, things even--but the 'algia' aspect is not poetic at all. It's the pain of loss, distance, the passed years-----one can go deep into its abyss, but best if one does not, eh? On Jun 20, 2010, at 18:22, "JKirkpatrick" wrote: > > Nostalgia is craving........ Etymologically, algia means pain (dukkha). The word literally means the pain of returning home. Pain, of course is overdetermined. It can be caused by desire, but desire is not necessary. The pain of returning home could be caused by memories that home was an awful place to be in the first place. Richard _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From jehms at xs4all.nl Mon Jun 21 01:43:22 2010 From: jehms at xs4all.nl (Erik Hoogcarspel) Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 09:43:22 +0200 Subject: [Buddha-l] the 4 ages: age of alone In-Reply-To: References: <455EF07282A748C397FBC91E175288C6@OPTIPLEX><8CCDEEA15839FCA-12C8-1DC28@Webmail-m116.sysops.aol.com><9F7F7A3149654560B2CBAC991F837BF1@OPTIPLEX> Message-ID: <4C1F181A.1070105@xs4all.nl> Op 21-06-10 03:12, JKirkpatrick schreef: > > The 'home' part is more poetic than literal, could suggest > places, people, events, things even--but the 'algia' aspect is > not poetic at all. It's the pain of loss, distance, the passed > years-----one can go deep into its abyss, but best if one does > not, eh? > > I would describe it as an emotional indulgence in the revelation of absence the of the how-it-used-to-be-ness. Nostalgia is not just about anything you remember. It is about symbolic memories, memories that indicate a lost paradise, a time that happiness was just normal. That?s why you like to indulge. It has also a kind of utopian aspect, almost if believing in it would make it happen. I think it is a strong hidden religious force. erik From smith at wheelwrightassoc.com Mon Jun 21 08:58:20 2010 From: smith at wheelwrightassoc.com (Timothy Smith) Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 10:58:20 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] the 4 ages: age of alone In-Reply-To: References: <455EF07282A748C397FBC91E175288C6@OPTIPLEX><8CCDEEA15839FCA-12C8-1DC28@Webmail-m116.sysops.aol.com><9F7F7A3149654560B2CBAC991F837BF1@OPTIPLEX> Message-ID: I think 'home' here is a metaphor for wholeness, for the lost connection with the )Self which, I might venture, is the source of all dissatisfaction. If by the abyss we mean an encounter with the Self and the ensuing ego-diminishment, yeah scary, but ultimately necessary and unavoidable. Better to be conscious of it than not. Nostalgia indicates or points toward the necessity of this encounter, just as (obligatory Buddhist content here) the 4 NT begin with this same realization. In Edinger's thrall, T Timothy Smith Office/Mobile 831.624.8138 Fax 831.659-5112 www.wheelwrightassoc.com On Jun 20, 2010, at 9:12 PM, JKirkpatrick wrote: > > The 'home' part is more poetic than literal, could suggest > places, people, events, things even--but the 'algia' aspect is > not poetic at all. It's the pain of loss, distance, the passed > years-----one can go deep into its abyss, but best if one does > not, eh? > > On Jun 20, 2010, at 18:22, "JKirkpatrick" wrote: >> >> Nostalgia is craving........ > > Etymologically, algia means pain (dukkha). The word literally > means the pain of returning home. Pain, of course is > overdetermined. It can be caused by desire, but desire is not > necessary. The pain of returning home could be caused by memories > that home was an awful place to be in the first place. > > Richard > > > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l > > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l > From rhayes at unm.edu Mon Jun 21 09:12:58 2010 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 09:12:58 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] the 4 ages: age of alone In-Reply-To: References: <455EF07282A748C397FBC91E175288C6@OPTIPLEX><8CCDEEA15839FCA-12C8-1DC28@Webmail-m116.sysops.aol.com><9F7F7A3149654560B2CBAC991F837BF1@OPTIPLEX> Message-ID: <58CC4101-9AE5-4CB8-A28B-EC16AB179B4C@unm.edu> On Jun 21, 2010, at 8:58 AM, Timothy Smith wrote: > I think 'home' here is a metaphor for wholeness, for the lost connection with the )Self which, I might venture, > is the source of all dissatisfaction. Being an anti-holistic kind of guy, my preference would be to take home (which is obviously metonymic) to stand for whatever it is one believes (usually falsely) will provide, could provide, did provide or is providing comfort and safety and security. One of my favorite lines in Buddhist literature is in one of the Perfection of Wisdom texts. A paraphrase of that line is: "If one can realize that there is no place in the vast 3000-world system, not even a place the size of a single atom, that one can call home, and in that realization not be terrified, then one is ready to be a bodhisattva." As long as one has a yearning for a homeland, even one the size of an atom, one is destined to be miserable. (I submit the entirety of human history as my evidence for that claim.) Like you, Timothy, I think there is a tremendous value in nostalgia, as there is in melancholy (as opposed to clinical depression), because it makes one aware of one's not yet being ready to be a bodhisattva. Aspiration begins in awareness if inadequacy. In this I find myself influenced by James Hollis, especially his book "Swamplands of the Soul." Richard sent from my home From jkirk at spro.net Mon Jun 21 09:58:15 2010 From: jkirk at spro.net (JKirkpatrick) Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 09:58:15 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] the 4 ages: age of alone In-Reply-To: <58CC4101-9AE5-4CB8-A28B-EC16AB179B4C@unm.edu> References: <455EF07282A748C397FBC91E175288C6@OPTIPLEX><8CCDEEA15839FCA-12C8-1DC28@Webmail-m116.sysops.aol.com><9F7F7A3149654560B2CBAC991F837BF1@OPTIPLEX> <58CC4101-9AE5-4CB8-A28B-EC16AB179B4C@unm.edu> Message-ID: <05520AC28A9A4D96B8237F64F84B4ACC@OPTIPLEX> As long as one has a yearning for a homeland, even one the size of an atom, one is destined to be miserable. (I submit the entirety of human history as my evidence for that claim.) Like you, Timothy, I think there is a tremendous value in nostalgia, as there is in melancholy (as opposed to clinical depression), because it makes one aware of one's not yet being ready to be a bodhisattva. Aspiration begins in awareness if inadequacy. In this I find myself influenced by James Hollis, especially his book "Swamplands of the Soul." Richard sent from my home _______________ Looks like Hollis could be a productive way to investigate further. A look at reader comments on the book on amazon suggests that this book (he apparently has written quite a lot of them) is helpful on dealing with the various glamors of nostalgia. Joanna From smith at wheelwrightassoc.com Mon Jun 21 10:15:06 2010 From: smith at wheelwrightassoc.com (Timothy Smith) Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 12:15:06 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] the 4 ages: age of alone In-Reply-To: <05520AC28A9A4D96B8237F64F84B4ACC@OPTIPLEX> References: <455EF07282A748C397FBC91E175288C6@OPTIPLEX><8CCDEEA15839FCA-12C8-1DC28@Webmail-m116.sysops.aol.com><9F7F7A3149654560B2CBAC991F837BF1@OPTIPLEX> <58CC4101-9AE5-4CB8-A28B-EC16AB179B4C@unm.edu> <05520AC28A9A4D96B8237F64F84B4ACC@OPTIPLEX> Message-ID: <4675F577-8B76-42A0-AD3C-EFFA234923D8@wheelwrightassoc.com> Swamplands, as well as The Middle Passage and The Eden Project are among his best. They're all worth reading. T Timothy Smith Office/Mobile 831.624.8138 Fax 831.659-5112 www.wheelwrightassoc.com On Jun 21, 2010, at 11:58 AM, JKirkpatrick wrote: > > As long as one has a yearning for a homeland, even one the size > of an atom, one is destined to be miserable. (I submit the > entirety of human history as my evidence for that claim.) Like > you, Timothy, I think there is a tremendous value in nostalgia, > as there is in melancholy (as opposed to clinical depression), > because it makes one aware of one's not yet being ready to be a > bodhisattva. Aspiration begins in awareness if inadequacy. In > this I find myself influenced by James Hollis, especially his > book "Swamplands of the Soul." > > Richard > sent from my home > > _______________ > > Looks like Hollis could be a productive way to investigate > further. A look at reader comments on the book on amazon suggests > that this book (he apparently has written quite a lot of them) is > helpful on dealing with the various glamors of nostalgia. > > Joanna > > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l > From sjziobro at cs.com Mon Jun 21 14:56:01 2010 From: sjziobro at cs.com (sjziobro at cs.com) Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 16:56:01 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] the 4 ages: age of alone In-Reply-To: References: <455EF07282A748C397FBC91E175288C6@OPTIPLEX><8CCDEEA15839FCA-12C8-1DC28@Webmail-m116.sysops.aol.com><9F7F7A3149654560B2CBAC991F837BF1@OPTIPLEX><8CCDEF0DCD0612A-12C8-1E1A9@Webmail-m116.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <8CCDF9B4A383BC6-DCC-55C0@webmail-m029.sysops.aol.com> This is interesting, Joanna. Thank you for the further clarification. Perhaps it is just an idiosyncracy on my part, but such ruminations leave me with a sense of gratitude, and I simply suppose this is the case for others. Stan -----Original Message----- From: JKirkpatrick To: 'Buddhist discussion forum' Sent: Sun, Jun 20, 2010 8:51 pm Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] the 4 ages: age of alone Yes, of course--------it's just all more complicated than that or me. The past beauty is today more of a 'mono aware' feeling han a memory of the good, the true and the beautiful. he apparent permanence of this place by the sea is real in its wn way but also inaccessible, and as if set in a mold. One could magine it set under glass for a paperweight. But the beach with liffs and surf panoramas hold their own-- beaches change with he weeks and years, yet they remain beaches, but like the famous iver analogy, you can't step on the same beach twice. The beach lement does inspire memories rather than nostalgia. -----Original Message----- rom: buddha-l-bounces at mailman.swcp.com mailto:buddha-l-bounces at mailman.swcp.com] On Behalf Of jziobro at cs.com ent: Sunday, June 20, 2010 6:36 PM o: buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com ubject: Re: [Buddha-l] the 4 ages: age of alone Wouldn't nostalgia be better characterized as memory with a ertain affective dimension? The affective dimension might omprise craving of a sort, which would rightly be let go, or it ight comprise an existential recognition of past beauty, oodness, truth, etc., which is not a failing in itself, but is etter let go, as well. Would you agree, at least somewhat, oanna? Stan -----Original Message----- rom: JKirkpatrick o: 'Buddhist discussion forum' ent: Sun, Jun 20, 2010 8:22 pm ubject: Re: [Buddha-l] the 4 ages: age of alone erhaps what you describe, Stan, isn't nostalgia but memory? Nostalgia is craving........ -----Original Message----- From: buddha-l-bounces at mailman.swcp.com [mailto:buddha-l-bounces at mailman.swcp.com] On Behalf Of sjziobro at cs.com Sent: Sunday, June 20, 2010 5:48 PM To: buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] the 4 ages: age of alone Joanna, Why could nostalgia not be beneficial in some manner when it figuratively brings one to a state of mind where harmony, love, and goodness enlivened one and energized unsuspected potentialities? Stan -----Original Message----- From: JKirkpatrick To: 'Buddhist discussion forum' Sent: Sun, Jun 20, 2010 7:24 pm Subject: [Buddha-l] the 4 ages: age of alone One of the un-rewards of old age is the slow die-off of old friends and family, distant or close. Sort of prepares one for the final aloneness. I just saw an article about how Pakistan's PM--Asif Ali Zardari-- has to figure out some kind of an energy plan, at this late date, of course. He is not known for looking far ahead. It prompted thoughts of an old pleasure--discussing S Asia politics with my first and late husband--who was an Indian but a Muslim too, and so had interesting analyses of doings in Pakistan. I live in a desert--no really: literally, in Idaho, and figuratively in a very provincial ultra Republican place. They don't even have S. Asia on the curriculum at the state U nearby. Nobody here for such chins chins, except our son. I can't of course go after him every time I want to talk about India or Pakistan. Or even about Buddhism. One mindful thing he and his wife did was to dump TV when it went digital. Meanwhile, I'm back on TV watching the Pebble Beach golf tournament. I'm a native of California and the vistas around this golf club are pristine California as I remember it back in the 40's. Some things resist impermanence, but nostalgia probably is not a mood that's all that beneficial? Joanna _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l ______________________________________________ uddha-l mailing list uddha-l at mailman.swcp.com ttp://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l _______________________________________________ uddha-l mailing list uddha-l at mailman.swcp.com ttp://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From jkirk at spro.net Mon Jun 21 17:17:38 2010 From: jkirk at spro.net (JKirkpatrick) Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 17:17:38 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] the 4 ages: age of alone In-Reply-To: <8CCDF9B4A383BC6-DCC-55C0@webmail-m029.sysops.aol.com> References: <455EF07282A748C397FBC91E175288C6@OPTIPLEX><8CCDEEA15839FCA-12C8-1DC28@Webmail-m116.sysops.aol.com><9F7F7A3149654560B2CBAC991F837BF1@OPTIPLEX><8CCDEF0DCD0612A-12C8-1E1A9@Webmail-m116.sysops.aol.com> <8CCDF9B4A383BC6-DCC-55C0@webmail-m029.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <8F7E0C4719B44E2D97BD3188842B9F9B@OPTIPLEX> Stan--truth is, I need to cultivate more gratitude---these days I find myself frowning most of the time. Maybe the gratitude attitude might be analogous to the mudita brahma vihara? The idea being, in my example, that one can assume that beautiful landscapes of nature arouse peaceful joy in other people as well as in oneself......so enjoy their (putative) joy as well as one's own. Thankfulness didn't used to be found in the everyday culture of S. Asia. (I wonder if it exists in the Pali texts. Is there a term for thanks? Looking in the Pali dictionary, I got no hits for gratitude or for thankfulness. For 'thanks', one finds a few usages that reflect satisfaction, or some kind of reciprocity rather than gratitude in the abstract sense: http://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/search3advanced?dbnam e=pali&query=thanks&matchtype=exact&display=utf8) The idea was, as many Indians and Pakistanis told me, that if you were acting ethically, you were doing your duty, a normal expectation of your rank and resources. If a patron, or pandit, you expected deference and often payment (usually in kind, or by performing labor for the teacher). This reciprocity hewed to the hierarchy of social strata, so the higher the patron, jajman, or teacher, the greater the return dana of some kind. Back in the day, some traveled south Asians used to take one to task for uttering English "thank you," although they no doubt stopped doing that as more people learned English and became somewhat bi-cultural. Eventually one could learn the Urdu, Hindi or Bengali terms (and I guess the other south Asian languages) for "thanks"-- In Hindi dhannyabaad, Bengali dhonnobaad, Urdu shukria, maybe qualifying it by a term meaning many or much, as in Urdu 'bahut shukria, sahab', or Bengali 'onek dhonnobaad, ji'. They coined certain word usages under the pressure of the English idiom of thanking and saying please. I suspect that these terms are mainly used by expats, not native speakers. Did the Buddha ever teach about gratitude for intangibles, like beauty? (As we already discussed some time ago, the beauty of nature is rarely noticed in the Pali texts but it does appear in certain avadaanas and a few of the theragathas.) Appreciating and feeling gratitude for beautiful natural scenes--landscapes--perhaps didn't really appear among our ancestors until the Renaissance (where these are found as backgrounds), and perhaps not until the Romantic period when landscape per se became an object for cultured enjoyment, and was even assigned redemptive or other moral qualities. Joanna ____________________ This is interesting, Joanna. Thank you for the further clarification. Perhaps it is just an idiosyncracy on my part, but such ruminations leave me with a sense of gratitude, and I simply suppose this is the case for others. Stan From aryacitta at hotmail.com Wed Jun 23 16:29:38 2010 From: aryacitta at hotmail.com (David Living) Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 22:29:38 +0000 Subject: [Buddha-l] Cockroaches In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Richard wrote: >The most cheerful news I heard recently was from a biologist who thinks the human race is>on the brink of extinction, but the cockroaches will probably survive. It was almost enough>to make me believe in God.The most cheerful news I heard recently was from a biologist>who thinks the human race is on the brink of extinction, but the cockroaches will probably>survive. It was almost enough to make me believe in God. I doubt cockroaches will survive - no restaurant or public utility kitchen floors for them to infest? My next door neighbour probably keeps half the population of cockroaches in Southend-on-Sea alive. The bloke upstairs most likely feeds the other half. It's OK there is probably no creator God after all. _________________________________________________________________ http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/197222280/direct/01/ Do you have a story that started on Hotmail? Tell us now From rhayes at unm.edu Wed Jun 23 15:54:04 2010 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard P. Hayes) Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 15:54:04 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Some hae meat and canna eat Message-ID: <1277330044.6396.97.camel@rhayes-desktop> Dear denizens, A couple of weeks ago I mentioned that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation radio program called Ideas was running a three-part series of programs entitled "Having Your Meat and Eating It, Too." Themes that run through all three installments are the methods of so-called factory farming and all the distortions that large scale agricultural operations feed into the economy, the environment and the political climate of the countries in which it is practiced. There are examinations of the influence of pharmaceutical companies, chemical companies that produce artificial fertilizers and pesticides, and "big box" retailers such as Wal-Mart and McDonalds that force prices paid to farmers to such low levels that hardly anyone in small-scale agriculture can make a livelihood any more. Rarely have I heard the word "unsustainable" used so many times in a span of three hours. Episodes two and three both have discussions of the ethical and environmental and health implications of a vegetarian diet. Suffice it to say that it is not obvious that a vegetarian diet is unambiguously indicated as the best way to stay healthy and preserve the environment, although everyone agrees that the current dietary proclivities of Americans are both unhealthy and environmentally disastrous. (Those who swoon whenever people trash-talk America will love much of this program. Needless to say, I was so ecstatic to hear all the trash-talking of America that I nearly had to be taken to a hospital. But I couldn't find any ambulances that would take me from New Mexico to a Canadian hospital for a reasonable fee. But I digress.) One of the observations that most caught my attention was made by a woman who was a vegan for 20-30 years and eventually changed her diet to include some animal products. She observed that being a vegan is much more than deciding what to eat and what not to eat. It is also taking on an identity. It is wearing all the accoutrement of a persona that must be defended almost every time one picks up a fork. It is, in other words, to take on a practice that has exactly the opposite effect of what most Buddhist practices are designed to do, namely, to reduce one's attachment to a particular identity. And, said this former vegan, whenever one takes on an identity, one loses perspective and enters into a mentality that warps almost everything one sees, systematically refuses to look at evidence impartially, and enters into the epistemological vices of believing things for which one has insufficient evidence and not believing things despite having plenty of evidence. Buddhists called these epistemological vices by the simple term "moha," the state of being perplexed, confused, infatuated or fooled. Needless to say, there is no invariable causal relationship between deciding to be a vegan and becoming incapable of thinking carefully and impartially. As long as one makes such decisions whimsically and realizes that the decision is a manifestation of sentimentality, everything is fine. It is only when one begins to think that there is something rational and righteous about the decision that one begins to get into trouble. All these observations intrigued me, because they spoke to my own experience. When I became convinced that veganism was the only morally defensible diet for an environmentalist, I entered into a year of living fanatically. I found myself welling up with disgust when I saw people put a teaspoon of milk into their afternoon tea. People who put a spoonful of honey on their yeast-leavened bread, I regarded them as morally equivalent to genocidal maniacs. I exaggerate for effect, but I really did find myself hating the kind of self-righteous judgmentalism that entered my mentality shortly after I began to eschew all animal products from my pantry and my wardrobe. It was as though I had suddenly become a patriot or the member of some marginalized tribe figthing for ethnic survival or the follower of a religion that forbids exogamy and associating with out-group folk for fear of ideological contamination. To some extent even insistent ideologically driven vegetarianism promotes epistemological warping, but not to the extent that ideologically driven veganism does. None of this is new, of course, I wrote a scathing denunciation of the fallacious argumentation found in the vegan sections of various Buddhist texts some twenty years ago (just as I was climbing out of my own descent into veganism). We have talked about it plenty of times on buddha-l in the past (October 2005) and need not get off onto that topic again. It's just that the excellent program on Ideas reminded me of those issues. Anyone interested in hearing the programs should be able to get them for a short time by pursuing the following links. (CBC makes its podcasts available for only one month for free. After a month has elapsed, one must order them at a cost that no academic or monk can afford. So hurry.) First episode: http://podcast.cbc.ca/mp3/ideas_20100607_32369.mp3 Second episode: http://podcast.cbc.ca/mp3/ideas_20100614_32370.mp3 Third episode: http://podcast.cbc.ca/mp3/ideas_20100621_32371.mp3 In my grandparent's sparsely outfitted apartment, the dining room walls were bare except for a framed exemplar of the Selkirk Grace: "Some hae meat and canna eat, And some wad eat that want it; But we hae meat, and we can eat, Sae let the Lord be thankit." When my grandfather died, my mother gave me that framed exemplar and apologized profusely for giving me something that might offend my vegetarian sensibilities. I explained to her that the prayer was written in the 17th century, when "meat" was metonymic for food, in much the same way that "meal" is in current English, or "go-han" is in Japanese. So when a 17th century family sat down to have their meat, they often ate bread and ale and perhaps a piece of cheese. Richard From jkirk at spro.net Wed Jun 23 17:28:36 2010 From: jkirk at spro.net (JKirkpatrick) Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 17:28:36 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Some hae meat and canna eat In-Reply-To: <1277330044.6396.97.camel@rhayes-desktop> References: <1277330044.6396.97.camel@rhayes-desktop> Message-ID: <36DC197425B54C428CD61C861B59B7D0@OPTIPLEX> Just an aside to an interesting review of identities : Richard: "It was as though I had suddenly become a patriot or the member of some marginalized tribe figthing for ethnic survival or the follower of a religion that forbids exogamy and associating with out-group folk for fear of ideological contamination." Yeah, sort of like being a card-carrying atheist-- same syndrome. JK _________ From jehms at xs4all.nl Thu Jun 24 08:52:03 2010 From: jehms at xs4all.nl (Erik Hoogcarspel) Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 16:52:03 +0200 Subject: [Buddha-l] Cockroaches In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C237113.6080101@xs4all.nl> Op 24-06-10 00:29, David Living schreef: > Richard wrote: > > >> The most cheerful news I heard recently was from a biologist who thinks the human race is>on the brink of extinction, but the cockroaches will probably survive. It was almost enough>to make me believe in God.The most cheerful news I heard recently was from a biologist>who thinks the human race is on the brink of extinction, but the cockroaches will probably>survive. It was almost enough to make me believe in God. >> > I doubt cockroaches will survive - no restaurant or public utility kitchen floors for them to infest? My next door neighbour probably keeps half the population of cockroaches in Southend-on-Sea alive. The bloke upstairs most likely feeds the other half. It's OK there is probably no creator God after all. > > In East-Asia cockroaches end up deep-fried on plates. If there?s market McDonalds will jump in. The cockburger is our future. erik From jehms at xs4all.nl Thu Jun 24 09:02:48 2010 From: jehms at xs4all.nl (Erik Hoogcarspel) Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 17:02:48 +0200 Subject: [Buddha-l] Some hae meat and canna eat In-Reply-To: <1277330044.6396.97.camel@rhayes-desktop> References: <1277330044.6396.97.camel@rhayes-desktop> Message-ID: <4C237398.40107@xs4all.nl> Op 23-06-10 23:54, Richard P. Hayes schreef: > When I became convinced that veganism was the only morally > defensible diet for an environmentalist, I entered into a year of living > fanatically. I found myself welling up with disgust when I saw people > put a teaspoon of milk into their afternoon tea. > > I remember from my macrobiotic days that eating a tomato was almost suicide and the excitement when the buzz went that you could ?yangicise? tomatoes. I remember that when I had diverted from my Osawa adoration I cooked some aduki beans and wakame and how the very taste brought back vivid memories of my old convictions. The definite sign of liberation for a Jew or a Muslim is the taste of bacon. Man ist was man iszt. You are what you eat. erik From rhayes at unm.edu Thu Jun 24 10:44:10 2010 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 10:44:10 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Cockroaches In-Reply-To: <4C237113.6080101@xs4all.nl> References: <4C237113.6080101@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: On Jun 24, 2010, at 8:52 AM, Erik Hoogcarspel wrote: > In East-Asia cockroaches end up deep-fried on plates. I recall watching in fascination as a giant cockroach in Singapore mounted a glowing cigarette end that someone had discarded on the sidewalk. After unsuccessfully trying to mate with the cigarette, the frustrated cockroach limped away. No one believes this story, since everyone knows that throwing a cigarette butt onto the sidewalks of Singapore is punishable by death (followed by birth as a randy cockroach). > The cockburger is our future. Sounds delectable, especially when followed by smoking a postprandial roach. But would such a meal meet with the approval of the authors of the La?k?vat?ra S?tra? I think not. Therefore I am not. Richard From rhayes at unm.edu Thu Jun 24 11:04:44 2010 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 11:04:44 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Some hae meat and canna eat In-Reply-To: <4C237398.40107@xs4all.nl> References: <1277330044.6396.97.camel@rhayes-desktop> <4C237398.40107@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <2367815E-4B05-416F-9112-E36E40F1B854@unm.edu> On Jun 24, 2010, at 9:02 AM, Erik Hoogcarspel wrote: > I remember from my macrobiotic days that eating a tomato was almost > suicide and the excitement when the buzz went that you could ?yangicise? > tomatoes. Did you ever read an article called "Brown rice, brown shirt"? The thesis of that article was that the macrobiotic diet was built upon a foundation of regarding all ethnic cooking as unhealthy and somehow anti-human. It went on to declare that "anti-ethnic" was actually code talk for anti-Jewish. The macrobiotic diet, it concluded, was devised by pro-Nazi Japanese fanatics bent on destroying Jews (and maybe some Koreans as a bonus) by depriving them of blintzes and lox and bagels. Let them eat bupkis. > I remember that when I had diverted from my Osawa adoration I > cooked some aduki beans and wakame and how the very taste brought back > vivid memories of my old convictions. Did you wear your swastika armband as you cooked the azuki beans? It's said to enhance the flavor. I always liked to line wakame beans up on a chopstick and pretend they were goose-stepping into my mouth. > The definite sign of liberation > for a Jew or a Muslim is the taste of bacon. That sounds wilder than anything Geert would say. > Man ist was man iszt. You > are what you eat. No wonder everyone thinks I'm bland and all mixed up. I'm a stir-fry. But seriously, folks, if you really want to meat (er, meet) some wild and crazy dietary totalitarians, cozy up to some raw food aficionados. Cooked food, they love to say, is poison. If someone eats too much cooked food, they say, she completely loses her ability to assess evidence impartially and begins believing that Americans actually landed someone on the moon and that Jews were killed in concentration camps. Raw-food veganism sounds pretty much like the Middle Path to me. Richard From jkirk at spro.net Thu Jun 24 11:34:06 2010 From: jkirk at spro.net (JKirkpatrick) Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 11:34:06 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Cockroaches In-Reply-To: <4C237113.6080101@xs4all.nl> References: <4C237113.6080101@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <57128925CA9844FD8D93CA7E4C7A17EE@OPTIPLEX> Op 24-06-10 00:29, David Living schreef: > Richard wrote: > > >> The most cheerful news I heard recently was from a biologist who thinks the human race is>on the brink of extinction, but the cockroaches will probably survive. It was almost enough>to make me believe in God.The most cheerful news I heard recently was from a biologist>who thinks the human race is on the brink of extinction, but the cockroaches will probably>survive. It was almost enough to make me believe in God. >> > I doubt cockroaches will survive - no restaurant or public utility kitchen floors for them to infest? My next door neighbour probably keeps half the population of cockroaches in Southend-on-Sea alive. The bloke upstairs most likely feeds the other half. It's OK there is probably no creator God after all. > > In East-Asia cockroaches end up deep-fried on plates. If there?s market McDonalds will jump in. The cockburger is our future. erik _________________________ But of the extinction times of which Richard speaks, they will be munching on homoinsapiensburgers. jk From jehms at xs4all.nl Thu Jun 24 15:00:10 2010 From: jehms at xs4all.nl (Erik Hoogcarspel) Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 23:00:10 +0200 Subject: [Buddha-l] Some hae meat and canna eat In-Reply-To: <2367815E-4B05-416F-9112-E36E40F1B854@unm.edu> References: <1277330044.6396.97.camel@rhayes-desktop> <4C237398.40107@xs4all.nl> <2367815E-4B05-416F-9112-E36E40F1B854@unm.edu> Message-ID: <4C23C75A.5090900@xs4all.nl> Op 24-06-10 19:04, Richard Hayes schreef: > > Did you ever read an article called "Brown rice, brown shirt"? The thesis of that article was that the macrobiotic diet was built upon a foundation of regarding all ethnic cooking as unhealthy and somehow anti-human. It went on to declare that "anti-ethnic" was actually code talk for anti-Jewish. The macrobiotic diet, it concluded, was devised by pro-Nazi Japanese fanatics bent on destroying Jews (and maybe some Koreans as a bonus) by depriving them of blintzes and lox and bagels. Let them eat bupkis. > I didn?t, but I remember I was quite embarrassed when I saw at the end of a macrobiotic retreat the Japanese master march on the tunes of a military orchestra lighting a cigarette. Later I was told that on his level he could effort to do these things. > Did you wear your swastika armband as you cooked the azuki beans? It's > said to enhance the flavor. I always liked to line wakame beans up on > a chopstick and pretend they were goose-stepping into my mouth. No but after I was told that Japanese noodles were very healthy and Chinese or Italian ones very yin, I suspected some hidden links with the Japanese food industry. > But seriously, folks, if you really want to meat (er, meet) some wild > and crazy dietary totalitarians, cozy up to some raw food aficionados. > Cooked food, they love to say, is poison. If someone eats too much > cooked food, they say, she completely loses her ability to assess > evidence impartially and begins believing that Americans actually > landed someone on the moon and that Jews were killed in concentration > camps. Raw-food veganism sounds pretty much like the Middle Path to me. Agreed, but only if you don?t chew, because chewing means you divert to the left or right. erik From rhayes at unm.edu Thu Jun 24 17:42:43 2010 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 17:42:43 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Some hae meat and canna eat In-Reply-To: <4C23C75A.5090900@xs4all.nl> References: <1277330044.6396.97.camel@rhayes-desktop> <4C237398.40107@xs4all.nl> <2367815E-4B05-416F-9112-E36E40F1B854@unm.edu> <4C23C75A.5090900@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <1032BB1A-E93C-4E7D-A8BE-AB701626C5A2@unm.edu> On Jun 24, 2010, at 3:00 PM, Erik Hoogcarspel wrote: > I didn?t, but I remember I was quite embarrassed when I saw at the end > of a macrobiotic retreat the Japanese master march on the tunes of a > military orchestra lighting a cigarette. Later I was told that on his > level he could effort to do these things. A reformed macrobioticist Zen teacher I knew years ago was also struck by the smoking in the ranks of the prime movers of the macrobiotic diet. When he asked about it, he was told something about tobacco having a lot of yang, which counteracted the yin in some staple in the Japanese diet. So it's quite OK for Japanese people to smoke heavily, since it promotes their health. > Agreed, but only if you don?t chew, because chewing means you divert to > the left or right. It could be that right here on buddha-l we have witnessed the birth of the swallow-whole vegan raw-food school of Mahayana Buddhism. Soon I'm sure there will be a schism. Some will insist on swallowing food whole without chewing while running a marathon, and others will insist on swallowing food without chewing while hanging upside down from the upper limb of a high tree. When it comes to the religious politics of diet, nothing is ever simple. Richard Hayes From sanskrit_studies at yahoo.com Thu Jun 24 23:34:35 2010 From: sanskrit_studies at yahoo.com (Geoff Morrison) Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 22:34:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Buddha-l] Cockroaches In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <606059.17443.qm@web65113.mail.ac2.yahoo.com> Cockroaches, like ants and other terrestrial insects, primarily look for water, rather than other types of food. Therefore, it would be reasonable to conclude that, as long as there is water on this planet, cockroaches and other terrestrial insects will also survive and continue to search for water, whether or not humans survive on this planet in the future and share this fragile planet with six-legged cockroaches and other terrestrial insects.? Metta,? Geoff Morrison --- On Wed, 6/23/10, David Living wrote: From: David Living Subject: [Buddha-l] Cockroaches To: buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com Date: Wednesday, June 23, 2010, 3:29 PM Richard wrote: >The most cheerful news I heard recently was from a biologist who thinks the human race is>on the brink of extinction, but the cockroaches will probably survive. It was almost enough>to make me believe in God.The most cheerful news I heard recently was from a biologist>who thinks the human race is on the brink of extinction, but the cockroaches will probably>survive. It was almost enough to make me believe in God. I doubt cockroaches will survive - no restaurant or public utility kitchen floors for them to infest? My next door neighbour probably keeps half the population of cockroaches in Southend-on-Sea alive. The bloke upstairs most likely feeds the other half. It's OK there is probably no creator God after all. ??? ???????? ?????? ??? ? _________________________________________________________________ http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/197222280/direct/01/ Do you have a story that started on Hotmail? Tell us now _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From jkirk at spro.net Fri Jun 25 13:57:52 2010 From: jkirk at spro.net (JKirkpatrick) Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 13:57:52 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] China: Leading Tibetan art collector gets 15 years in jail Message-ID: Excerpt: 'Several artists and intellectuals have been detained or have disappeared in recent months in what activists say amounts to the broadest suppression of Tibetan culture and expression for years.' http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65O2LR20100625?feedType=nl& feedName=usoddlyenough From bathieme at hotmail.com Fri Jun 25 14:16:33 2010 From: bathieme at hotmail.com (Barnaby Thieme) Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 13:16:33 -0700 Subject: [Buddha-l] China: Leading Tibetan art collector gets 15 years in jail In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This is definitely my favorite part: "The trial of the Tibetan, Karma Samdrup, 42, was widely viewed as an effort to punish him for his outspoken defense of his two brothers, both of whom had publicly berated a local police chief who hunted endangered species in a Tibetan nature preserve." You can't make up a thing like that - no one would believe you. B~ _________________________________ More than any time in history mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness, the other to total extinction. Let us pray that we have the wisdom to choose correctly. -- Woody Allen _________________________________________________________________ The New Busy think 9 to 5 is a cute idea. Combine multiple calendars with Hotmail. http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multicalendar&ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_5 From tuemmers at uni-bonn.de Fri Jun 25 14:37:16 2010 From: tuemmers at uni-bonn.de (j-tuemmers) Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 22:37:16 +0200 Subject: [Buddha-l] Cockroaches In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C25137C.2030605@uni-bonn.de> ... ok. You know that by secret transmission it is well known that besides the cockroaches only Keith Richards will survive ... From rhayes at unm.edu Fri Jun 25 15:02:21 2010 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 15:02:21 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Cockroaches In-Reply-To: <4C25137C.2030605@uni-bonn.de> References: <4C25137C.2030605@uni-bonn.de> Message-ID: On Jun 25, 2010, at 2:37 PM, j-tuemmers wrote: > ... ok. You know that by secret transmission it is well known that > besides the cockroaches only Keith Richards will survive ... Can we hope that Keith and the cockroaches will receive daily updates on the posthumous activities of Michael Jackson? Richard From aryacitta at hotmail.com Fri Jun 25 15:18:02 2010 From: aryacitta at hotmail.com (David Living) Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 21:18:02 +0000 Subject: [Buddha-l] The magic of vegetarianism In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On the topic of strange facts about vegetarianism. I was told by a lady who made a living of sorts out of treating infertile women that the surest way to fertility was not vastly expensive courses of medical drugs or even viagra (for men that last bit) but simply a few months of fresh fruit and vegetables. She cited experiments in the US that backed her ideas up. She swore by it. But don't buy your groceries from Supermarkets because they will do anything to their foods like radiate it, spray it with deadly pesticides, wrap it in deadly plastics that make you lose your sexual identity and so on... but just shop in the corner shop, the little fruit and veg shop that is near you but being put out of business by those poisonous supermarkets. It sounds wacky I know but she cured me of a shingles type rash in ten minutes flat with a spoonful of baking powder! There is also the interesting fact that birth rates apparently rose by 30% in India when they changed their diet from meat and dairy products to meat, home grown vegetables and brown rice. Round about the time of the Buddha...or perhaps a bit before. Dave Living _________________________________________________________________ http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/195013117/direct/01/ We want to hear all your funny, exciting and crazy Hotmail stories. Tell us now From jkirk at spro.net Fri Jun 25 15:49:08 2010 From: jkirk at spro.net (JKirkpatrick) Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 15:49:08 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] The magic of vegetarianism In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On the topic of strange facts about vegetarianism. I was told by a lady who made a living of sorts out of treating infertile women that the surest way to fertility was not vastly expensive courses of medical drugs or even viagra (for men that last bit) but simply a few months of fresh fruit and vegetables. She cited experiments in the US that backed her ideas up. She swore by it. But don't buy your groceries from Supermarkets because they will do anything to their foods like radiate it, spray it with deadly pesticides, wrap it in deadly plastics that make you lose your sexual identity and so on... but just shop in the corner shop, the little fruit and veg shop that is near you but being put out of business by those poisonous supermarkets. It sounds wacky I know but she cured me of a shingles type rash in ten minutes flat with a spoonful of baking powder! There is also the interesting fact that birth rates apparently rose by 30% in India when they changed their diet from meat and dairy products to meat, home grown vegetables and brown rice. Round about the time of the Buddha...or perhaps a bit before. Dave Living _______________ Dave, All very interesting (I'm a health food nut myself but not a vegetarian or vegan), but as for fertility in India, the most poverty stricken women in poor villages continue to be incredibly fertile, yet their daily food is usually only a little rice or roti (Indian bread) if they are lucky. Their poverty and poor physical condition doesn't interefere as much as one would expect in their ability to produce children. Whether many or most of the progeny survive is of course a problem, depending on the poverty or not status of any given family. See, e.g.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_planning_in_India While large fertility declines have been observed, these are based on aggregated figures: India: " the fertility rate has more than halved (from 5.7 in 1966 to 2.7 in 2009). Bangladesh: 2.74 children born/woman (2009. The fact remains that those with the highest birthrates per woman/family are those in dire poverty. I wonder about your claim of a 30% rise in birth rates for the time of the Buddha. How would anyone know? Any documentation? Cheers, Joanna From rhayes at unm.edu Fri Jun 25 15:58:36 2010 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 15:58:36 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] The magic of vegetarianism In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8F7AE99A-DBD7-4D04-93C2-E40852DB5797@unm.edu> On Jun 25, 2010, at 15:49, "JKirkpatrick" wrote: > On the topic of strange facts about vegetarianism. I was told by > a lady who made a living of sorts out of treating infertile women > that the surest way to fertility was not vastly expensive courses > of medical drugs or even viagra (for men that last bit) but > simply a few months of fresh fruit and vegetables. Yes, but does a diet of fruits and vegetables prevent top-posting? From dingirfecho at gmail.com Fri Jun 25 16:20:15 2010 From: dingirfecho at gmail.com (Federico Andino) Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 19:20:15 -0300 Subject: [Buddha-l] The magic of vegetarianism In-Reply-To: <8F7AE99A-DBD7-4D04-93C2-E40852DB5797@unm.edu> References: <8F7AE99A-DBD7-4D04-93C2-E40852DB5797@unm.edu> Message-ID: >Yes, but does a diet of fruits and vegetables prevent top-posting? > _______________________________________________ > It should, dear Richard, it should. By the by, we had a congress of buddhist scholarship last month here in Argentina and a scholar did a very interesting exposition of Vegetarianism in Buddhism, its historical development and the textual roots of the interpretation. I?ll see if I can get it translated and posted here. Best regards Federico From rhayes at unm.edu Fri Jun 25 21:39:40 2010 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 21:39:40 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] The magic of vegetarianism In-Reply-To: References: <8F7AE99A-DBD7-4D04-93C2-E40852DB5797@unm.edu> Message-ID: <1C8A624D-AC9C-43AA-860C-B0A91BF26EFA@unm.edu> On Jun 25, 2010, at 4:20 PM, Federico Andino wrote: > By the by, we had a congress of buddhist scholarship last month here in > Argentina and a scholar did a very interesting exposition of Vegetarianism > in Buddhism, its historical development and the textual roots of the > interpretation. I?ll see if I can get it translated and posted here. That sounds very interesting. If the paper is posted somewhere on line, please send a link, even if it's not translated into English. Richard From jehms at xs4all.nl Sat Jun 26 01:24:32 2010 From: jehms at xs4all.nl (Erik Hoogcarspel) Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2010 09:24:32 +0200 Subject: [Buddha-l] The magic of vegetarianism In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C25AB30.3050609@xs4all.nl> Hi Dave, what happened to your stone? Op 25-06-10 23:18, David Living schreef: > On the topic of strange facts about vegetarianism. I was told by a lady who made a living of sorts out of treating infertile women that the surest way to fertility was not vastly expensive courses of medical drugs or even viagra (for men that last bit) but simply a few months of fresh fruit and vegetables. She cited experiments in the US that backed her ideas up. She swore by it. > Looking at the growth of the world population the last century I would rather see a decline in fertility than a growth. I suggest that we feed people bamboo shoots. The giant pandas who live on it seem to be very slow in procreation, so this will help to create some open space on the planet. Another possibility is to feed them books or knowledge. If you live on homegrown veggies you?re in the yard all day, taking care of your beans and spinach, so you don?t have time for a good book and when the sun is down and you cannot read, what can you do? That?s why getting people to go to school makes life a lot easier. You don?t have to take care of all those kids and plants. > But don't buy your groceries from Supermarkets because they will do anything to their foods like radiate it, spray it with deadly pesticides, wrap it in deadly plastics that make you lose your sexual identity and so on... but just shop in the corner shop, the little fruit and veg shop that is near you but being put out of business by those poisonous supermarkets. > How about wrapping compulsive rapists in plastics? That would teach them! And we will ban them from the small shops on corners! > It sounds wacky I know but she cured me of a shingles type rash in ten minutes flat with a spoonful of baking powder! > That?s the problem with Dharmakirti: he needs some baking powder, he?s just to flat. > There is also the interesting fact that birth rates apparently rose by 30% in India when they changed their diet from meat and dairy products to meat, home grown vegetables and brown rice. Round about the time of the Buddha...or perhaps a bit before. > The Buddha in his wisdom must have foreseen the disastrous consequences of the increasing birthrate, that?s why he created monasteries and urged men not even to look at women. We know now that this was not enough. India needs more plastic in it?s fashion industry. Dick Doornail From aryacitta at hotmail.com Sat Jun 26 02:58:25 2010 From: aryacitta at hotmail.com (David Living) Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2010 08:58:25 +0000 Subject: [Buddha-l] Top Posting Vegetarian In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yes, but does a diet of fruits and vegetables prevent top-posting? Sorry Richard, just getting the hang of this computer stuff. I work in the NHS in Southend-on-Sea - its an austerity - and there is an ongoing debate on the perils of vegetarianism and how it leads to wasting hard earned tax payers' money: http://www.southend-today.co.uk/tn/Letters.cfm?id=21396&headline=The%20perils%20of%20being%20a%20vegetarianQuite frequently, vegetarians were admitted in a dreadful state but in a few days left the hospital with grateful thanks, feeling fit once more, and having cost the NHS a lot of money. They were never told that the life-saving protein administered to them came from animals. What seems to be missed as far as I can tell is the dangers of being a "Tesco Vegetarian" or an "Asda Vegetarian" in other words getting your nutritional needs met by food vacuum-wrapped in flexible transparent supermarket plastic that contains pheromone chemicals that cause transvestite or even better - hermaphrodite qualities in newly born male children or even 'worse' in thirty something ugly rugby playing men. I've been a vegetarian for about 30 years now and although I have some of the usual biological changes associated with old age, no energy, poor health or even "hermaphroditiness" doesn't seem to be included....as far as I can tell. Maybe its because I shop at the local fruit and veg shop, or the Saturday market. I also try to get free food from allotment maintaining work mates. On my wages you have to try! I must say I'm not a religious vegetarianism I have been know to eat sausages knowing them to be non-vegetarian and the odd non-vegetarian chicken leg at a wedding. But I try not to make it a habit! _________________________________________________________________ http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/197222280/direct/01/ Do you have a story that started on Hotmail? Tell us now From aryacitta at hotmail.com Sat Jun 26 04:09:25 2010 From: aryacitta at hotmail.com (David Living) Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2010 10:09:25 +0000 Subject: [Buddha-l] Vegetarianism & Cockroaches In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Joanna wrote: I wonder about your claim of a 30% rise in birth rates for the time of the Buddha. How would anyone know? Any documentation? I just cannot find the article that I read that said something along these lines. However this is something I found regarding the importance of brown rice and WHOLE grains. There is also alot of importance given to meat and dairy products so there is no proof here. http://www.askbaby.com/fertility-boosting-foods.htm Maybe with vegetarianism you just have to try stuff out and see what happens! Cheers - Dave _________________________________________________________________ http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/195013117/direct/01/ From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Sat Jun 26 05:21:12 2010 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2010 07:21:12 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] book of review of Buddhist Warfare References: Message-ID: <001701cb1521$af30b4e0$2101a8c0@Dan> As promised, here is the freshly published book review of Buddhist Warfare, just distributed to the H-Buddhism list via H-Net. A pdf version of this review, nicely formatted, can be found, downloaded and printed from the H-Net archive at http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=29747 Comments welcome. Dan --- Michael K. Jerryson, Mark Juergensmeyer, eds. Buddhist Warfare. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. xi + 257 pp. $99.00 (cloth), ISBN 978-0-19-539483-2; $29.95 (paper), ISBN 978-0-19-539484-9. Reviewed by Vladimir Tikhonov (University of Oslo) Published on H-Buddhism (June, 2010) Commissioned by Dan Lusthaus The Myth of ?Nonviolent Buddhism? ? Demolished Once Again Given the frequency with which stories of religious violence appear in the news--be it terrorist atrocities perpetrated by fundamentalist groups, or religiously tinged communal strife--the thesis that religion has an intrinsic potential for violence that time and again erupts in bloodshed seems to be self-evident. However, compared to all other global religions, Buddhism tends to be the one least associated with warfare, even while the Sri Lankan state, constitutionally bound to ?foster and protect Buddhism,? was conducting a brutally efficient elimination campaign against Tamil insurgency, with the enthusiastic support of its Buddhist community. In fact, ?Buddhist warfare? was not unknown to Western observers prior to this--the first works on Japan?s militant monks were published already in the late nineteenth century. The myth of ?nonviolent Buddhism? persisted, however, owing much to the pacifist leanings of Western Buddhist converts who tended to ?see no evil? in their adopted religion, as well as to the widespread tendency to apply ?positive Orientalist? stereotypes to Tibet, often seen as a peaceful Shangri-La of sorts in the apologetic writings of Western supporters of its charismatic Fourteenth Dalai Lama. The new collection edited by Michael Jerryson (Eckerd College, Florida) and Mark Juergensmeyer (University of California, Santa Barbara) will hopefully contribute significantly to demolishing the ?nonviolent Buddhism? myth, at least at the level of academic discussion. It persuasively argues that even though in theory Buddhism highlights the inescapably insalubrious karmic consequences of any violence, in practice it functions pretty much like any other religion: From its inception, Buddhism was integrated into a complicated web of power relations; it always attempted to accommodate itself with the pre-existent power hierarchies while preserving a degree of internal autonomy; and it inevitably came to acknowledge, willingly or otherwise, that the powers-that-be use violence to achieve their objectives, which often overlap with those of the Buddhist monastic community. In many cases, the passive acknowledgement of the inexorableness of state violence further developed into active collaboration with state war-making or internal pacification--as long as state bloodletting was seen as also serving Buddhist religious interests. The collection opens with an introduction by Michael Jerryson which provides a masterfully written outline of Buddhism?s ambiguous relations with state violence throughout the course of its history. The gist of its argument is that early Buddhism?s dichotomous view of society gave Buddhists little reason to take risks by actively promoting antiwar views certain to alienate state rulers. While the autonomous communities of full-time Buddhist practitioners (sangha) were supposed to eschew violence, the mundane world was seen as inherently chaotic and thus in need of ?those who administer torture and maiming? (Vinaya)--that is, kings. Never tired of admonishing kings to rule in a benevolent way which would render royal violence unnecessary, Buddha tacitly accepted, however, the reality of dog-eat-dog interstate competition--the quid pro quo being what Jerryson justly defines as ?monks? immunity to state rules? (p. 11). These patterns of Buddhist collaboration with state powers were eventually cemented with the incipience of modern nationalism, as whole nations (?r? Lanka, Thailand, etc.) were seen now as ?Buddhist,? their warfare being inescapably legitimized in religious terms. The sangha-state dualism, in other words, developed, in the end, into its own negation. Jerryson?s introduction is followed by another, much longer outline on the issue of Buddhism?s relation to warfare, Paul Demi?ville?s (1894-1979) well-known 1957 text, Buddhism and War, translated into English by Michelle Kendall (University of California, Santa Barbara). Originally a postscript to a study on the Japanese ?warrior monks? (s?hei), Demi?ville?s incisive text highlights the issue of violence in the Japanese Mah?y?na tradition and especially emphasizes the theoretical platform which makes even active monastic participation in violence permissible. As Demi?ville makes clear, Buddhism tends to reject the existence of any essential existence of things (svabh?va) as such, and Mah?y?na philosophy accordingly privileges ?mind?/?consciousness,? the questions of the ?relative? existence of matter being hotly debated by a variety of theoretical traditions. Thus, in the matter of killing, it is the intention and not the act in itself that is focused upon. As some of the most influential Mah?y?na s?tras (Ratnak?ta S?tra, Yog?c?rabh?mi, etc.) suggest, ?killing? is simply a meaningless misconception from an ?enlightened? viewpoint (since neither the killer nor the killed have any independent existence) and may be undertaken if intended to prevent a worse misfortune, and done with the best objectives in mind. Demi?ville, in effect, points to the dangers inherent in the Buddhist relativizing of the objective world in the situation when Buddhist monks themselves are strongly influenced by conflicting worldly interests. It is a pity, however, that the article?s translator left intact Demi?ville?s use of the antiquated system devised by S?raphin Couvreur (1835-1919) for transcribing Chinese (which used to be in vogue primarily in France), instead of re-transcribing Chinese words into Pinyin (which is used by the other contributors to this collection). The next article, Stephen Jenkins?s (Humboldt State University) research on the Mah?y?nist ?rya-Bodhisattva-gocara-up?yavi?aya-vikurva?a-nirde?a S?tra (the title is translated by Jenkins as The Noble Teachings through Manifestations on the Subject of Skilful Means in the Bodhisattva?s Field of Activity), contextualizes the teachings of the s?tra in question and further buttresses Demi?ville?s argument that the Buddhist emphasis on ?good intention? opened the door for a broad spectrum of violence legitimization, including both war and in criminal justice. The s?tra Jenkins analyzes justifies both torture if done with the intention to prevent criminality, and war as ultima ratio regum if conducted with the intention to protect noncombatants. Unfortunately, however, Jenkins does not elaborate in more detail what sort of influence the Chinese and Tibetan translations of this s?tra exerted on Buddhism?s political views and activities in Central and East Asia. Buddhist justifications for warfare in supposedly ?pacifist? Tibet are dealt with in the following article by Derek Maher (East Carolina University). Focusing on the writings of the Fifth Dalai Lama (1617-82) in which the Gelug-pa (Yellow Hat sect) leader glorifies his mundane patron, Gushri Khan (1582-1655)--the Khoshut Mongol ruler who effectively established the domination of Gelug-pa?s Dalai Lamas over Tibet through a series of wars against competing sects and potentates--Maher shows how the supposedly ?Dharma [Buddhist law]-protecting? violence was rationalized as not sinning against explicit Buddhist disciplinarian norms. Without ever clearly arguing in favor of violence as such, the Dalai Lama subtly leads his readers to think that once violence is perpetrated by a venerable religious warrior with a clear intention to protect Dharma, then it is justifiable. As the next article, by Oxford University?s Vesna Wallace, argues, a very similar logic was also applied to the cruelest forms of criminal justice utilized by secular rulers in Mongolian society after the conversion to Gelug-pa Buddhism in late sixteenth century. Executions by spine-breaking and slicing into pieces, and tortures by clubbing or crushing hands and feet were all justified as long as they were conducted by ?Dharma-protecting? authorities with the ?compassionate? intention of purifying society. Violence ended up being justified as long as it was seen as the best way of realizing rulers? good intentions in what was perceived as an inherently violent world. While identifying belligerent Gushri Khan as the compassionate bodhisattva Vajrap?ni was rarely problematic for supposedly ?nonviolent? Tibetan Buddhism, it does prove problematic for many contemporary Western Buddhists, many of whom view their Buddhist faith as an extension of their pacifist convictions. Their voice is represented in the collection by Brian Daizen Victoria (Antioch University), whose article, critically dealing with the appropriation of Zen Buddhism by Japanese militarism forcefully argues that acquiescence to violence completely contradicts the spirit of Buddha?s Dharma. The argument is fully plausible, since the emphasis on the inauspicious karmic consequences of violent acts, thought, or speech is more than clear, especially in the early Buddhist literature. However, if Victoria is to criticize Japanese Buddhists? wartime collaboration with their state, he--as Bernard Faure (Columbia University) persuasively suggests in his ?Afterthoughts? probably would have to ultimately extend his criticism to the historical Buddha and his disciples, since it was exactly their attitude of tacitly acknowledging state violence and accepting sponsorship from ruling-class personages directly or indirectly implicated in all sorts of violence that laid the foundation for what Victoria describes as Buddhism?s ?self-prostitution? in the service of the state (p. 128). Taking this historical background into consideration, the pattern of ?mutually beneficial? relations between the Buddhist monastic community and the early Maoist state in China, as described in Xue Yu?s (Chinese University of Hong Kong) article on Chinese Buddhists during the 1950-53 Korean War, does not look like a deviation, but rather like a continuation of a time-honored pattern strongly rooted in the habitus of the monkhood. The pattern shows regional variations, of course: While donating airplanes to and personally enlisting in the Chinese ?volunteer? army ?fighting crazy American criminals in Korea? (p. 146) was not seen as problematic for Chinese Mah?y?nic monks, the Therav?din Sri Lankan monks, as Daniel Kent (University of Virginia) shows in his contribution, even eschew direct encouragement to kill in their sermons to soldiers (not to mention abstaining from any personal participation in killing), preferring to emphasize instead that the fighting men should kill and die ?without unwholesome intentions,? so as not to suffer karmic consequences from their ?Dharma-protecting war? against Tamil rebels. But, as Michael Jerryson makes clear in his piece on monks? participation in the Thai state?s suppression of a Muslim insurgency in the south, it is a sort of ?public secret? in Thai society that some monks become ordained while still on military duty and some monasteries house military garrisons in the insurgency-ridden areas. As long as the Thai state is considered a ?Buddhist nation,? this sort of Buddhist response to the threats facing it makes perfectly logical sense, all the doctrinal skepticism towards violence notwithstanding. All in all, Jerryson, Juergensmeyer and their co-authors have produced an extremely valuable, edifying collection which seriously challenges the images of ?peacefulness? that Western Buddhists have tended to project onto the religion of their choice. A reader feels persuaded to conclude, as Faure suggests in his ?Afterthoughts,? that a religion which does not question the (inherently violent) hierarchies of power in the mundane world; which promotes interiorized violence in the form of ascetic practices; and which systematically discriminates against women and habitually demonizes outsiders and rivals, should, in fact, be expected to be violent. What remains to be desired--from Jerryson, Juergensmeyer and their collaborators, as well as other specialists working in this field--is a broader and stronger contextualization of Buddhist violence as part and parcel of a more general tendency of practically all religions to be violent. Religions are symbolic systems that organize the universe in such a way as to make themselves central and powerful--and closing the distance between ?power? and ?violence? is only a question of time, however ?compassionate? the axiology of a given religion might originally have been. The present collection shows us very clearly the dangers inherent in privileging one religion--even a most ?compassionate?-looking one--in relation to others. Citation: Vladimir Tikhonov. Review of Jerryson, Michael K.; Juergensmeyer, Mark, eds., Buddhist Warfare. H-Buddhism, H-Net Reviews. June, 2010. URL: http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=29747 From jmp at peavler.org Sat Jun 26 08:19:57 2010 From: jmp at peavler.org (Jim Peavler) Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2010 08:19:57 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Some hae meat and canna eat In-Reply-To: <1032BB1A-E93C-4E7D-A8BE-AB701626C5A2@unm.edu> References: <1277330044.6396.97.camel@rhayes-desktop> <4C237398.40107@xs4all.nl> <2367815E-4B05-416F-9112-E36E40F1B854@unm.edu> <4C23C75A.5090900@xs4all.nl> <1032BB1A-E93C-4E7D-A8BE-AB701626C5A2@unm.edu> Message-ID: On Jun 24, 2010, at 5:42 PM, Richard Hayes wrote: > It could be that right here on buddha-l we have witnessed the birth of the swallow-whole vegan raw-food school of Mahayana Buddhism. Soon I'm sure there will be a schism. Some will insist on swallowing food whole without chewing while running a marathon, and others will insist on swallowing food without chewing while hanging upside down from the upper limb of a high tree. When it comes to the religious politics of diet, nothing is ever simple. Lets see. Which end of this turnip should I swallow first? The pointy one or the one with all this green stuff hanging off of it? Jim Peavler jmp at peavler.org "Be good. Be just." John Adams From jmp at peavler.org Sat Jun 26 08:21:52 2010 From: jmp at peavler.org (Jim Peavler) Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2010 08:21:52 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Cockroaches In-Reply-To: <4C25137C.2030605@uni-bonn.de> References: <4C25137C.2030605@uni-bonn.de> Message-ID: <9AD506BD-E631-4C0B-A5F1-5A9F025E942E@peavler.org> On Jun 25, 2010, at 2:37 PM, j-tuemmers wrote: > ... ok. You know that by secret transmission it is well known that > besides the cockroaches only Keith Richards will survive ... That's fine with me, as long as he gets to keep his guitar. Jim Peavler jmp at peavler.org "Be good. Be just." John Adams From rhayes at unm.edu Sat Jun 26 09:01:19 2010 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2010 09:01:19 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Some hae meat and canna eat In-Reply-To: References: <1277330044.6396.97.camel@rhayes-desktop> <4C237398.40107@xs4all.nl> <2367815E-4B05-416F-9112-E36E40F1B854@unm.edu> <4C23C75A.5090900@xs4all.nl> <1032BB1A-E93C-4E7D-A8BE-AB701626C5A2@unm.edu> Message-ID: On Jun 26, 2010, at 8:19, Jim Peavler wrote: >> Lets see. Which end of this turnip should I swallow first? The pointy one or the one with all this green stuff hanging off of it? I'll let you know as soon as I've digested the watermelon I swallowed whole a few days ago. I'm starting to have second thoughts about no-chew raw-food veganism as a spiritual practice. With a lump in my throat, Richard > > > Jim Peavler > jmp at peavler.org > > "Be good. Be just." John Adams > > > > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From info at bcarral.org Sat Jun 26 08:37:54 2010 From: info at bcarral.org (Ben Carral) Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2010 16:37:54 +0200 Subject: [Buddha-l] Koheleth In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <775256488.20100626163754@bcarral.org> On Friday, June 11, 2010, 11:36:16 AM, Gary wrote: > You warm the cockles of my heart, Franz, by your > reference I've been reading this book in Hebrew for a > decade now & am amazed it even "made the cut" for > inclusion ... This is my favourite wisdom book by far, and Kohelet 9:9 is my favourite wisdom verse ever. Kohelet is the kind of Buddhism I can relate to. I can't understand the single monk ideal anymore. Best wishes, Ben From info at bcarral.org Sat Jun 26 10:35:45 2010 From: info at bcarral.org (Ben Carral) Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2010 18:35:45 +0200 Subject: [Buddha-l] Being unable to imagine dying and living In-Reply-To: <7622D8DF-817D-40F1-9578-1F006FBEF3E5@mind2mind.net> References: <645565.3563.qm@web86604.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <003001cb0874$11a07cb0$2101a8c0@Dan> <7622D8DF-817D-40F1-9578-1F006FBEF3E5@mind2mind.net> Message-ID: <627145511.20100626183545@bcarral.org> Dear Buddha-L citiziens, I use to read Buddha-L messages once in two or three months, so I'm sorry for contributing late to this thread--however I have found it quite interesting and would like to share my two cents. First of all, I'm agnostic about what happens after death, in short, I don't know if my personality will go on in some way. As far as my understanding goes, early Buddhists thought that life is suffering and wanted to end it in a ultimate way. Since they believed in rebirth, they didn't tend to commit suicide, but followed the eightfold path instead. Then some later Buddhists decided that better than an ultimate end is a continual rebirth in order to help sentient beings. I share the view that life is truly awful. In short, I think that we are born as slaves of an economic elite. Many people are starving and dying because they are not allowed even the most basic vital stuff, and we are the slaves who keep this system going on. We also exploit other species and our planet resources. That's why I have decided not to bring new human lives to this world. Since I'm a living human being I have to decide how to spend this time until death. I have decided the use my life trying to understand how our world works, contributing to our well-being (i.e. helping myself and others to experience as less suffering as possible), and exposing our madness. I also try to enjoy life as much as I can and, for me, marriage is the key. I don't know what happens after death. I'm intrigued about rebirth stories and rebirth hyponsis, I'm thinking for instance in Elisabeth Kubler Ross and Brian Weiss. I would like to know is someone has studied their reports in a critical way. Death is still a big mystery for me. However I find it quite interesting and enjoyable studying it. Best wishes, Ben (Oviedo, Asturias, Spain) From stroble at hawaii.edu Sat Jun 26 11:34:03 2010 From: stroble at hawaii.edu (andy) Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2010 10:34:03 -0700 Subject: [Buddha-l] book of review of Buddhist Warfare In-Reply-To: <001701cb1521$af30b4e0$2101a8c0@Dan> References: <001701cb1521$af30b4e0$2101a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: <1277573643.1640.3.camel@pyrrho> Thanks for the link, Dan. Looks like we have a lot of "reverse Orientalism" on our hands. On Sat, 2010-06-26 at 07:21 -0400, Dan Lusthaus wrote: > As promised, here is the freshly published book review of Buddhist Warfare, > just distributed to the H-Buddhism list via H-Net. A pdf version of this > review, nicely formatted, can be found, downloaded and printed from the > H-Net archive at > http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=29747 > > Comments welcome. > Dan > From rhayes at unm.edu Sat Jun 26 12:29:29 2010 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2010 12:29:29 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Review of a review Message-ID: <24426EAB-D8D7-40ED-A38D-BF1688F55F27@unm.edu> At the time I was gaining credits in Ottawa toward my BA in religious studies, most of my Canadian teachers were intellectually indebted to Wilfred Cantwell Smith, a Torontonian who crossed the great cultural divide into Montreal, where he had a huge impact on the culture of religious studies at McGill. His impact was still being felt at McGill long after he had left Montreal for the McGill of the South (as we liked to call Harvard). One of the oft-quoted pericopes in the Smith canon was that there is no virtue in comparing the doctrines of one religion with the actual practices of another. That is, there is not much point in saying that Judaism teaches "Thou shalt not kill," but Christianity produced the Spanish Inquisition (and therefore, one is invited to conclude, Judaism is more compassionate than Christianity). In doing comparative religion, one should compare practice with practice, scripture with scripture and hermeneutic with hermeneutic. The reason for this, I was told repeatedly by many a disciple of Smith, is because the followers of religions almost never live up to the nobler ideals of the teachings of their religious traditions. Perhaps because Wilfred Cantwell Smith's cautions made so much sense to me, I have never been daunted by the dramatical failures of Buddhists to act as the Buddha recommended that people act if they wish to eliminate some of the pain of life. After all, most Buddhists are people, and most people are vitiated by greed, hatred and delusion and therefore can't be expected to behave as stream-entrants, arhants and tenth-bh?mi bodhisattvas?especially if they are employed as kings, generals, merchants and monks, professions that necessitate constant moral compromises and concessions to the realities of a universe deeply mired in unwholesomeness. When I was first attracted to Buddhism, I was living in the United States and had just received my invitation to appear for induction into the United States Army. The Vietnam war was in full swing, and the more I read about that conflict, the more I realized I was more in sympathy with the Vi?t c?ng than with the "good guys". I toyed with the idea of getting military training at Uncle Sam's expense and then deserting and using my skills to fight for the Vi?t c?ng; that was years before I saw Apocalypse Now. As things turned out, however, as I waited for the appointed date of my military service to begin, I killed time by taking a course in Buddhism being offered at the Unitarian church my parents attended at the time. The readings I did there made me aware that I really did not need to take sides in the Vietnam war, or in any other war. There were ways to see that the "good guys" were acting badly that did not require seeing the Vi?t c?ng as the good guys. In most situations involving human beings, there aren't any good guys to be found. History is a protracted scufle among scoundrels. If I had not read the Dhammapada, Sutta Nipata and D?ghanik?ya when I did, I probably would not have bought a one-way Greyhound bus ticket to Winnipeg to start life as an immigrant to Canada. Taking that course in Buddhism at that time was either a stroke of blind good luck or the ripening of some mighty good karma. I leave it to the ideologues to sort that one out. I myself don't much care why things happened as they did; I'm just glad a moment of clarity arose in my mind when it did. During the first few years I was living in Canada, I read a lot more Buddhist texts. Since I had been helped by a community of kind-hearted Quakers who took me under their wing, I also read quite a bit of the Bible, which was pretty much completely unknown to me. (After all, my parents, you'll recall, were Unitarians.) As I read the Bible, I was utterly appalled. Rarely have I read anything that more thoroughly disgusted me. Everything from Genesis to Revelation seemed like one blood-curdling war whoop. God was being asked at every turn to crush enemies, humiliate enemies, make enemies eat dust, cover enemies with suppurating wounds and make enemies die of hideously painful diseases. I began to think it was a miracle that Quakers, steeped in that savage book as they were, managed to find their way to their famous peace testimony. Under the influence of Quaker men and women, I became a pacifist. Not being able to find anything biblical to inspire such a stance, I built my pacifism on a foundation of the teachings I read in Buddhist texts. Whereas it is difficult to find a page of the Bible that does not refer in some way to all the horrors the enemies of the friends of God will face, it is equally difficult to find a page of the Pali canon that does not in some way recommend finding ways to eradicate one's fear-based hatred of others and bias for oneself and one's own kith and kin. Comparing Buddhist scripture to the scriptures of the three Abrahamic religions, without reference to how any of the followers of those religions actually behaved in the allegedly "real" world, it became clear to me that the teachings of Buddhism strongly spoke to my condition, while the teachings of the Abrahamic religions identified, and even recommended, the all-too-human conditions that make the world all but uninhabitable. Given the amount of inspiration that Buddhist teachings have always given me, I have never found myself being amazed, disappointed or perplexed by the conduct of actual Buddhists down through the ages of human history. After all, they behaved just about exactly as one one expect people driven by greed, hatred and delusion to behave. They were narrow-minded and contemptuous of people who chose to wear other labels. Like all people, they were limited in vision and prone to letting their self-interests save them from the trouble of being forgiving and compassionate. That's how people are. The Buddhists burned each other's libraries down, recommended that rivals be sentenced to death, fought insane and unjustified wars through their loyalty to lustful kings, trained young men to fly suicide missions and then turned those poor indoctrinated suicides into heroes. None of that has ever convinced me that non-violence is indefensible or that it is not part of what the Buddha taught. Knowing the reality of how Buddhists acted never dampened my inspiration, because I never expected to be inspired by actual Buddhists. I didn't need to be inspired by them, because I had already found teachings in books that inspired me more than any actual human being can do. All this may help explain why I just can't get interested in the work of Gregory Schopen or Brian Victoria or the materials in books such as Michael K. Jerryson and Mark Juergensmeyer's edited collection of articles entitled Buddhist Warfare, recently reviewed by Vladimir Tikhonov. The review itself is bland (as a good book review should be, in my opinion). It describes a book in a way that a reader of the review can decide whether she wants to pay the $90 to own a copy or spend the time to read a copy borrowed from the library. There is, however, one claim made by the reviewer that strikes me as just plain silly. \begin{just_plain_silly_claim} The myth of "nonviolent Buddhism" persisted, however, owing much to the pacifist leanings of Western Buddhist converts who tended to "see no evil" in their adopted religion, as well as to the widespread tendency to apply "positive Orientalist" stereotypes to Tibet, often seen as a peaceful Shangri-La of sorts in the apologetic writings of Western supporters of its charismatic Fourteenth Dalai Lama. \end{just_plain_silly_claim} Outside the pietistic claims made in essays written by dewy-eyed first-year students who can barely spell and have not yet learned to think, I have never encountered anyone who answers to that unflattering description. I know plenty of Buddhists who like the teachings of Buddhism and are inspired by the invitations to live as harmlessly as possible, but I have never encountered any Buddhist?let alone any scholar of Buddhism?who tends to "see no evil" in the history of Buddhists. I suspect the reviewer may have succumbed to exactly the sort of stereotyping he attributes to the myth-driven Buddhists he imagines. What could be said, accurately I think, is that most of the teachings of Buddhism recommend looking for non-violent solutions to problems, that the teachings of Buddhism have largely pacifist leanings, and that there are Westerners who converted to Buddhism because of those leanings. To say that those converts then systematically failed to recognize that Buddhists often fail to follow Buddhism is probably to say a little more than is warranted by evidence. I appreciate Vladimir Tikhonov's review. It enables me to see that this is one book I probably will not bother to read. But then I am a philosopher, not a historian. Richard From lemmett at talk21.com Sat Jun 26 12:37:51 2010 From: lemmett at talk21.com (lemmett at talk21.com) Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2010 11:37:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Buddha-l] Being unable to imagine dying and living In-Reply-To: <627145511.20100626183545@bcarral.org> Message-ID: <510570.65971.qm@web86608.mail.ird.yahoo.com> It does seem that Derrida in Aporias says that my own death cannot be conceived of, and that this is important; he even thinks this is a "scandal" in philosophy. Can I die?http://www.unm.edu/~ithomson/Thomson.pdf?is an article reviewing that book and it's clear that it's not just Zygmunt Bauman who thinks that death is inconceivable.? But I can't find anything that talks about Aporias?and Buddhism, though there is a little on deconstructionism and Buddhism.?I think that without literal rebirth, Buddhism could be seen as another way to face death, an alternative to relating to it existentially. I won't labour this. From franz at mind2mind.net Sat Jun 26 14:13:44 2010 From: franz at mind2mind.net (Franz Metcalf) Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2010 13:13:44 -0700 Subject: [Buddha-l] Review of a review In-Reply-To: <24426EAB-D8D7-40ED-A38D-BF1688F55F27@unm.edu> References: <24426EAB-D8D7-40ED-A38D-BF1688F55F27@unm.edu> Message-ID: <6BDE875D-1ED8-49F8-821D-E4020985B8E3@mind2mind.net> Richard, Thank you for that extended reflection on war and Buddhism. I agreed with much of it and so won't comment on all that--agreement is so dull! And who wants to talk about your insight and courage in the face of delusion and collusion, anyway? But I will ask you a pointed question: What do you think of the American Zen community's decades of non-examination of Yasutani Roshi's antisemitism? To me this seems a good example of what Tikhonov calls "see no evil" in his review. I could give other examples of this mentality, Buddha knows, but this one ties nicely to warfare. The failure of Zen practitioners, even supposedly awakened ones, to see this teacher's failure is not "systematic" in terms of Buddhist history, I acknowledge. Still, I think it does approach a kind of systematic and willful ignorance of Buddhist history/reality/dharma *as embodied in the teacher*. And that embodiment is the sine qua non of Zen, so such failures are central and disturbing. But then I am a historian, not a philosopher. Franz From rhayes at unm.edu Sat Jun 26 14:16:17 2010 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2010 14:16:17 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Being unable to imagine dying and living In-Reply-To: <510570.65971.qm@web86608.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <510570.65971.qm@web86608.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <760304ED-3178-4E50-90E8-16A572674E22@unm.edu> On Jun 26, 2010, at 12:37 PM, lemmett at talk21.com wrote: > It does seem that Derrida in Aporias says that my own death cannot be conceived of, and that this is important; he even thinks this is a "scandal" in philosophy. Can I die http://www.unm.edu/~ithomson/Thomson.pdf is an article reviewing that book and it's clear that it's not just Zygmunt Bauman who thinks that death is inconceivable. Iain Thomson's office is right next to mine in the philosophy department. He'll be tickled to learn that his work is being cited on buddha-l. By golly, he'll know he's hit the big time now that the denizens of buddha-l have begun quoting his work. > I think that without literal rebirth, Buddhism could be seen as another way to face death, an alternative to relating to it existentially. I won't labour this. Many years ago I wrote a piece in which the principal argument was that the Buddha probably knew that death is a complete and irreversible end to one's consciousness and that the entire Buddhist path is designed to help people come to the realization that the oblivion that follows the end of consciousness is not at all a dreadful thing. Since people do, however, dread their own future oblivion, they are told what they are more prepared to believe, namely, that their consciousness will survive the death of their present body and that this will keep happening until they see that oblivion isn't so bad at all. The idea of rebirth, I said, was probably a kind of thought experiment that was never meant to be taken as a description of reality. It was a way of saying "If you think death is bad, imagine what it would be like if you couldn't die at all and just kept begin reborn." People would recoil at horror at the idea and gladly accept the alternative. I correlated this acceptance to the final of the seven stages that K?bler-Ross outlined in her work on the stages people go through after being told they are terminally ill. The final stage is calm acceptance of one's exit, which I am quite sure is what nirv??a has to be if it is anything at all. I showed the essay to a few people, and everyone I showed it to said they thought I was making a whole bunch of unwarranted assumptions, the principal one being that death really is a complete and irreversible end to consciousness. The essay never got published, and eventually I lost it or tossed it. The essay reached oblivion before me. Well, not quite. Oblivion is the state of being completely forgotten (which all of us eventually will be), but the essay has not been completely forgotten. I still remember bits and pieces of it. Richard Hayes Department of Thanatology University of New Mexico From lemmett at talk21.com Sat Jun 26 14:42:25 2010 From: lemmett at talk21.com (lemmett at talk21.com) Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2010 20:42:25 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [Buddha-l] Being unable to imagine dying and living In-Reply-To: <760304ED-3178-4E50-90E8-16A572674E22@unm.edu> Message-ID: <429850.41662.qm@web86605.mail.ird.yahoo.com> >Iain Thomson's office is right next to mine in the philosophy department. He'll be>tickled to learn that his work is being cited on buddha-l. By golly, he'll know he's>hit the big time now that the denizens of buddha-l have begun quoting his work. Awesome, tell him I'm his biggest fan lol. I'm trying to let Aporias percolate my whole being... >Many years ago I wrote a piece in which the principal argument was that the>Buddha probably knew that death is a complete and irreversible end to one's>consciousness and that the entire Buddhist path is designed to help people come>to the realization that the oblivion that follows the end of consciousness is not at>all a dreadful thing. Since people do, however, dread their own future oblivion,>they are told what they are more prepared to believe, namely, that their>consciousness will survive the death of their present body and that this will keep>happening until they see that oblivion isn't so bad at all. The idea of rebirth, I>said, was probably a kind of thought experiment that was never meant to be>taken as a description of reality. It was a way of saying "If you think death is>bad, imagine what it would be like if you couldn't die at all and just kept begin>reborn." People would recoil at horror at the idea and gladly accept the>alternative. I correlated this acceptance to the final of the seven stages that>K?bler-Ross outlined in her work on the stages people go through after being told?>they are terminally ill. The final stage is calm acceptance of one's exit, which I>am quite sure is what nirv??a has to be if it is anything at all. That does sound interesting, to me. I am still concerned whether oblivion has to be a kind of "black velvet" or "slipping into the night". What do you think of that? If you do mean that you're going to mention Buddha-l to Thomson, what does he think of that? Here's a link to what I *don't* *think* I believe, if I've been too unclear?http://www.naturalism.org/death.htm Thanks. From stroble at hawaii.edu Sat Jun 26 14:46:45 2010 From: stroble at hawaii.edu (andy) Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2010 13:46:45 -0700 Subject: [Buddha-l] Being unable to imagine dying and living In-Reply-To: <510570.65971.qm@web86608.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <510570.65971.qm@web86608.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1277585205.1640.15.camel@pyrrho> A scandal in French philosophy? Who would have thought! I would suggest, however, that you are starting on the wrong end: it is your existence that is inconceivable. Isn't this the sunya of existentialism and deconstruction? And given that, the inconceivability of non-existence is not all that problematic. And, you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. (Inigo Montoya, in the Princess Bride) On Sat, 2010-06-26 at 11:37 -0700, lemmett at talk21.com wrote: > It does seem that Derrida in Aporias that my own death cannot be conceived of, and that this is important; he even thinks this is a "scandal" in philosophy. Can I die http://www.unm.edu/~ithomson/Thomson.pdf is an article reviewing that book and it's clear that it's not just Zygmunt Bauman who thinks that death is inconceivable. > But I can't find anything that talks about Aporias and Buddhism, though there is a little on deconstructionism and Buddhism. I think that without literal rebirth, Buddhism could be seen as another way to face death, an alternative to relating to it existentially. I won't labour this. > From lemmett at talk21.com Sat Jun 26 14:51:10 2010 From: lemmett at talk21.com (lemmett at talk21.com) Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2010 13:51:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Buddha-l] Being unable to imagine dying and living In-Reply-To: <1277585205.1640.15.camel@pyrrho> Message-ID: <505430.84549.qm@web86603.mail.ird.yahoo.com> >A scandal in French philosophy?? Who would have thought!???I? would suggest, however, that you are starting on the wrong end: it is your existence that is inconceivable. Isn't this the sunya of existentialism and deconstruction?? And given that, the inconceivability of non-existence is not all that problematic.? ? >>Sure >And, you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. (Inigo Montoya, in the Princess Bride) >>Aporias? I think I do know what it means and anyway I was using it as a book title! Be nice!! Also you underestimate my insanity. From rhayes at unm.edu Sat Jun 26 14:52:55 2010 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2010 14:52:55 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Review of a review In-Reply-To: <6BDE875D-1ED8-49F8-821D-E4020985B8E3@mind2mind.net> References: <24426EAB-D8D7-40ED-A38D-BF1688F55F27@unm.edu> <6BDE875D-1ED8-49F8-821D-E4020985B8E3@mind2mind.net> Message-ID: On Jun 26, 2010, at 2:13 PM, Franz Metcalf wrote: > But I will ask you a pointed question: What do you think of the > American Zen community's decades of non-examination of Yasutani > Roshi's antisemitism? There is no single answer to that. For some people the acceptance of Yasutani is somewhat like the willingness people have to acknowledge that even when people have characteristics that are not admirable, they may still have a great deal to offer that is worth listening to and heeding. So for a lot of people, hearing of Yasutani's anti-Semitism is like hearing of Thomas Jefferson's ownership of slaves and his probably being the father of several children through one of his slaves. One may admire Jefferson for a lot of things, and regard him well worth studying and thinking about, and see that he is worthwhile despite having had a feature that we now regard as unconscionable. Similar observations can be made about Jung's well-documented anti-Semitism, or Freud's cocaine addiction, or Socrates's dismissiveness of his wife and his fondness for young boys. One might regard it as quite healthy to realize that no one is perfect by one's own standards and to recall what the Buddha is supposed to have said: "There never has been, is not now, and never will be anyone with whom no one will find fault. There never has been, is not now, and never will be anyone whom everyone will always praise." Other people may have a less healthy approach that answers to what psychologists call denial. That is, they simply cannot accept that Yasutani really was anti-Semitic. That is, as you say, an example of what Tikhonov calls "see no evil." In my own experience, not many people I have encountered exhibit that degree of denial, although it is by no means unknown. There is yet another approach that I would regard as unhealthy, and that involves not denying that Yasutani was anti-Semitic but rather making the spurious claim that anti-Semitism can't be all that bad if an enlightened fellow like Yasutani exhibited it. I have, unfortunately, seen people make that sort of apology for a teacher's questionable actions, especially with regard to the third precept. So while I would agree that in general there are issues that exemplify what Tikhonov calls the "see no evil" approach, I have personally not seen that pattern applied by many Buddhists to the question of warfare specifically. But I admit that I lead a pretty sheltered life. > The > failure of Zen practitioners, even supposedly awakened ones, to see > this teacher's failure is not "systematic" in terms of Buddhist > history, I acknowledge. Still, I think it does approach a kind of > systematic and willful ignorance of Buddhist history/reality/dharma > *as embodied in the teacher*. And that embodiment is the sine qua non > of Zen, so such failures are central and disturbing. Well, as a recovering Zen practitioner, I have to say that what led me eventually to abandon Zen was that I found the very idea of the teacher as an embodiment of the Dharma deeply disturbing. It seemed to me to be giving carte blanche to Zen masters. As I understand Buddhism, nobody should ever get carte blanche. At the same time, no one should ever be dismissed as utterly reprehensible when their carte gets a bit, even quite a bit, of noire on it. > But then I am a historian, not a philosopher. I forgive you, my son. Richard From rhayes at unm.edu Sat Jun 26 15:10:10 2010 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2010 15:10:10 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Being unable to imagine dying and living In-Reply-To: <429850.41662.qm@web86605.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <429850.41662.qm@web86605.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Jun 26, 2010, at 2:42 PM, lemmett at talk21.com wrote: >> Iain Thomson's office is right next to mine in the philosophy department. He'll be>tickled to learn that his work is being cited on buddha-l. By golly, he'll know he's>hit the big time now that the denizens of buddha-l have begun quoting his work. > > Awesome, tell him I'm his biggest fan lol. I'm trying to let Aporias percolate my whole being... You're a better man than I, Gunga Din. I'm past retirement age, and I don't even know what an aporia is. I keep hearing my colleagues talking about aporias. They can't get through a day without encountering several of them. For the longest time, I though aporias were insects that lived on rose bushes. > I am still concerned whether oblivion has to be a kind of "black velvet" or "slipping into the night". What do you think of that? I don't think oblivion has to be as you describe it. I just think it probably is. But that is probably because that is what I fervently hope death will be. What one wishes were the case can flavor what one thinks the case is. > If you do mean that you're going to mention Buddha-l to Thomson, what does he think of that? I'm not going to speculate. I imagine if Thomson has somehow been able to come to terms with Heidegger's anti-Semitism, he may be able to come to terms with being quoted on buddha-l. But that is just my imagination at work. What I'll have to do is perform an empirical experiment. I'll just blurt out "You were quoted on buddha-l" and see what happens. I'll take the precaution of having an ambulance standing by, just in case. > Here's a link to what I *don't* *think* I believe, if I've been too unclear http://www.naturalism.org/death.htm There are many views referred to in that paper, and it is unclear to me which of them you don't think you believe. There was one quotations that stated just about exactly what I believe: "For only death annihilates all sense, all becoming, to replace them with non-sense and absolute cessation." I gather the paper was aimed at making people see the inadequacy of that belief through a series of thought experiments. The thought experiments did not have that effect on me. I still believe what I have believed since I was about five years old, namely, that "only death annihilates all sense, all becoming, to replace them with non-sense and absolute cessation." But maybe it's only because, as Paul Simon put it, "A man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest." I want death to annihilate all sense and all becoming, and if it doesn't I will be pissed off. Being an American, I'll probably start looking around right away for someone to sue. Richard From lemmett at talk21.com Sat Jun 26 15:19:04 2010 From: lemmett at talk21.com (lemmett at talk21.com) Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2010 14:19:04 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Buddha-l] Being unable to imagine dying and living In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <632878.296.qm@web86603.mail.ird.yahoo.com> There are many views referred to in that paper, and it is unclear to me which of them you don't think you believe. There was one quotations that stated just about exactly what I believe: "For only death annihilates all sense, all becoming, to replace them with non-sense and absolute cessation." I gather the paper was aimed at making people see the inadequacy of that belief through a series of thought experiments. The thought experiments did not have that effect on me. I still believe what I have believed since I was about five years old, namely, that "only death annihilates all sense, all becoming, to replace them with non-sense and absolute cessation." But maybe it's only because, as Paul Simon put it, "A man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest." I want death to annihilate all sense and all becoming, and if it doesn't I will be pissed off. Being an American, I'll probably start looking around right away for someone to sue. Richard < References: <775256488.20100626163754@bcarral.org> Message-ID: <06143AA4-E340-4766-9EFC-C180DE2F995A@mind2mind.net> Ben, Good to see you here! I'm glad you like Koheleth so much. I am with you in seeing it as "the kind of Buddhism I can relate to." As for verse 9:9, I am trying! Franz From stroble at hawaii.edu Sat Jun 26 23:48:35 2010 From: stroble at hawaii.edu (andy) Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2010 22:48:35 -0700 Subject: [Buddha-l] Being unable to imagine dying and living In-Reply-To: <505430.84549.qm@web86603.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <505430.84549.qm@web86603.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1277617715.1640.23.camel@pyrrho> We do top replies on buddha-l. I (and others) have a hard time picking out your replies! The word is "inconceivable", as per the movie. And the point still remains: existence is as inconceivable as non-existence. I was trying to be nice. On Sat, 2010-06-26 at 13:51 -0700, lemmett at talk21.com wrote: > >A scandal in French philosophy? Who would have thought! I would > suggest, however, that you are starting on the wrong end: it is your > existence that is inconceivable. Isn't this the sunya of existentialism > and deconstruction? And given that, the inconceivability of > non-existence is not all that problematic. > > >>Sure > >And, you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it > means. (Inigo Montoya, in the Princess Bride) > > >>Aporias? I think I do know what it means and anyway I was using it as a book title! Be nice!! Also you underestimate my insanity. > > > > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From lemmett at talk21.com Sun Jun 27 01:21:02 2010 From: lemmett at talk21.com (lemmett at talk21.com) Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2010 07:21:02 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [Buddha-l] Being unable to imagine dying and living In-Reply-To: <1277617715.1640.23.camel@pyrrho> Message-ID: <130787.60203.qm@web86601.mail.ird.yahoo.com> >We do top replies on buddha-l.I have no idea what this means. You're being sarcastic? ? >The word is "inconceivable",? as per the movie.? Andthe point still remains:? existence is as inconceivable as non-existence. No I meant to say before that for what it's worth I agree but think that that's just because non existence is inconceivable. Or maybe that trying to conceive of non existence is more fruitful. This is too unclear but anyway, I am trying for polite. >I was trying to be nice.The internet is impossible, sorry, From pvera at health.usf.edu Sun Jun 27 05:56:00 2010 From: pvera at health.usf.edu (Vera, Pedro L.) Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2010 07:56:00 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Being unable to imagine dying and living In-Reply-To: <130787.60203.qm@web86601.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <1277617715.1640.23.camel@pyrrho>, <130787.60203.qm@web86601.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1632EC2371DC6849B1A97EF0B28B970AAE32EB49C8@MAILSERVER1.hscnet.hsc.usf.edu> He's not being sarcastic. Top-posting refers to the custom of placing the reply at the top of the mesage. This is the preferred way in this list. Note that the original message to which I am replying is at the very bottom of this message. Other lists do "bottom posting" where the reply goes at the very end of message. The point about being able to read replies versus original message is that, in your posts, they run together and are difficult to separate. One possible solution is to place your entire reply at the very beginning of the message (as suggested: top-posting). However, if you want to isolate specific comments, then allow at least a blank line between your reply and the original. It just makes it easier to read. Following is an example of "top-posting". I've added "MY REPLY" and "ORIGINAL MESSAGE" to illustrate, not encourage, their use in repiles. "To any who read this, please keep in mind that any similarity to actual messages dealing with obtuse, philosophical (yes, I realize that's redundant!) messages is NOT coincidental." MY REPLY: Who cares what Larry, Curly and Moe think? ORIGINAL MESSAGE: It is impossible for me to conceive of the inconceivability of the inconceivable. Yet, in reading Larry, Curly and Moe, I think I begin to grasp the inability to grasp the ungraspable. Moreover, if you watch reruns of "You Bet Your Life" it is clear (at least to me) that Groucho hints at this very same position which can also be distinctly heard (occasionally) in some of Harpo's early recordings. Chico's views on the subject are unknown thus confirming the inconceivability of everything. Just in case the obvious questions should arise, yes, I'm being slightly sarcastic. Stiil, the suggestions about formatting and replies are meant to be helpful. Regards, Pedro P.S. In terms of the obligatory buddhist content of this message, I cannot come up with any. So is that what "emptiness" means? ________________________________________ From: buddha-l-bounces at mailman.swcp.com [buddha-l-bounces at mailman.swcp.com] On Behalf Of lemmett at talk21.com [lemmett at talk21.com] Sent: Sunday, June 27, 2010 3:21 AM To: Buddhist discussion forum Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] Being unable to imagine dying and living >We do top replies on buddha-l.I have no idea what this means. You're being sarcastic? >The word is "inconceivable", as per the movie. Andthe point still remains: existence is as inconceivable as non-existence. No I meant to say before that for what it's worth I agree but think that that's just because non existence is inconceivable. Or maybe that trying to conceive of non existence is more fruitful. This is too unclear but anyway, I am trying for polite. >I was trying to be nice.The internet is impossible, sorry, _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From lemmett at talk21.com Sun Jun 27 06:28:32 2010 From: lemmett at talk21.com (lemmett at talk21.com) Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2010 12:28:32 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [Buddha-l] Being unable to imagine dying and living In-Reply-To: <1632EC2371DC6849B1A97EF0B28B970AAE32EB49C8@MAILSERVER1.hscnet.hsc.usf.edu> Message-ID: <112659.44474.qm@web86605.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Oh. I found that very clear and useful, thanks. Sorry about how my attempted paragraphs run into each other, Buddha-l spits them out like this. Am I obliged to reply? >P.S. In terms of the obligatory buddhist content of this message, I cannot come up with any.>So is that what "emptiness" means? If pressed I'd say that I was pretty sure it didn't mean that. Maybe if you then rejected "emptiness".? What does emptiness mean? I am yet to have read and understood anything on emptiness in the separate teaching. Is the integrated teaching of emptiness that all things appear as something that it is not but which conditions it? Is this different from all zen teachings on emptiness? From pvera at health.usf.edu Sun Jun 27 07:08:41 2010 From: pvera at health.usf.edu (Vera, Pedro L.) Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2010 09:08:41 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Being unable to imagine dying and living In-Reply-To: <112659.44474.qm@web86605.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <1632EC2371DC6849B1A97EF0B28B970AAE32EB49C8@MAILSERVER1.hscnet.hsc.usf.edu>, <112659.44474.qm@web86605.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1632EC2371DC6849B1A97EF0B28B970AAE32EB49C9@MAILSERVER1.hscnet.hsc.usf.edu> >Sorry about how my attempted paragraphs run into each other, Buddha-l spits them out like this. I don't think the problem lies with the list, but Richard probably knows better. It is possible that it's due to how your email client is formatting the emails. It appears that carriage returns are being sent as ">" and not separating the lines in your messages. I set up my email client to deliver plain text (UTF-8), not HTML messages. Perhaps you can check this option too. From rhayes at unm.edu Sun Jun 27 07:29:00 2010 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2010 07:29:00 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Being unable to imagine dying and living In-Reply-To: <1632EC2371DC6849B1A97EF0B28B970AAE32EB49C9@MAILSERVER1.hscnet.hsc.usf.edu> References: <1632EC2371DC6849B1A97EF0B28B970AAE32EB49C8@MAILSERVER1.hscnet.hsc.usf.edu> <112659.44474.qm@web86605.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <1632EC2371DC6849B1A97EF0B28B970AAE32EB49C9@MAILSERVER1.hscnet.hsc.usf.edu> Message-ID: I believe buddha-l is set up to reject HTML format. Only plain messages can be sent through. If an HTML message is submitted, the server strips out all formatting commands and sends a plain text message, often with ugly results. Following Pedro's advice is therefore wise. Richard On Jun 27, 2010, at 7:08, "Vera, Pedro L." wrote: I set up my email client to deliver plain text (UTF-8), not HTML messages. Perhaps you can check this option too. From lemmett at talk21.com Sun Jun 27 07:43:44 2010 From: lemmett at talk21.com (lemmett at talk21.com) Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2010 13:43:44 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [Buddha-l] Being unable to imagine dying and living Message-ID: <369880.35495.qm@web86606.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Thanks. >I believe buddha-l is set up to reject HTML format. Only plain messages >can be sent through. If an HTML message is submitted, the server strips >out all formatting commands and sends a plain text message, often with >ugly results. Following Pedro's advice is therefore wise. Now there's proof. From sjziobro at cs.com Sun Jun 27 10:14:09 2010 From: sjziobro at cs.com (sjziobro at cs.com) Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2010 12:14:09 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Being unable to imagine dying and living In-Reply-To: <1277617715.1640.23.camel@pyrrho> References: <505430.84549.qm@web86603.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <1277617715.1640.23.camel@pyrrho> Message-ID: <8CCE42AE89F9A82-1E20-EBA8@webmail-m018.sysops.aol.com> I've been reading portions of this thread and have a question. Why would death be inconceivable? It seems easy to conceive, but not possible to experience it while not experiencing it. Aren't there practices in the early traditions where a monk or meditator visualizes his death and the dissolution of the skandas? Isn't this a form of conceiving of death? Stan Ziobro -----Original Message----- From: andy To: Buddhist discussion forum Sent: Sun, Jun 27, 2010 1:48 am Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] Being unable to imagine dying and living We do top replies on buddha-l. I (and others) have a hard time picking out your replies! The word is "inconceivable", as per the movie. And the point still remains: existence is as inconceivable as non-existence. I was trying to be nice. On Sat, 2010-06-26 at 13:51 -0700, lemmett at talk21.com wrote: > >A scandal in French philosophy? Who would have thought! I would > suggest, however, that you are starting on the wrong end: it is your > existence that is inconceivable. Isn't this the sunya of existentialism > and deconstruction? And given that, the inconceivability of > non-existence is not all that problematic. > > >>Sure > >And, you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it > means. (Inigo Montoya, in the Princess Bride) > > >>Aporias? I think I do know what it means and anyway I was using it as a book title! Be nice!! Also you underestimate my insanity. > > > > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From jmp at peavler.org Sun Jun 27 13:20:14 2010 From: jmp at peavler.org (Jim Peavler) Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2010 13:20:14 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Being unable to imagine dying and living In-Reply-To: <8CCE42AE89F9A82-1E20-EBA8@webmail-m018.sysops.aol.com> References: <505430.84549.qm@web86603.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <1277617715.1640.23.camel@pyrrho> <8CCE42AE89F9A82-1E20-EBA8@webmail-m018.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <6E51C633-F7C5-4091-9B8A-1D15D8ADF539@peavler.org> On Jun 27, 2010, at 10:14 AM, sjziobro at cs.com wrote: > I've been reading portions of this thread and have a question. Why would death be inconceivable? It seems easy to conceive, but not possible to experience it while not experiencing it. Aren't there practices in the early traditions where a monk or meditator visualizes his death and the dissolution of the skandas? Isn't this a form of conceiving of death? Absolutely. One cannot experience death, but one can certainly meditate on death (or emptiness for that matter) and put one's mind in a state that, it is believed, reproduces the experience of death (or emptiness). Emptiness may be nothing more than the notion that nothing has any permanent existence -- the past doesn't exist, the future doesn't exist, and the present moment -- which doesn't actually exist as something different from either the past or present, is very difficult to conceive. The present instant (which probably doesn't actually exist except as a conceptual moving line between the past and the future) is very difficult to pin down enough to actually think about. A lot of my hours of meditation have been spent trying to focus on that spark of instantaneousness, with mixed results. jmp at peavler.org From lemmett at talk21.com Mon Jun 28 08:14:30 2010 From: lemmett at talk21.com (lemmett at talk21.com) Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 14:14:30 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [Buddha-l] Being unable to imagine dying and living In-Reply-To: <6E51C633-F7C5-4091-9B8A-1D15D8ADF539@peavler.org> Message-ID: <147757.71735.qm@web86604.mail.ird.yahoo.com> > I've been reading portions of this thread and have a > question.? Why would death be inconceivable?? It > seems easy to conceive, but not possible to experience it > while not experiencing it.? Aren't there practices in > the early traditions where a monk or meditator visualizes > his death and the dissolution of the skandas?? Isn't > this a form of conceiving of death? > I wouldn't know about Buddhism but Derrida says something about a line that terminates all determinations and that the passage into death cannot have the form of movement. Thomson's article also mentions Hegel - that to set a limit is already to go beyond it in some way. I'm convinced that I've understood Derrida, at least that we can't conceive of a death that strictly happens to me. Obviously I can imagine my lifeless body, I mean phenomenally or something. I suggest that it's more about whether that's entirely irrelevant rather than if it's the case: perhaps Buddhist practice is a non conceptual conception of dying? Thanks. From franz at mind2mind.net Mon Jun 28 11:20:15 2010 From: franz at mind2mind.net (Franz Metcalf) Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 10:20:15 -0700 Subject: [Buddha-l] Review of a review In-Reply-To: References: <24426EAB-D8D7-40ED-A38D-BF1688F55F27@unm.edu> <6BDE875D-1ED8-49F8-821D-E4020985B8E3@mind2mind.net> Message-ID: <88020077-E286-4E22-A454-A23B310E2AE1@mind2mind.net> Richard et al., I appreciate your threefold schema of reaction to something like Yasutani's anti-semitism, a schema I would gloss as bracketing, denial, and rationalization. I agree the the third is the most pernicious. Practically, though, they blend into each other and they all grow out of the tap-root of, as you phrased it, "the very idea of the teacher as an embodiment of the Dharma." I share your disturbance at this idea. And yet, how can a Buddhist teacher *not* be an embodiment of the Dharma? Any teacher worth a damn in any performative field must have mastery in it and must be able to actualize that mastery and communicate it to students. If that field is Dharma-holding, then surely the teacher must embody that Dharma. (Of course that doesn't mean the teacher doesn't embody a whole bunch of other crap as well. I reckon this view puts me in the camp of the bracketers.) On the other hand, among the most repeated (supposed) words of the Buddha are his clear description of exactly what the real teacher would be after his death--and it's not the bhikkhus. ("For that which I have proclaimed and made known as the Dhamma and the Discipline, that shall be your Master when I am gone." [Mahaparinibbana Sutta]) It's not the bhikkhus who replace the Buddha, it's combination of the teaching and the vinaya. I find this very likely actually be what the Buddha taught in order to ward off fights over succession. In effect, it's the sangha itself that is the teacher and explicitly not any one member of it. So, since in a Zen context the sangha includes the students, the teacher is, in fact, the whole community of practitioners. Uh-oh, now I sound like Martin Luther. Franz (carte grise carrying Buddhist, or maybe Protestant) From info at bcarral.org Mon Jun 28 11:23:56 2010 From: info at bcarral.org (Ben Carral) Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 19:23:56 +0200 Subject: [Buddha-l] Koheleth In-Reply-To: <06143AA4-E340-4766-9EFC-C180DE2F995A@mind2mind.net> References: <775256488.20100626163754@bcarral.org> <06143AA4-E340-4766-9EFC-C180DE2F995A@mind2mind.net> Message-ID: <11610021055.20100628192356@bcarral.org> On Sunday, June 27, 2010, 12:15:07 AM, Franz wrote: > Good to see you here! I'm glad you like Koheleth so > much. I am with you in seeing it as "the kind of > Buddhism I can relate to." As for verse 9:9, I am > trying! Thank you for your nice words. I'm also trying Kohelet 9:9. I think that it's a life-time learning experience. Ibn Arabi said something along these lines, and more recently Aryeh Kaplan wrote about it in _Jewish Meditation_ (a very interesting book imho). There is another Kohelet's verse that I enjoy very much too, 9:7 (cf. 2:24). I found it quite interesting to constrat Kohelet 9:7, 2:24 with Huanbo's Chan: "Thus, there is sensual eating and wise eating. When the body [...] suffers the pangs of hunger and accordingly you provide it with food, but without greed, that is called wise eating. On the other hand, if you gluttonously delight in purity and flavour, you are permitting the distinctions which arise from wrong thinking." ("The Ch?n Chou Record," 12, in Blofed's _The Zen Teaching of Huang-Po_). I myself enjoy very much the purity and flavour of Asturian food and cider, so Master Huangbo would not be very happy with me--however, I think that Kohelet would gladly join the party. (BTW, I appreciate the references that I have read on Buddha-L to Kohelet's commentaries--I have enjoyed very much the Choon-Leong Seow's one, but I have some others quite interesting too.) Best wishes, Ben (Oviedo, Asturias, Spain) From sjziobro at cs.com Mon Jun 28 14:48:13 2010 From: sjziobro at cs.com (sjziobro at cs.com) Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 16:48:13 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Being unable to imagine dying and living In-Reply-To: <147757.71735.qm@web86604.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8CCE51A5CA1ABE4-1D34-186B@webmail-d087.sysops.aol.com> This really makes no sense to me. I can easily conceive of my death. What I can't do is die and not die simultaneously in the same manner. What seems to occur via your remarks is a confusion of thought and experience and the reflection that goes with it. Stan -----Original Message----- From: lemmett at talk21.com To: Buddhist discussion forum Sent: Mon, Jun 28, 2010 10:14 am Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] Being unable to imagine dying and living > I've been reading portions of this thread and have a question. Why would death be inconceivable? It seems easy to conceive, but not possible to experience it while not experiencing it. Aren't there practices in the early traditions where a monk or meditator visualizes his death and the dissolution of the skandas? Isn't this a form of conceiving of death? I wouldn't know about Buddhism but Derrida says something about a line that erminates all determinations and that the passage into death cannot have the orm of movement. Thomson's article also mentions Hegel - that to set a limit is lready to go beyond it in some way. 'm convinced that I've understood Derrida, at least that we can't conceive of a eath that strictly happens to me. Obviously I can imagine my lifeless body, I ean phenomenally or something. I suggest that it's more about whether that's ntirely irrelevant rather than if it's the case: perhaps Buddhist practice is a on conceptual conception of dying? Thanks. _______________________________________________ uddha-l mailing list uddha-l at mailman.swcp.com ttp://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From lemmett at talk21.com Mon Jun 28 16:51:19 2010 From: lemmett at talk21.com (lemmett at talk21.com) Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 22:51:19 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [Buddha-l] Being unable to imagine dying and living In-Reply-To: <8CCE51A5CA1ABE4-1D34-186B@webmail-d087.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <54727.3587.qm@web86605.mail.ird.yahoo.com> OK but it's not just me who thinks this, I have linked to articles. I'm not sure I understand your last sentence. > This really makes no sense to > me.? I can easily conceive of my death.? What I > can't do is die and not die simultaneously in the same > manner.? What seems to occur via your remarks is a > confusion of thought and experience and the reflection that > goes with it. From jehms at xs4all.nl Tue Jun 29 03:22:56 2010 From: jehms at xs4all.nl (Erik Hoogcarspel) Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 11:22:56 +0200 Subject: [Buddha-l] Review of a review In-Reply-To: <88020077-E286-4E22-A454-A23B310E2AE1@mind2mind.net> References: <24426EAB-D8D7-40ED-A38D-BF1688F55F27@unm.edu> <6BDE875D-1ED8-49F8-821D-E4020985B8E3@mind2mind.net> <88020077-E286-4E22-A454-A23B310E2AE1@mind2mind.net> Message-ID: <4C29BB70.8040604@xs4all.nl> Perhaps we need a Dharma Consumers Organisation, that rates texts and teachers for price and quality. That?s the 21rst century way. erik Op 28-06-10 19:20, Franz Metcalf schreef: > On the other hand, among the most repeated (supposed) words of the > Buddha are his clear description of exactly what the real teacher > would be after his death--and it's not the bhikkhus. ("For that which > I have proclaimed and made known as the Dhamma and the Discipline, > that shall be your Master when I am gone." [Mahaparinibbana Sutta]) > It's not the bhikkhus who replace the Buddha, it's combination of the > teaching and the vinaya. I find this very likely actually be what the > Buddha taught in order to ward off fights over succession. In effect, > it's the sangha itself that is the teacher and explicitly not any one > member of it. So, since in a Zen context the sangha includes the > students, the teacher is, in fact, the whole community of practitioners. > > From sjziobro at cs.com Tue Jun 29 11:26:54 2010 From: sjziobro at cs.com (sjziobro at cs.com) Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 13:26:54 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Being unable to imagine dying and living In-Reply-To: <54727.3587.qm@web86605.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8CCE5C767215DF4-18C-FA7@webmail-d042.sysops.aol.com> I've read some of the material you've provided, though not all of it. It seems to me, ultimately, that one cannot conceive of anything for one of two reasons. One reason pertains to dealing with an unknown unknown such that it would not, and possibly could not, occur to us in any manner. The other reason would be to conflate thinking with existing such that to think anything would be to exist as that thing. In some schools of thought, namely those which accept Aristotle's epistemology, that which is known and the knower become intentionally one in the act of knowing, and so there is a sense in which to know anything is to be that thing. Nonetheless, existentially, the knower and the known are not identical such that if one ceases to be the other necessarily ceases to be. At any rate, this conflation of existing and thinking seems to be the only way one might, contrary to experience, claim s/he cannot conceive of dying. That would also raise the same sorts of issues in conceiving of living. I think Jim Peavler's reflection on conceiving of the present is both true and a help inasmuch as he illustrates how it is that some reality may be conceivable even as it is elusive. The rest of my remarks are to the point that experience is not knowledge. Experience comports with sense data, which is non-reflective. What gives it rational coherence is our ability to reflect upon what we experience and in some manner name it, which at that point portends knowledge. Stan Ziobro -----Original Message----- From: lemmett at talk21.com To: Buddhist discussion forum Sent: Mon, Jun 28, 2010 6:51 pm Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] Being unable to imagine dying and living OK but it's not just me who thinks this, I have linked to articles. I'm not sure understand your last sentence. > This really makes no sense to me. I can easily conceive of my death. What I can't do is die and not die simultaneously in the same manner. What seems to occur via your remarks is a confusion of thought and experience and the reflection that goes with it. _______________________________________________ uddha-l mailing list uddha-l at mailman.swcp.com ttp://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From lemmett at talk21.com Tue Jun 29 13:37:49 2010 From: lemmett at talk21.com (lemmett at talk21.com) Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 19:37:49 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [Buddha-l] Being unable to imagine dying and living Message-ID: <469617.7345.qm@web86605.mail.ird.yahoo.com> I not sure that I followed what you mean so excuse this email if necessary. Derrida seems [to me] to be saying that we can't conceive of dying because we can't conceive of something utterly beyond determination. I agree with this, perhaps I have read it into him. The problem I see is not that to imagine something there is an imaginer that can't be abstracted from the thing imagined.? The problem I think is that there exists no?formlessness for the term to be about. So the name would have to be about another concept. However because that concept is determined, 'formlessness' would be about something that is not formless. 'Formlessness' can only be about something that partially lacks form. If 'X' is about unicorns and unicorns do not exist then "unicorns" are a concept and if there is a concept of unicorns then the concept itself is the unicorn. Just as: if Luke is human and there is a human Luke then that human is itself Luke. That's not positing truth as representation of an external world but something much weaker [or is the term "stronger"? "Coarser". I don't know...]. Also I do not understand because you seem to be saying that all things but death cannot be conceived of, when I believed that in Buddhism the formless was exactly the sort of the sort of thing that resisted conceptual thought. Thanks >>> ? ?I've read some of the material you've provided, though not all of it.? It seems to me, ultimately, that one cannot conceive of anything for one of two reasons.? One reason pertains to dealing with an unknown unknown such that it would not, and possibly could not, occur to us in any manner.? The other reason would be to conflate thinking with existing such that to think anything would be to exist as that thing.? In some schools of thought, namely those which accept Aristotle's epistemology, that which is known and the knower become intentionally one in the act of knowing, and so there is a sense in which to know anything is to be that thing.? Nonetheless, existentially, the knower and the known are not identical such that if one ceases to be the other necessarily ceases to be.? At any rate, this conflation of existing and thinking seems to be the only way one might, contrary to experience, claim s/he cannot conceive of dying.? That would also raise the same sorts of issues in! ? conceiving of living.? I think Jim Peavler's reflection on conceiving of the present is both true and a help inasmuch as he illustrates how it is that some reality may be conceivable even as it is elusive. The rest of my remarks are to the point that experience is not knowledge.? Experience comports with sense data, which is non-reflective.? What gives it rational coherence is our ability to reflect upon what we experience and in some manner name it, which at that point portends knowledge. Stan Ziobro From info at bcarral.org Mon Jun 28 10:42:12 2010 From: info at bcarral.org (Ben Carral) Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 18:42:12 +0200 Subject: [Buddha-l] Being unable to imagine dying and living In-Reply-To: <760304ED-3178-4E50-90E8-16A572674E22@unm.edu> References: <510570.65971.qm@web86608.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <760304ED-3178-4E50-90E8-16A572674E22@unm.edu> Message-ID: <181934142.20100628184212@bcarral.org> On Saturday, June 26, 2010, 10:16:17 PM, Richard wrote: > Many years ago I wrote a piece in which the principal > argument was that the Buddha probably knew that death > is a complete and irreversible end to one's > consciousness and that the entire Buddhist path is > designed to help people come to the realization that > the oblivion that follows the end of consciousness is > not at all a dreadful thing. [...] I correlated this > acceptance to the final of the seven stages that > K?bler-Ross outlined in her work on the stages people > go through after being told they are terminally ill. > [...] I showed the essay to a few people, and > everyone I showed it to said they thought I was > making a whole bunch of unwarranted assumptions, the > principal one being that death really is a complete > and irreversible end to consciousness. I have enjoyed your story. It's quite funny and I appreciate that. I think that you should definitely publish it. Then I know that you like to aesthetically think that death is a complete end to one's consciousness, and I suppose that you hold and agnostic view about it philosophically. Now I would like to ask you what you think (aesthetically, philosophically and humanly) about, for instance, Brian Weiss's past life regressions or the near-death experiences registered by K?bler-Ross. Some time ago I had a lucid dream where my father said to me: "I didn't want to go without saying goodbye." I woke up to my partner and share the dream with her. Next morning I discovered that my father had suffered a heart attack and was brain dead. Two days after doctors stopped the life-support machines. I'm well aware that this doesn't proof anything about death but made me think again about it. And I wonder why past life regressions or near-death experiences are not more more widely discussed and taken into account--I think it would be quite interesting. Best wishes, Ben (Oviedo, Asturias, Spain) From rhayes at unm.edu Tue Jun 29 14:57:45 2010 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 14:57:45 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Being unable to imagine dying and living In-Reply-To: <181934142.20100628184212@bcarral.org> References: <510570.65971.qm@web86608.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <760304ED-3178-4E50-90E8-16A572674E22@unm.edu> <181934142.20100628184212@bcarral.org> Message-ID: <42AABC96-0584-4251-99FC-B6755483C3C9@unm.edu> On Jun 28, 2010, at 10:42 AM, Ben Carral wrote: > Now I would like to ask > you what you think (aesthetically, philosophically and > humanly) about, for instance, Brian Weiss's past life > regressions or the near-death experiences registered by > K?bler-Ross. There is a very large part of my consciousness into which I throw all the things I do not understand and do not feel any need to understand. Nothing that really matters to me depends on having an explanation to these things. So the short answer to your question is: "I don't think about near-death experiences." This could explain why I am such a second-rate academic; I have an impoverished curiosity. > And I wonder why past > life regressions or near-death experiences are not more > more widely discussed and taken into account--I think > it would be quite interesting. I suspect these things are not more widely discussed among academics because it is not at all clear what discussion would bring to light, aside from people's predisposition to unsupported dogmatic claims. To my mind the best treatment of the topic is still Carol Zaleski's Otherworld Journeys (Oxford, 1987). She carefully explores various possible explanations of the well-documented phenomenon and skillfully avoids reaching any conclusion except the only supportable conclusion, namely, that most people who write about the topic use the phenomenon to support their own particular views of what happens to consciousness just before, during and just after the death of the physical body. Richard From franz at mind2mind.net Tue Jun 29 15:30:06 2010 From: franz at mind2mind.net (Franz Metcalf) Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 14:30:06 -0700 Subject: [Buddha-l] Being unable to imagine dying and living In-Reply-To: <42AABC96-0584-4251-99FC-B6755483C3C9@unm.edu> References: <510570.65971.qm@web86608.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <760304ED-3178-4E50-90E8-16A572674E22@unm.edu> <181934142.20100628184212@bcarral.org> <42AABC96-0584-4251-99FC-B6755483C3C9@unm.edu> Message-ID: <883CC527-F641-4C5C-81B0-A9A8DBE9CC47@mind2mind.net> Gang, Richard responded to Ben's query about the best treatment of before- life and after-death experiences by mentioning Carol Zaleski's _Otherworld Journeys_. I would just add that Charles Tart has recently published a book, _The End of Materialism_, summing up his whole career of investigating paranormal/non-material phenomena. You can read about it at . I've not read the book, but I know Dr. Tart and he's a serious scholar with a deep respect for scientific principles, falsifiability, and the like, so the book might move forward from Zaleski's excellent but dated work. Tart's position is that consciousness is non-local, but he's sincere in trying to find and conduct research to actually *test* that theory. Franz From franz at mind2mind.net Tue Jun 29 15:48:29 2010 From: franz at mind2mind.net (Franz Metcalf) Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 14:48:29 -0700 Subject: [Buddha-l] Review of a review In-Reply-To: <4C29BB70.8040604@xs4all.nl> References: <24426EAB-D8D7-40ED-A38D-BF1688F55F27@unm.edu> <6BDE875D-1ED8-49F8-821D-E4020985B8E3@mind2mind.net> <88020077-E286-4E22-A454-A23B310E2AE1@mind2mind.net> <4C29BB70.8040604@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <036EAB0A-AFDB-4C4E-A9EC-C02B984E6C9A@mind2mind.net> Gang, Erik suggested > Perhaps we need a Dharma Consumers Organisation, that rates texts and > teachers for price and quality. That?s the 21rst century way. Quite so. Lacking such an organization, we must go by price. So surely the 21st century dharma must be best taught by the most expensive teacher: http://www.bigmind.org/Big_Heart_Circle_Retreats.html I believe the going price is $25,000 for five days. Franz From rhayes at unm.edu Tue Jun 29 16:17:32 2010 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 16:17:32 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Review of a review In-Reply-To: <036EAB0A-AFDB-4C4E-A9EC-C02B984E6C9A@mind2mind.net> References: <24426EAB-D8D7-40ED-A38D-BF1688F55F27@unm.edu> <6BDE875D-1ED8-49F8-821D-E4020985B8E3@mind2mind.net> <88020077-E286-4E22-A454-A23B310E2AE1@mind2mind.net> <4C29BB70.8040604@xs4all.nl> <036EAB0A-AFDB-4C4E-A9EC-C02B984E6C9A@mind2mind.net> Message-ID: On Jun 29, 2010, at 3:48 PM, Franz Metcalf wrote: > Quite so. Lacking such an organization, we must go by price. So surely > the 21st century dharma must be best taught by the most expensive > teacher: > > http://www.bigmind.org/Big_Heart_Circle_Retreats.html > > I believe the going price is $25,000 for five days. Hell's bells, I'll give a retreat for $30,000 for a single weekend. People don't even need to show up (thus saving them travel expenses). All they need to do is put the money in my PayPal account. Then they can stay home and spend the weekend believing whatever they want to believe. Swami ?sima?i From bathieme at hotmail.com Tue Jun 29 16:25:09 2010 From: bathieme at hotmail.com (Barnaby Thieme) Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 15:25:09 -0700 Subject: [Buddha-l] Review of a review In-Reply-To: References: <24426EAB-D8D7-40ED-A38D-BF1688F55F27@unm.edu> <6BDE875D-1ED8-49F8-821D-E4020985B8E3@mind2mind.net> , <88020077-E286-4E22-A454-A23B310E2AE1@mind2mind.net>, <4C29BB70.8040604@xs4all.nl>, <036EAB0A-AFDB-4C4E-A9EC-C02B984E6C9A@mind2mind.net>, Message-ID: Much as I love to be scornful of Genpo "Roshi" and his Big Whatever lineage, the 5-day retreat I clicked on is $1500 for the general public: http://www.bigmind.org/Genpo_Roshi_in_Salt_Lake_Fall_Retreat.html Looks like that's the standard rate ... ? xob~ _________________________________ More than any time in history mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness, the other to total extinction. Let us pray that we have the wisdom to choose correctly. -- Woody Allen > From: rhayes at unm.edu > Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 16:17:32 -0600 > To: buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com > Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] Review of a review > > On Jun 29, 2010, at 3:48 PM, Franz Metcalf wrote: > > > Quite so. Lacking such an organization, we must go by price. So surely > > the 21st century dharma must be best taught by the most expensive > > teacher: > > > > http://www.bigmind.org/Big_Heart_Circle_Retreats.html > > > > I believe the going price is $25,000 for five days. > > Hell's bells, I'll give a retreat for $30,000 for a single weekend. People don't even need to show up (thus saving them travel expenses). All they need to do is put the money in my PayPal account. Then they can stay home and spend the weekend believing whatever they want to believe. > > Swami ?sima?i > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l _________________________________________________________________ The New Busy is not the too busy. Combine all your e-mail accounts with Hotmail. http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multiaccount&ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_4 From rhayes at unm.edu Tue Jun 29 16:38:32 2010 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 16:38:32 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Being unable to imagine dying and living In-Reply-To: <883CC527-F641-4C5C-81B0-A9A8DBE9CC47@mind2mind.net> References: <510570.65971.qm@web86608.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <760304ED-3178-4E50-90E8-16A572674E22@unm.edu> <181934142.20100628184212@bcarral.org> <42AABC96-0584-4251-99FC-B6755483C3C9@unm.edu> <883CC527-F641-4C5C-81B0-A9A8DBE9CC47@mind2mind.net> Message-ID: <53BBC19E-D3D3-4A02-A848-0117027FAE93@unm.edu> On Jun 29, 2010, at 3:30 PM, Franz Metcalf wrote: > I would just add that Charles Tart has recently > published a book, _The End of Materialism_, Be suspicious of any book proclaiming the end of anything. For many of us, materialism is the only game in town, and all attempts to discredit it fall short of rigor. Granted that materialism is an ideology and cannot be proved, no attempt to disprove it manages to rise above the same degree of ideological commitment. > I've not read the book, but I know Dr. Tart and he's a serious scholar > with a deep respect for scientific principles, falsifiability, and the > like He used to be on buddha-l. I recall he put out an invitation to everyone who had had an out-of-body experience. He had made the claim that no one could have such an experience and continue to believe that the mind is a function of nothing but electromagnetic and biochemical process located in the brain. I had an extremely vivid and unsettling out-of-body experience in 1965, so I wrote to him privately and described it to him. He asked me a few questions about the experience and said it sounded to him like the real thing. I then told him I was a counterexample to his claim that no one can have a genuine out-of-body experience and still be a materialist, because I had such an experience and was still a materialist. He then told me that my experience had not been genuine after all. At that point I began to suspect he might be cooking the books. I know there are several quadrillion people who think Tart is the meow of the cat, as the saying goes, but I still think he might be the emperor minus the clothes. > Tart's position is that consciousness is non-local, but > he's sincere in trying to find and conduct research to actually *test* > that theory. Sincerely believing that one is sincerely trying to test one's belief is not always enough to manifest the scientific principles for which one has a deep respect. His mind has been made up for such a long time that one must at least suspect that he might grade his tests on a curve. Richard From franz at mind2mind.net Tue Jun 29 17:54:53 2010 From: franz at mind2mind.net (Franz Metcalf) Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 16:54:53 -0700 Subject: [Buddha-l] Review of a review In-Reply-To: References: <24426EAB-D8D7-40ED-A38D-BF1688F55F27@unm.edu> <6BDE875D-1ED8-49F8-821D-E4020985B8E3@mind2mind.net> , <88020077-E286-4E22-A454-A23B310E2AE1@mind2mind.net>, <4C29BB70.8040604@xs4all.nl>, <036EAB0A-AFDB-4C4E-A9EC-C02B984E6C9A@mind2mind.net>, Message-ID: Barnaby et al., The standard Big Mind retreats are, as you say, $1500. (Of course that's already significantly higher than any other Zen retreat I've heard of.) It's only the special retreats that are so expensive. They used to be called the "5-5-50" retreats because they were five days with a maximum of five other retreatants, for $50K. Last I looked they had come down to $25K, no doubt due to the global recession. I should add that I do not mean to disparage Genpo Roshi or his teaching. I *do* mean to disparage the way he's marketing it. To commodify the dharma in this way is, in my view, to lose critical distance from a globalized consumer culture that is, again in my view, profoundly un-Buddhist. Cheers, Franz From jkirk at spro.net Tue Jun 29 19:36:25 2010 From: jkirk at spro.net (JKirkpatrick) Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 19:36:25 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Being unable to imagine dying and living In-Reply-To: <883CC527-F641-4C5C-81B0-A9A8DBE9CC47@mind2mind.net> References: <510570.65971.qm@web86608.mail.ird.yahoo.com><760304ED-3178-4E50-90E8-16A572674E22@unm.edu><181934142.20100628184212@bcarral.org><42AABC96-0584-4251-99FC-B6755483C3C9@unm.edu> <883CC527-F641-4C5C-81B0-A9A8DBE9CC47@mind2mind.net> Message-ID: <0C0DD207F79D4A0DB57BB1FB588C25AD@OPTIPLEX> . You can read about it at http://www.paradigm-sys.com/end-of-materialism/index.cfm . I've not read the book, but I know Dr. Tart and he's a serious scholar with a deep respect for scientific principles, falsifiability, and the like, so the book might move forward from Zaleski's excellent but dated work. Tart's position is that consciousness is non-local, but he's sincere in trying to find and conduct research to actually *test* that theory. Franz _______________________________________________ From bogus@does.not.exist.com Sat Jun 26 12:10:27 2010 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2010 18:10:27 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: 'Amid the flurry in science about genes, neurons, and neurotransmitters, another quiet revolution has been building for several decades. It involves a view of consciousness in which the mind is not confined to specific points in space or time, such as the brain, body, and the present. This idea seems confirmable when observing less complex than we are (?) tiny creatures in nature, like ants, or the worms I observed once on an evergreen shrub back in 1990. Recently on NPR someone was talking about his research on certain ants that organise themselves into castes, sending the prole ants out first to the attack, to be slaughtered and thus gain time while the rest swarm to the fight and overtake the enemy.There is no leader. Each kind of ant in its group knows what to do, how and when. As for the worms: these were very tiny--about only 2cm long and clustered as they had hatched on a small branch of the shrub. I noticed that when something--a piece of bark, say-- was waved over them they moved in unison. Completely in unison. The whole hatchout. I watched them several times and saw nary an individual stand out in their movement. Of course it gave me the creeps. But Tart's idea of non-anchored consciousness seems to fit these examples. I have a story similar to Ben's, but will spare the materialists on the list for now. (I can hear echoes of the sigh of relief.) So thanks Franz for posting this title. I plan to read it. Best, Joanna From rhayes at unm.edu Tue Jun 29 20:54:39 2010 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 20:54:39 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Being unable to imagine dying and living In-Reply-To: <0C0DD207F79D4A0DB57BB1FB588C25AD@OPTIPLEX> References: <510570.65971.qm@web86608.mail.ird.yahoo.com><760304ED-3178-4E50-90E8-16A572674E22@unm.edu><181934142.20100628184212@bcarral.org><42AABC96-0584-4251-99FC-B6755483C3C9@unm.edu> <883CC527-F641-4C5C-81B0-A9A8DBE9CC47@mind2mind.net> <0C0DD207F79D4A0DB57BB1FB588C25AD@OPTIPLEX> Message-ID: <02AAD868-2D60-45A5-BF91-A2FEF420E2FB@unm.edu> On Jun 29, 2010, at 7:36 PM, JKirkpatrick wrote: > I have a story similar to Ben's, but will spare the materialists > on the list for now. (I can hear echoes of the sigh of relief.) My guess is that we all have stories similar to Ben's. Such things happen to people quite routinely. I would also hazard the guess that we all manage to find ways of fitting those stories easily into whatever explanatory framework we feel comfortable with. Pretty much everything serves as evidence for pretty much anything one happens to believe. Richard From rhayes at unm.edu Tue Jun 29 21:00:38 2010 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 21:00:38 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Review of a review In-Reply-To: <88020077-E286-4E22-A454-A23B310E2AE1@mind2mind.net> References: <24426EAB-D8D7-40ED-A38D-BF1688F55F27@unm.edu> <6BDE875D-1ED8-49F8-821D-E4020985B8E3@mind2mind.net> <88020077-E286-4E22-A454-A23B310E2AE1@mind2mind.net> Message-ID: <37F24A38-E0E1-44AD-A520-C03E45ACCE17@unm.edu> On Jun 28, 2010, at 11:20 AM, Franz Metcalf wrote: > I share your disturbance at this idea. And yet, how can a Buddhist > teacher *not* be an embodiment of the Dharma? Any teacher worth a damn > in any performative field must have mastery in it and must be able to > actualize that mastery and communicate it to students. If that field > is Dharma-holding, then surely the teacher must embody that Dharma. > (Of course that doesn't mean the teacher doesn't embody a whole bunch > of other crap as well. I reckon this view puts me in the camp of the > bracketers.) That states very well how I see things. There is no shortage of people who exemplify the Dharma pretty darn well quite a bit of the time. It's just that most people also manifest other stuff. I guess this is why I feel so comfortable with organizations that are as disorganized as Quakers are. Nobody claims to be uniquely good at being a Quaker, and nobody claims to be good at being a Quaker all the time, and nobody expects anyone else to be a good Quaker all the time. A lot of religious organizations would be like that if only they didn't have a teacher or master. Richard From rbzeuschner at roadrunner.com Tue Jun 29 21:02:03 2010 From: rbzeuschner at roadrunner.com (Bob Zeuschner) Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 20:02:03 -0700 Subject: [Buddha-l] Being unable to imagine dying and living In-Reply-To: <42AABC96-0584-4251-99FC-B6755483C3C9@unm.edu> References: <510570.65971.qm@web86608.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <760304ED-3178-4E50-90E8-16A572674E22@unm.edu> <181934142.20100628184212@bcarral.org> <42AABC96-0584-4251-99FC-B6755483C3C9@unm.edu> Message-ID: <4C2AB3AB.7070808@roadrunner.com> I think that we might ponder: Can we imagine ourselves lightly sleeping? Can we imagine ourselves sleeping and dreaming? Can we imagine ourselves in deep dreamless sleep? I'm not sure how that would be any different than imagining ourselves dead. If we can't imagine ourselves in deep dreamless sleep, then it isn't the DEATH that is the significant question, is it? Bob From jehms at xs4all.nl Wed Jun 30 01:52:13 2010 From: jehms at xs4all.nl (Erik Hoogcarspel) Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 09:52:13 +0200 Subject: [Buddha-l] Review of a review In-Reply-To: <37F24A38-E0E1-44AD-A520-C03E45ACCE17@unm.edu> References: <24426EAB-D8D7-40ED-A38D-BF1688F55F27@unm.edu> <6BDE875D-1ED8-49F8-821D-E4020985B8E3@mind2mind.net> <88020077-E286-4E22-A454-A23B310E2AE1@mind2mind.net> <37F24A38-E0E1-44AD-A520-C03E45ACCE17@unm.edu> Message-ID: <4C2AF7AD.302@xs4all.nl> Op 30-06-10 05:00, Richard Hayes schreef: > That states very well how I see things. There is no shortage of people > who exemplify the Dharma pretty darn well quite a bit of the time. > It's just that most people also manifest other stuff. I guess this is > why I feel so comfortable with organizations that are as disorganized > as Quakers are. Nobody claims to be uniquely good at being a Quaker, > and nobody claims to be good at being a Quaker all the time, and > nobody expects anyone else to be a good Quaker all the time. A lot of > religious organizations would be like that if only they didn't have a > teacher or master > > Buddhist authorities have a double job: leader of the pack and light in the darkness. So anybody who criticizes them is considered a traitor of the tribe and not someone who cooperates in guarding right thought and practice. We know from the many Buddhist scandals what this can lead to. Still change is very difficult because the Asian teachers cannot say goodbye to the cult of devotion. The feeling of being adored is an addiction and the intellectual lack of capacity to recognize a good idea from others is part of their education. So someone who stands on his own feet is rejected as being a black sheep. And here Iv?e got news for you, Richard, there are even more people outside religious organizations who are not claiming even to be a uniquely good being and not demanding this from others. erik From rhayes at unm.edu Wed Jun 30 03:31:39 2010 From: rhayes at unm.edu (Richard Hayes) Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 03:31:39 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Review of a review In-Reply-To: <4C2AF7AD.302@xs4all.nl> References: <24426EAB-D8D7-40ED-A38D-BF1688F55F27@unm.edu> <6BDE875D-1ED8-49F8-821D-E4020985B8E3@mind2mind.net> <88020077-E286-4E22-A454-A23B310E2AE1@mind2mind.net> <37F24A38-E0E1-44AD-A520-C03E45ACCE17@unm.edu> <4C2AF7AD.302@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <4DF887AE-3FBB-407F-9E54-071F988EEF06@unm.edu> On Jun 30, 2010, at 1:52, Erik Hoogcarspel wrote: > So someone who stands on his own > feet is rejected as being a black sheep. I am tired of always being a black sheep. I've applied for admission to a herd of goats. > And here Iv?e got news for you, Richard, there are even more people > outside religious organizations who are not claiming even to be a > uniquely good being and not demanding this from others. That's why the good lord invented coffeshops, so we could have respite from religious organizations. Richard From vasubandhu at earthlink.net Wed Jun 30 04:16:03 2010 From: vasubandhu at earthlink.net (Dan Lusthaus) Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 06:16:03 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] mind wandering References: <24426EAB-D8D7-40ED-A38D-BF1688F55F27@unm.edu><6BDE875D-1ED8-49F8-821D-E4020985B8E3@mind2mind.net><88020077-E286-4E22-A454-A23B310E2AE1@mind2mind.net><37F24A38-E0E1-44AD-A520-C03E45ACCE17@unm.edu><4C2AF7AD.302@xs4all.nl> <4DF887AE-3FBB-407F-9E54-071F988EEF06@unm.edu> Message-ID: <001c01cb183d$4029e430$2101a8c0@Dan> Meditators pursuing ekacitta, or trying to keep the mind from wandering, might find this refreshing. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/29/science/29tier.html?hpw Dan From jehms at xs4all.nl Wed Jun 30 07:52:50 2010 From: jehms at xs4all.nl (Erik Hoogcarspel) Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 15:52:50 +0200 Subject: [Buddha-l] IQ and temperature Message-ID: <4C2B4C32.6090804@xs4all.nl> Scientists finally discovered the cause of superior intelligence of female Alaska politicians http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/jun/30/disease-rife-countries-low-iqs A flu epidemic must be a global IQ disaster. How come the Buddha still got enlightened? erik From smith at wheelwrightassoc.com Wed Jun 30 08:49:54 2010 From: smith at wheelwrightassoc.com (Timothy Smith) Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 07:49:54 -0700 Subject: [Buddha-l] mind wandering In-Reply-To: <001c01cb183d$4029e430$2101a8c0@Dan> References: <24426EAB-D8D7-40ED-A38D-BF1688F55F27@unm.edu><6BDE875D-1ED8-49F8-821D-E4020985B8E3@mind2mind.net><88020077-E286-4E22-A454-A23B310E2AE1@mind2mind.net><37F24A38-E0E1-44AD-A520-C03E45ACCE17@unm.edu><4C2AF7AD.302@xs4all.nl> <4DF887AE-3FBB-407F-9E54-071F988EEF06@unm.edu> <001c01cb183d$4029e430$2101a8c0@Dan> Message-ID: <4C797D0D-46F8-402B-A317-72013B82C3AF@wheelwrightassoc.com> I tried to read it, but my mind kept wandering. Thanks Dan, it was interesting. Timothy Smith Office/Mobile 831.624.8138 Fax 831.659-5112 www.wheelwrightassoc.com On Jun 30, 2010, at 3:16 AM, Dan Lusthaus wrote: > Meditators pursuing ekacitta, or trying to keep the mind from wandering, > might find this refreshing. > > http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/29/science/29tier.html?hpw > > Dan > > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l > From jkirk at spro.net Wed Jun 30 09:30:42 2010 From: jkirk at spro.net (JKirkpatrick) Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 09:30:42 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Review of a review In-Reply-To: <4C2AF7AD.302@xs4all.nl> References: <24426EAB-D8D7-40ED-A38D-BF1688F55F27@unm.edu> <6BDE875D-1ED8-49F8-821D-E4020985B8E3@mind2mind.net> <88020077-E286-4E22-A454-A23B310E2AE1@mind2mind.net><37F24A38-E0E1-44AD-A520-C03E45ACCE17@unm.edu> <4C2AF7AD.302@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <06AE5B711B584D4AB6A85811D8050A7C@OPTIPLEX> > > Buddhist authorities have a double job: leader of the pack and light in the darkness. So anybody who criticizes them is considered a traitor of the tribe and not someone who cooperates in guarding right thought and practice. We know from the many Buddhist scandals what this can lead to. Still change is very difficult because the Asian teachers cannot say goodbye to the cult of devotion. The feeling of being adored is an addiction and the intellectual lack of capacity to recognize a good idea from others is part of their education. So someone who stands on his own feet is rejected as being a black sheep. And here Iv?e got news for you, Richard, there are even more people outside religious organizations who are not claiming even to be a uniquely good being and not demanding this from others. erik _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From jkirk at spro.net Wed Jun 30 09:38:32 2010 From: jkirk at spro.net (JKirkpatrick) Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 09:38:32 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] Review of a review In-Reply-To: <06AE5B711B584D4AB6A85811D8050A7C@OPTIPLEX> References: <24426EAB-D8D7-40ED-A38D-BF1688F55F27@unm.edu> <6BDE875D-1ED8-49F8-821D-E4020985B8E3@mind2mind.net> <88020077-E286-4E22-A454-A23B310E2AE1@mind2mind.net><37F24A38-E0E1-44AD-A520-C03E45ACCE17@unm.edu><4C2AF7AD.302@xs4all.nl> <06AE5B711B584D4AB6A85811D8050A7C@OPTIPLEX> Message-ID: sorry--inadvertent send -----Original Message----- From: buddha-l-bounces at mailman.swcp.com [mailto:buddha-l-bounces at mailman.swcp.com] On Behalf Of JKirkpatrick Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 9:31 AM To: 'Buddhist discussion forum' Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] Review of a review > > Buddhist authorities have a double job: leader of the pack and light in the darkness. So anybody who criticizes them is considered a traitor of the tribe and not someone who cooperates in guarding right thought and practice. We know from the many Buddhist scandals what this can lead to. Still change is very difficult because the Asian teachers cannot say goodbye to the cult of devotion. The feeling of being adored is an addiction and the intellectual lack of capacity to recognize a good idea from others is part of their education. So someone who stands on his own feet is rejected as being a black sheep. And here Iv?e got news for you, Richard, there are even more people outside religious organizations who are not claiming even to be a uniquely good being and not demanding this from others. erik _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From jkirk at spro.net Wed Jun 30 09:53:50 2010 From: jkirk at spro.net (JKirkpatrick) Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 09:53:50 -0600 Subject: [Buddha-l] IQ and temperature In-Reply-To: <4C2B4C32.6090804@xs4all.nl> References: <4C2B4C32.6090804@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <3CF7844A9DA5450F83DF2AA7DA63715C@OPTIPLEX> Scientists finally discovered the cause of superior intelligence of female Alaska politicians http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/jun/30/disease-rife-countr ies-low-iqs A flu epidemic must be a global IQ disaster. How come the Buddha still got enlightened? erik _______________________________________________ When it comes to most of the countries south of the African Sahara, or even some north of it, just staying alive might be more important than disease re: brain development. This would apply especially to those areas where children are raped (in both senses of the term) into military service plus the widespread massacres of populations, to which there appears to be no end. JK From bathieme at hotmail.com Wed Jun 30 10:26:11 2010 From: bathieme at hotmail.com (Barnaby Thieme) Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 09:26:11 -0700 Subject: [Buddha-l] Enlightenment for Sale! (was: Review of a review) In-Reply-To: References: <24426EAB-D8D7-40ED-A38D-BF1688F55F27@unm.edu>, <6BDE875D-1ED8-49F8-821D-E4020985B8E3@mind2mind.net>, , , <88020077-E286-4E22-A454-A23B310E2AE1@mind2mind.net>, , <4C29BB70.8040604@xs4all.nl>, , <036EAB0A-AFDB-4C4E-A9EC-C02B984E6C9A@mind2mind.net>, , , , Message-ID: > From: franz at mind2mind.net > I should add that I do not mean to disparage Genpo Roshi or his > teaching. I *do* mean to disparage the way he's marketing it. To > commodify the dharma in this way is, in my view, to lose critical > distance from a globalized consumer culture that is, again in my view, > profoundly un-Buddhist. Didn't you recently say a true dharma teacher must embody the dharma and actualize it in their teachings? It's hard for me to see how you can say that someone's marketing is disingenuous and exploitative, but their teaching is valid. On the contrary, the way a teacher institutionalizes and economizes their teaching is the clearest indication we can hope for regarding their sincerity, because that is precisely where they themselves have something at stake. That is, where their teaching is more than rhetoric. For that reason I contend that teachers should be very much held accountable for how they market themselves. I'm not trying to be snarky here, but living in California I constantly see what I find to be a harmful compartmentalization between how spiritual teachings are commodified and what the teachings are, and it concerns me. There is more enlightenment-for-sale in San Francisco, I warrant, than anywhere in the world, with the possible exception of LA. regards, Barnaby Thieme _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail is redefining busy with tools for the New Busy. Get more from your inbox. http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_2 From franz at mind2mind.net Wed Jun 30 14:17:42 2010 From: franz at mind2mind.net (Franz Metcalf) Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 13:17:42 -0700 Subject: [Buddha-l] Enlightenment for Sale! (was: Review of a review) In-Reply-To: References: <24426EAB-D8D7-40ED-A38D-BF1688F55F27@unm.edu>, <6BDE875D-1ED8-49F8-821D-E4020985B8E3@mind2mind.net>, , , <88020077-E286-4E22-A454-A23B310E2AE1@mind2mind.net>, , <4C29BB70.8040604@xs4all.nl>, , <036EAB0A-AFDB-4C4E-A9EC-C02B984E6C9A@mind2mind.net>, , , , Message-ID: <5CFB2A92-0BC1-4F58-A711-726BF872E97D@mind2mind.net> Barnaby et al., > Didn't you recently say a true dharma teacher must embody the dharma > and actualize it in their teachings? It's hard for me to see how you > can say that someone's marketing is disingenuous and exploitative, > but their teaching is valid. Yes, for me as well. But I'm not sure I'd say that Genpo's marketing is either of those two things. He's quite up-front about charging large sums to some people to subsidize others. They organization claims to plough the Big Heart Circle funds back into the larger operation of teaching dharma. I fully agree that, as you write, "teachers should be very much held accountable for how they market themselves." They way in which I want to hold Genpo particularly accountable is to the freedom of the dharma from commodification. David McMahan has expressed the stakes here very well in his latest book, _The Making of Buddhist Modernism_ (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008). Sorry to quote at such length, but it's a really *good* quote: > Buddhist modernism dissipates into the immense machinery of media- > driven consumption, becoming not only a means for selling products > but a product itself. From the point on the continuum where Buddhism > becomes a purely personalized mode of self-help with scant ethical > ramifications to where it becomes a mere commercial trope, it is > accommodated so thoroughly to the values of western (and > increasingly globalizing) popular culture and its consumerism and > commercialism that its capacity to critique these elements of > contemporary culture--for which Buddhism has such ample resources-- > is neutralized (McMahan 2008, 261). It is this neutralization that concerns me in American Buddhism in general and in Genpo's marketing in particular. Does this mean that I have to consider Genpo an inadequate dharma teacher? I don't think so. I think I'd have to meet him and study with him--and even then I might not know. He seems not to be disingenuous. But what about exploitative? Hmmm. Living in California--as I do, too--I am very aware of the false dichotomy between spiritual teachings and their methods of conveyance (on various levels including teaching authority, cost, commitment, etc.). So of course I didn't think you were being snarky (love that adjective), but rather sincerely expressing your worry. These are dark waters and hard to plumb. I will suggest one amendment to your position, though: I think Santa Fe has both SF and LA beat on the enlightenment-for-sale market. But of course only per capita. Richard might be able to gather data on this for us. Franz From sjziobro at cs.com Wed Jun 30 14:49:07 2010 From: sjziobro at cs.com (sjziobro at cs.com) Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 16:49:07 -0400 Subject: [Buddha-l] Being unable to imagine dying and living In-Reply-To: <469617.7345.qm@web86605.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <469617.7345.qm@web86605.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8CCE6ACD1AFD979-214C-8653@webmail-m076.sysops.aol.com> I think the short answer here is that your take of Derrida misarticulates a known unknown for an unknown unknown. We can conceive of a known unknown and either verify that it is a reality (in which case it becomes a known known) or that it is not any kind of reality (in which case it becomes a known non-existing known or is a known unknown). But death is a known known, and so we can easily conceive of it. Stan Ziobro -----Original Message----- From: lemmett at talk21.com To: Buddhist discussion forum Sent: Tue, Jun 29, 2010 3:37 pm Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] Being unable to imagine dying and living I not sure that I followed what you mean so excuse this email if necessary. errida seems [to me] to be saying that we can't conceive of dying because we an't conceive of something utterly beyond determination. I agree with this, erhaps I have read it into him. The problem I see is not that to imagine omething there is an imaginer that can't be abstracted from the thing magined. The problem I think is that there exists no formlessness for the term to be bout. So the name would have to be about another concept. However because that oncept is determined, 'formlessness' would be about something that is not ormless. 'Formlessness' can only be about something that partially lacks form. f 'X' is about unicorns and unicorns do not exist then "unicorns" are a concept nd if there is a concept of unicorns then the concept itself is the unicorn. ust as: if Luke is human and there is a human Luke then that human is itself uke. That's not positing truth as representation of an external world but something uch weaker [or is the term "stronger"? "Coarser". I don't know...]. Also I do not understand because you seem to be saying that all things but death annot be conceived of, when I believed that in Buddhism the formless was xactly the sort of the sort of thing that resisted conceptual thought. Thanks >>> I've read some of the material you've provided, though not all of it. It eems to me, ultimately, that one cannot conceive of anything for one of two easons. One reason pertains to dealing with an unknown unknown such that it ould not, and possibly could not, occur to us in any manner. The other reason ould be to conflate thinking with existing such that to think anything would be o exist as that thing. In some schools of thought, namely those which accept ristotle's epistemology, that which is known and the knower become ntentionally one in the act of knowing, and so there is a sense in which to now anything is to be that thing. Nonetheless, existentially, the knower and he known are not identical such that if one ceases to be the other necessarily eases to be. At any rate, this conflation of existing and thinking seems to be he only way one might, contrary to experience, claim s/he cannot conceive of ying. That would also raise the same sorts of issues in! conceiving of living. I think Jim Peavler's reflection on conceiving of the resent is both true and a help inasmuch as he illustrates how it is that some eality may be conceivable even as it is elusive. The rest of my remarks are to the point that experience is not knowledge. xperience comports with sense data, which is non-reflective. What gives it ational coherence is our ability to reflect upon what we experience and in some anner name it, which at that point portends knowledge. Stan Ziobro _______________________________________________ uddha-l mailing list uddha-l at mailman.swcp.com ttp://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From bathieme at hotmail.com Wed Jun 30 14:51:14 2010 From: bathieme at hotmail.com (Barnaby Thieme) Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 13:51:14 -0700 Subject: [Buddha-l] Enlightenment for Sale! In-Reply-To: <5CFB2A92-0BC1-4F58-A711-726BF872E97D@mind2mind.net> References: <24426EAB-D8D7-40ED-A38D-BF1688F55F27@unm.edu>, , <6BDE875D-1ED8-49F8-821D-E4020985B8E3@mind2mind.net>, , , ,,<88020077-E286-4E22-A454-A23B310E2AE1@mind2mind.net>, ,,<4C29BB70.8040604@xs4all.nl>, ,,<036EAB0A-AFDB-4C4E-A9EC-C02B984E6C9A@mind2mind.net>, , , , , , , , , <5CFB2A92-0BC1-4F58-A711-726BF872E97D@mind2mind.net> Message-ID: Thanks for your thoughtful reply, Franz -- you make several strong points. I've been involved with numerous Dharma centers ranging from tiny to huge that managed to subsidize retreats without charging anyone $50k, but I suppose that's one way to go about. But then, many of them /have/ relied on large donations so perhaps this is another model. Perhaps this is a way of transmuting surplus wealth into dharma by the alchemy of practice. But I doubt it -- in my experience if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it probably could bear a conventionally-valid nominal imputation "duck." Humans being what they are, my personal estimation is that cases of basic human avarice outnumber skillful means by about a thousand to one. Interesting quote from McMahn's book, which is already on my reading list. I'll be interested to compare it to Gregory Schopen's argument that early Indian Buddhist monastic communities were essentially organized and run on the guild model, and that the renunciate ideal had little to do in practice with what we see in the historical and archaeological record. That is, maybe Buddhism is always already co-opted. best, Barnaby _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail is redefining busy with tools for the New Busy. Get more from your inbox. http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_2 From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Jun 30 17:38:44 2010 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 23:38:44 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: Meister Eckhart: Teacher and Preacher edited by Bernard McGinn with the collaboration of Frank Tobin and Elvira= Borgstadt; preface by Kenneth J. Northcott ISBN: 0-8091-2827-6 Meister Eckhart: The Essential Sermons, Commentaries, Treatises and Defens= e translated and introduced by Edmund Colledge and Bernard McGinn; preface= by Houston Smith ISBN: 0-8091-2370-3 Bernard McGuinn wrote an excellent monograph on Eckhart's theology publish= ed by Herder and Herder: The Mystical Thought of Meister Eckhart: The Man from Whom God Hid Nothing ISBN-10: =20 0824519965=20 ISBN-13: =20 9780824519964 Stan Ziobro -----Original Message----- From: lemmett at talk21.com To: Buddhist discussion forum Sent: Fri, Jul 2, 2010 6:46 am Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] Eckhart and Buddhism - general question Hi again, Is there any study that looks closely at the interface of Buddhism and Eck= hart?=20 'm not sure if philosophers or scholars do think through commonalities qui= te=20 ow I want here, which would be to be able to say that this or that concept= of=20 ckhart is not just close to Buddhism but what parts of Buddhism it comprom= ises=20 f here Eckhart is taken literally, or visa versa. Maybe even what Eckhart= would=20 ad to have changed to make him a Buddhist, that sort of thing.=20 I am not at all knowledgeable about Meister Eckhart but am currently intri= gued=20 y his suggestion to always expect to find god. I have read the Koyoto scho= ol=20 entioning him in Religion and Nothingness and the Nothingness Beyond God.= I=20 hink it went over my head a bit. hank you very much for any helpful comments. Best, Luke =20 _______________________________________________ uddha-l mailing list uddha-l at mailman.swcp.com ttp://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Jun 30 17:38:44 2010 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 23:38:44 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: choice if we take "total extinction" to mean the total extinction or cessation (nirodha) of greed, hatred, and delusion. The path (magga) that the Buddha has prescribed to achieve this goal is the eightfold ariyan path. Jim Anderson From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Jun 30 17:38:44 2010 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 23:38:44 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: As always, impermanently yours, Richard From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Jun 30 17:38:44 2010 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 23:38:44 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: Dan From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Jun 30 17:38:44 2010 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 23:38:44 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: great lessons, responded very well in resolving issues, and we now see greater maturing of the Buddhist attitudes in the US. Piya Tan On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 8:39 PM, Dan Lusthaus wrote: > The article appeared on August 20th. It can be found at > > http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/21/us/21beliefs.htm > > and includes a photo of the Zen Studies Society monastery, and a correction > (which will be appreciated by Baker Roshi fans), dated Aug. 22nd: > > 'An earlier version of this article erroneously referred to Katy Butler's > 1990 article "Encountering the Shadow in Buddhist America." She did not > include Richard Baker in her description of public alcoholism among > American > Buddhist leaders.' > > This has been a hot topic among Western Buddhists from time to time, and > discussed on this list in detail more than once. The article is right about > one thing -- neither in Asia nor the West has the Sangha been either eager > or effective at curtailing and weeding out such behavior. > > Dan > > ----- Original Message ----- > Oops--article on sex scandals is from NY Times. It was forwarded to me. > > Katherine Masis > ---- > > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l > -- The Minding Centre Blk 644 Bukit Batok Central #01-68 (2nd flr) Singapore 650644 hpl: 8211 0879 Meditation courses & therapy: http://themindingcentre.org Sutta translation: https://dharmafarer.org From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Jun 30 17:38:44 2010 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 23:38:44 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: Dan --- A Walk Through Japan's Execution Chambers By HIROKO TABUCHI Published: August 27, 2010 TOKYO - A trapdoor, a Buddha statue and a ring for the noose: the Japanese government opened up its execution chambers for the first time on Friday, taking journalists on a tour of Tokyo's main gallows. The disclosure is seen as a bid by Japan's justice minister, Keiko Chiba, to stir debate over a practice that is widely supported in here. Of the Group of Eight industrialized nations, only the United States and Japan retain capital punishment. Japan currently has 107 inmates on death row, and no pardon is allowed. From 2000-9, Japan sentenced 112 people to death and executed 46. "I called for proper disclosure in the hope that it spurs debate over the death penalty and criminal sentencing," Ms. Chiba, who opposes the death penalty, told a news conference earlier this month. [...] Inmates on death row are not told when they will be executed until the last minute - a procedure Japanese officials say prevents panic among inmates - and their family members and lawyers are informed only afterward, as are the news media. Inmates can remain on death row as long as 40 years, though executions have occurred on average after about 5 years and 11 months in the past decade, according to the public broadcast channel NHK. The Justice Ministry has refused to disclose how it makes decisions to go ahead with executions. A large majority of Japan's population supports capital punishment. A recent government survey showed that 86 percent of respondents are in favor of state executions for the worst crimes. [...] Meanwhile, Japan has a 99 percent conviction rate, a figure critics attribute to widespread use of forced confessions. A series of false convictions have surfaced in recent months, including one of a 63-year-old man sentence to life in prison for the murder of a 4-year-old girl. He was released after DNA tests showed he was innocent. Critics say there is a high possibility that some of those put on death row are innocent. [...] Read the rest at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/28/world/asia/28tokyo.html From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Jun 30 17:38:44 2010 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 23:38:44 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: --- While writing her comprehensive biography, "Jung," Deirdre Bair discovered that the battles between Freudians and Jungians are as nothing compared with the internecine war raging in the Jung world: "In a field whose history is inflamed by the quasi-religious status of its pioneers, partisans have been vocal. . . . Anyone who undertakes to write about him is confronted by the many charges against him." Much ink has been spilled over Jung since his death in 1961; in "The Jung Cult" and "The Aryan Christ," for instance, Richard Noll characterized Jung as an ambitious charlatan who lifted his central insights from other scholars. For its part, the Jung family has maintained an iron grip on his archives, refusing access to many of his writings, and even those by long-deceased colleagues. Bair, the author of biographies of Samuel Beckett, Ana?s Nin and Simone de Beauvoir, circumnavigated most of the family's restrictions, noting only that she couldn't use any document "unless a member of the family has read it first," and that she had to know in advance which files she wanted to see, "because even the card catalog was tightly restricted." http://www.robertboynton.com/articleDisplay.php?article_id=9 -- Dan From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Jun 30 17:38:44 2010 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 23:38:44 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: Williams?s Unexpected Way Paul O?Grady Contemporary Buddhism, Vol. 4, No. 2, 2003 'Light and Darkness' or 'Looking Through a Dim Mirror'? A Reply to Paul Williams from a Christian Perspective Perry Schmidt-Leukel and A Response to Paul Williams?s The Unexpected Way Jos? Ignacio Cabez?n in Converging Ways? Conversion and Belonging in Buddhism and Christianity Ed. by John D?Arcy May EOS Verlag 2006 Best wishes, Rahula _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Jun 30 17:38:44 2010 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 23:38:44 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: Talaputa Thera's quest 13. When in a mountain cave having heard the peacock's cry, that crested, twice-born bird down in the wood, shall I arise and collect together mind for attaining the undying? When indeed will it be? Querying the phrase, "that twice-born bird". (Note: The twice-born of the Indian social divisions, the 4 varNas, were the Brahmin, Kshatriya, and Vaishya. The 4th, Shudra, were not considered to be twice-born.) Joanna From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Jun 30 17:38:44 2010 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 23:38:44 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: says "ya'all"), Lawrence Welk From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Jun 30 17:38:44 2010 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 23:38:44 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: *Ngakpa Update* presents notes and news on the non-monastic ordained Tantri= c sangha: the *gos dKar lCang lo=92i sDe*, or =93white-skirt long-hair catego= ry=94 in Tibetan. We post brief summaries of current academic research on the history of the tradition, and on its current manifestations in the Himalayas and elsewhere= . We include pointers to events and resources of interest to non-monastic Tantrikas. Occasionally, we also post essays analyzing the state of current understanding, and drawing out its implications. *Ngakpa Update *is primarily intended for Western ngakpas and ngakmas, and for those potentially interested in taking ordination in this lineage. We find current academic research relevant to Western Tantric practice. We hop= e to make that research more available to practitioners, and perhaps to serve as a bridge between the academic and practice communities. We also welcome the involvement of academics, and of practitioners raised i= n Himalayan communities. We=92d particularly appreciate corrections and point= ers to resources of interest, via public web site comments or our contact form . The site authors would very much appreciate any comments and contributions. best regards, '=F6-Dzin --=20 '=F6-Dzin Tridral | tridral at gmail.com | http://twitter.com/tridral Achos pan ddaw y Pedwar Marchog i ofyn a roist ti o dy gyfan - fydd gen ti ddim esgus - Meinir Gwilym *Relaxing into Meditation* | http://bit.ly/nrprim | http://bit.ly/nrprimlul= | http://amzn.to/nrprimzus | http://amzn.to/nrprimzuk From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Jun 30 17:38:44 2010 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 23:38:44 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: *Ngakpa Update* presents notes and news on the non-monastic ordained Tantri= c sangha: the *gos dKar lCang lo=92i sDe*, or =93white-skirt long-hair catego= ry=94 in Tibetan. We post brief summaries of current academic research on the history of the tradition, and on its current manifestations in the Himalayas and elsewhere= . We include pointers to events and resources of interest to non-monastic Tantrikas. Occasionally, we also post essays analyzing the state of current understanding, and drawing out its implications. *Ngakpa Update *is primarily intended for Western ngakpas and ngakmas, and for those potentially interested in taking ordination in this lineage. We find current academic research relevant to Western Tantric practice. We hop= e to make that research more available to practitioners, and perhaps to serve as a bridge between the academic and practice communities. We also welcome the involvement of academics, and of practitioners raised i= n Himalayan communities. We=92d particularly appreciate corrections and point= ers to resources of interest, via public web site comments or our contact form . The site authors would very much appreciate any comments and contributions. best regards, '=F6-Dzin --=20 '=F6-Dzin Tridral | tridral at gmail.com | http://twitter.com/tridral Achos pan ddaw y Pedwar Marchog i ofyn a roist ti o dy gyfan - fydd gen ti ddim esgus - Meinir Gwilym *Relaxing into Meditation* | http://bit.ly/nrprim | http://bit.ly/nrprimlul= | http://amzn.to/nrprimzus | http://amzn.to/nrprimzuk From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Jun 30 17:38:44 2010 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 23:38:44 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: =A0 http://www.tricycle.com/community/sex-and-spiritual-teacher=A0 =A0 Katherine Masis=0A=0A=0A From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Jun 30 17:38:44 2010 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 23:38:44 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: write these hagiographies themselves, but rather, their disciples and later generations wrote and rewrote the hagiographies. But more interestingly, according to Albert Welter and his "The Linji lu and the Creation of Chan Orthodoxy" the tradition itself wrote the hagiography. That is, as the self understanding of the tradition changed, so did the hagiography of the protagonist change to match the new self understanding. I would think this is true for more than just Linji. Along this line, who was and was not included as being a Chan master also changed with the times. What is not so common I think is that Sheng Yen's biography "Footprints in the Snow" is to my mind an autohagiography. Which is to say it shows a level of intentionality on the part of SY and how he wanted to be remembered. Of course, one can only speculate on what those intentions are and they certainly may be mixed, as I say in the paper. But I can also make educated guesses based on long term contact and observation, which I also do in the paper. I also consider his hagiography as a form of ritualized writing, "a staged production of timelessness," and as such, perhaps unconscious, an attempt to create his own immortality. > You're showing the problems of this hero worship in the Chan/Zen context > clearly." Yes, creating immaculate people on paper, that is perfected Chan masters out of people with some good and with some not so good qualities has consequences and some of the consequences in American Zen have been very troubling, for 45 years now. Overempowering the Chan master with the reflected consequence of disempowering the disciples in my opinion is one of the engines driving the trouble in American Chan/Zen. > But do you know Joseph Campbell's "The Power of Myth"? Campbell there > shows some very deep rooted psychological archetypes, notably the > "adventures of the hero". I think we cannot eliminate these deep > psychological patterns - we have to live with this stuff, trying to make > the best of it. I read Campbell's "The Power of Myth" too many years ago to remember much. However, I think whatever psychological archetypes or patterns we have, have to be dealt with in a way that fits our times. That is, the great perfected Chan master can be contextualized to be a useful notion while pointing out the historical roots of the idea and making clear that not every, if any master/roshi with the title is definitely not like the iconic figure; that these figures are indeed iconic. It should be clear that the Chan institution cannot turn out perfected people cookie-cutter style to meet the needs of its institutional form. My guess is there are somewhere around 200 masters/roshi in America today with a large number in Europe. > Another point. You ascribe the many scandals in the US-Zen communities > to the rank difference between 'enlightened' Roshi with > 'Dharma-transmission' and 'unenlightened' disciples. This is evidently > true. I think what I say is that setting up unrealistice disparities between the master and the student puts in place a situation that allows or even encourages trouble and abusive behavior. I would like to add, that this situation in many cases, is quite harmful to the master/roshi who buys into the idealized notion of the role. I think in some cases at least, the become delusional. Because of my papers, I get a fair amount of email from people around the world involved in Zen. Recently, I heard from a fellow in Europe having trouble with his teacher, who was upset that this student questioned him about style of practice, among other issues. The teacher screamed at him, "I represent the Buddha, you represent ego." > But in this context I miss in your paper another relevant topic - the > deficiency of ethics-teaching in the Zen-Tradition (here Aitken was an > exception). If all Zen-teachers and Zen-disciples would sign from the > very beginning of their schooling the 5 Silas and would regularly > discuss and renew their vows, I'm sure there were much less problems. Yes- I did not mention "the deficiency of ethics-teaching in the Zen-Tradition." This was a mistake on my part. I think part of the problem here is that in Zen, ethics is studied, at least in the Rinzai sect and I believe the Sanbokyodan sect too. They are considered as a koan of sorts and examined in meditation and in dokusan where they are viewed from a Zen perspective of emptiness and the relative, interpenetration, host and guest... where the down to earth straighforwardness is not so clear. I have heard the same about Seung Sahn's group but I have not studied them. I am not sure how the Soto sect handles this. Though Aitken in his writing, at least post early 1980's dealt with "ethics-teaching in the Zen-Tradition," he completely covered up the Eido Shimano troubles that occured in Hawaii in the 1960's, most certainly knew of the troubles occuring in the 1970's yet still acted deferential and bowing to Shimano into 1975 and 1976 while he attended the opening of Dai Bosatasu monastery in 1976 bringing along two students. See Aitken's letter at http://www.shimanoarchive.com/PDFs/19760210_Aitken_Shimano.pdf It was not until the 1980's that he changed. Near the end of his life he tried to rectify this. All of this is available at http://www.shimanoarchive.com/ . Thank you for reading my paper and for your comments, Stuart > with kind regards, > bernhard > > > -- > http://www.mb-schiekel.de/ > GPG-Key available: GnuPG-2.0.12 > _______________________________________________ > buddha-l mailing list > buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Jun 30 17:38:44 2010 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 23:38:44 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: Dalai Lama suggests Osama bin Laden's death was justified Speaking at USC, the Buddhist spiritual leader says of the Al Qaeda chief's assassination: 'Forgiveness doesn't mean forget what happened.' As the leader of Tibetan Buddhism, the 14th Dalai Lama says he practices compassion to such an extent that he tries to avoid swatting mosquitoes "when my mood is good and there is no danger of malaria," sometimes watching with interest as they swell with his blood. Yet, in an appearance Tuesday at USC, he appeared to suggest that the United States was justified in killing Osama bin Laden. As a human being, Bin Laden may have deserved compassion and even forgiveness, the Dalai Lama said in answer to a question about the assassination of the Al Qaeda leader. But, he said, "Forgiveness doesn't mean forget what happened. . If something is serious and it is necessary to take counter-measures, you have to take counter-measures." It was, perhaps, an example of the Dalai Lama confounding expectations, something he appears to relish doing.... Read the rest at http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-0504-dalai-lama-20110504,0,7229481.story Dan From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Jun 30 17:38:44 2010 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 23:38:44 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: Dalai Lama suggests Osama bin Laden's death was justified Speaking at USC, the Buddhist spiritual leader says of the Al Qaeda chief's assassination: 'Forgiveness doesn't mean forget what happened.' As the leader of Tibetan Buddhism, the 14th Dalai Lama says he practices compassion to such an extent that he tries to avoid swatting mosquitoes "when my mood is good and there is no danger of malaria," sometimes watching with interest as they swell with his blood. Yet, in an appearance Tuesday at USC, he appeared to suggest that the United States was justified in killing Osama bin Laden. As a human being, Bin Laden may have deserved compassion and even forgiveness, the Dalai Lama said in answer to a question about the assassination of the Al Qaeda leader. But, he said, "Forgiveness doesn't mean forget what happened. . If something is serious and it is necessary to take counter-measures, you have to take counter-measures." It was, perhaps, an example of the Dalai Lama confounding expectations, something he appears to relish doing.... Read the rest at http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-0504-dalai-lama-20110504, 0,7229481.story Dan _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Jun 30 17:38:44 2010 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 23:38:44 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: __ Military action is sometimes necessary, he said, citing the Second World War and Korea. But current conflicts are not so clear-cut. "It's too early to say. So far, I think a failure, using military force. Hardliners (are) becoming even more harder," he said. __ http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/10/02-2 He is a diplomat, and speaks diplomatically in public. His approach to war is, however, consistent, based on pragmatic values (history will determine whether in the long run suffering was alleviated or not) and not virtue ethics. May not be your preferred approach, but it has its own consistency and coherence -- a posteriori rather than a priori. Dan From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Jun 30 17:38:44 2010 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 23:38:44 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: 'The pack leader says when it is time to play, which toys will be played with, when play time is over, when it is time for a walk, where the walk goes, when the walk is over, when it is time to eat, and when it is time to sleep. The pack leader must have completer domination over the pack. The pack leader must dominate both space and time. All this, we were told, is for the dog?s safety and happiness. A dominated dog is a happy dog. Being a pack leader is enormously stressful and leads to deep unhappiness. If you want to happy puppy, dominate her.' I agree that these dog trainers educate humans to think like dog trainers, because that one was wrong about a lot of dog traits. Our family dog tells us when it's time to play --that's any time anyone is near the door and/or time to go for a walk; he finds his own toys; he dominates our space under the kitchen table, where one might stretch out a foot only to encounter a soft leg or flank; he also dominates the space between table and kitchen whenever we are eating; he sleeps when he decides to sleep, not when we decide......and above all, he is the happiest dog ever, except when we tell him to go lie down when he is trying to beg at table or is getting in the way of the cook. It is then that he is unhappy, so au contraire to the trainer, he is not happy while being dominated. Those dogs who ARE happy, while dominated by trainers, are seduced by giving them food bites after every good behavior, thus turning them into robots who expect rewards as well as punishments. This behavior is contrary to normal dog nature which, unlike Buddha nature, is deeply playful (as well as hungry, sleepy, protective, etc.). The only joy that the Brahma viharas speak of is mudita, joy to be felt on someone else's happiness--a trait that goes with the kinds of societies the early Buddhists moved among--societies that had strong predilections to envy (like all social groupings?). But the joy of dogs and other playful animals is intrinsic to their nature. One can see highly trained dogs that exhibit not a shred of joy or playfulness. This conversation reminds me of when I was looking after my son and his wife's parrot while they were away for a weekend. I was warned not to take the bird out of its huge cage. But when I got there early morning the next day, the bird looked so depressed that I offered him my hand and asked him if he wanted to get out. Very slowly he got on board and I took him to his kitchen perch, turned on goldy-oldies radio music, and the bird launched into joyful singing and running through his repertoire of sounds for a whole hour, non-stop. Then he walked over to the window above the sink and, looking out the window, began performing his song again. So, Artur, azadi-- for sure. Joanna _____________________ Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2011 1:03 PM Dear denizens, Is it my imagination, or has it become a little quiet around here? Well, I just found my dried shit stick and figured it's time to give the chamber pot a quick stir. As many of you know, I love the teachings of the Buddha. It's Buddhists I can't stand. Just this morning I wrote something by way of trying to figure out why. It may amuse some of you and perhaps annoy an idiot or two. I hope so. (It's written in the rhetorical mode known as coyotensis.) http://wp.me/prOnR-2o Day?mati _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Jun 30 17:38:44 2010 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 23:38:44 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: donated to monasteries for hanging inside the temple walls until production ceased around the beginning of the twentieth century.' So Tibetans weren't the only group to decorate their temples with painted cloth banners, albeit gigantic ones designed to cover an entire outside wall. Inside, usually it was painted murals-----whereas the Thai painted cloth banners were designated (according to this site) for indoor temple d?cor (and edification, of course-- like the temple d?cor of all Buddhist architecture everywhere). Joanna From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Jun 30 17:38:44 2010 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 23:38:44 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: donated to monasteries for hanging inside the temple walls until production ceased around the beginning of the twentieth century.' So Tibetans weren't the only group to decorate their temples with painted cloth banners, albeit gigantic ones designed to cover an entire outside wall. Inside, usually it was painted murals-----whereas the Thai painted cloth banners were designated (according to this site) for indoor temple d?cor (and edification, of course-- like the temple d?cor of all Buddhist architecture everywhere). Joanna _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l _______________________________________________ buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l