[Buddha-l] Batchelor

[Dan Lusthaus]

Erik,

Since the medieval Muslim and Jewish philosphers were already many centuries 
into dividing things into necessity, contingency and accident -- without a 
hint of trinitarianism -- before Aquinas was born, the trinitarian 
application was a later grafting.

Some held that God's will (and knowledge) only concerned Necessity (on the 
centrality of "Necessity" cf. the climax of the tale of Er in Bk. X of The 
Republic). God only knows universals, and his Will could only produce 
necessary effects. Contingency is the human world, where choice (another 
type of will) can occur. When modern philosophy jettisoned necessity, they 
also lost "certainty". Enter Sartre -- a pure philosophy of the will, 
projection can engender its own telos, living for the project, which can be 
invented ex nihilo. One may have moments of mauvais foi, even bad 
conscience, but the cause and cure lie in projecting projects. Sartre is 
very much in the medieval mold of contingency -- only he has rejected 
necessity. (and thus, also God and essences)

As for being otherwise, Buddhism does deal with this sort of alterity: 
anyathatvam -- a crucial aspect that plays a key role in the Abhidharmakosa 
and in Sthiramati's Bhasya on the Trimsika. I devote a chapter to it in 
Buddhist Phenomenology under the heading "alterity."

cheers,
Dan