[Buddha-l] Buddha's Meditation

[Richard Hayes]

On Jul 7, 2011, at 16:07 , Dan Lusthaus wrote:

> As I've already pointed out, the initial example of the shallow holes and 
> deep hole assumes universalism in the sense I described. It becomes a 
> meaningless analogy otherwise.

I get meaning out of the analogy in quite a different way from the sort of universalism you describe. As you are surely aware from hundreds if not thousands of conversations with me, I have no use for the sort of hegemonic universalism you describe. In that, we are (I think) in full agreement. It is for that reason that I prefer not to use he term "universalism" and prefer instead the term "pluralism." A pluralist, I take it, acknowledges that there are many legitimate goals and that therefore not everyone need have the same ultimate goal in life, nor the same set of values, nor the same standards of morality, nor the same narratives, nor the same metaphysics, nor the same epistemology. Most pluralists also acknowledge that for every goal there are many methods of reaching it. The most robust pluralists of all admit that there are many kinds of pluralism. I think (perhaps incorrectly) that I may be among the more robust pluralists.  

My pluralistic reading of the well analogy is that it is suggesting that one is more likely to find some degree of satisfaction in life if one sticks to one goal and pursues it, rather than pursuing dozens of goals in short bursts of enthusiasm. That is a meaningful reading, I think, that is in no way hegemonic or universalistic in the ways that both you and I find disconcerting.

Having said that, I do not agree with the well analogy at all in any of its readings. As I have said numerous times, right here on buddha-l, I think a person can get enough satisfaction in life by being a superficial dabbler. Such a person is often called a dilettante, a person who finds delight in pursuing things without much commitment or deep knowledge. So I reject the well analogy. My own experience shows me it is based on a false assumption, namely, the assumption that superficiality is never as satisfactory as profundity. (Hell's bells, if I believed that assumption were true, would I participate in buddha-l?)

Now let's get back to my original question. Is it true that the well analogy comes from the Buddha (by which I mean some character with that name and/or description in any Buddhist work of fiction)? And if it is true that it comes from a Buddhist source, is it being used in a hegemonically universalist sense or as an expression of pluralism? My guess would be the former, but I would be a delighted dilettante if that guess turned out to be incorrect.

Richard