[Buddha-l] Buddha's Meditation

[Dan Lusthaus]

I have no intention or desire to challenge or undermine Quakers as a whole 
or in part, but as vital life-and-death issues are at stake, and the long 
testimonial was in response to my pointing out a lack of "empirical 
evidence" where such was being asserted, I will briefly comment on (1) why 
the testimonial does not meet the test for empirical evidence, and -- since 
this has been a topic on buddha-l before -- (2) why one should be cautious 
about the phrase "speak truth to power."

It is not empirical evidence because it is indeed a testimonial by an 
advocate. That an advocate should see the actions of his group in a positive 
moral light is expected (one would be perverse to engage in such actions if 
one believed otherwise). Which is why empirical evidence requires 'outside 
observers,' reproduction of the results of experiments by other researchers, 
etc. Al Qaida no doubt believes that its actions are moral, following a 
divine plan. Evangelical Christians think they are saving the country from 
moral decay by "Christianizing" the country in their own image, i.e., what 
they are doing is not only moral, but crusading for morality. And so on. 
None of that rises to the level of empirical evidence. It is, as Richard 
might say, anaikantika (indeterminate), at best.

"Speaking truth to power" is an empty slogan, or more acutely diagnosed, a 
passive-aggressive biased slogan. Since that honor is bestowed on people 
like Ahmadinejad (as the buddha-l archives will show) -- who kills and 
suppresses his own people, is leading the world in annual capital 
punishments http://tinyurl.com/3wub48p , and is pushing ahead a nuclear 
weapons program for the explicit and express purpose of wiping another 
country off the map (maybe he'll do so with non-attachment?) -- his only 
supposedly good quality being he trash-talks the US (and Israel) 
periodically; and not on people like Wim Wenders, who also back-talks to the 
people in power (enough to get arrested and undergo a trial for his 
opinions), one can only conclude the deciding factor on who is considered 
someone who "speaks truth to power" has nothing to do with the structure of 
vocally challenging an established order, but in the content of the 
statements, which, is to passive-aggressively cheer on anyone besmirching 
the US, an attitude we have seen much of on this list over the years. Note, 
I am NOT making value judgments about the content, and not suggesting that 
Wenders is a more worthy recipient of the honor than Ahmadinejad, but merely 
suggesting that the phrase 'speak truth to power' is a misnomer, since that 
'truth' has an agenda; by concealing the agenda so as to be able to claim 
deniability makes it passive-aggressive (that is what passive-aggressive 
means, e.g., why the KKK wear hoods).

So my original charge, that universalism and relativism lead to immoralism 
stands. As I said, while immoral acts are a logical outcome (or if you 
prefer, perhaps more accurately: amoral acts), actual immoral acts may be 
controvened by interference from other theories, but not as a logical 
outcome of the universalism and relativism itself. As for "pluralism" as a 
preferable term/concept, the only thorough-going pluralists would be 
anarchists and hermits. All the rest are compromising or delusionally 
imagining that the Other they tolerate shares on some important level 
something in common with them, in which case it is no longer pluralism but 
monadic monism -- an obvious contradiction in terms (or, as Joanna prefers, 
paradox). In the real world usually the "idea" of pluralism becomes quickly 
disenchanted when encountering real plurality and heterogeneity. Ergo 
banning ritual slaughter to discourage Muslims (so what if Jews are also 
inconvenienced!), no hijabs in France, no new minarets in Switzerland, etc. 
Or, in New York City, Puerto Ricans complain when Dominicans move into their 
neighborhood. And on and on...

Dan