[Buddha-l] Buddha's Meditation

[Gad Horowitz]

Are you, Richard, not PREsupposing that getting satisfaction in life is the 
ultimate goal? For everyone?



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Richard Hayes" <rhayes at unm.edu>
To: "Buddhist discussion forum" <buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 7:02 PM
Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] Buddha's Meditation


> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> buddha-l mailing list
> buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com
> http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l
>