[Buddha-l] Fw: Buddha's Meditation

[Gad Horowitz]

In paragraphs 2 and 3 of this post of yours, Richard, is it not "finding 
satisfaction in life" that serves as the fundamental criterion in your 
argument?  Do not be so quick to dismiss a well intentioned question.  Why 
is your lip curling?


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Gad Horowitz" <horowitz at chass.utoronto.ca>
To: "Buddhist discussion forum" <buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com>
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2011 11:46 AM
Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] Buddha's Meditation


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