Christian writes:
> You were at pains to identify with one tradition (ie Eastern) and
dis-identify with the other--one the path of liberation, the other
of confusion, etc.
To be clearer, I will that to me the Abrahamic tradition can be a path of confusion, while Buddhism can be a path of liberation.
For me, religions that worship/venerate a diety or dieties demand a self since how could a no-self worship a god?
> People practicing Christian traditions frequently gain clear
understandings of suffering, emptiness, luminosity, etc.
You can be Christian and practice to Buddhism, but there comes a point when the two disciplines do become incompatible.
> And there are people with no understanding of such things who
accomplish a lot of good in the world. (Among them are people on
this list.)
I think many more people practice Buddhism of some kind without ever realizing it and accomplish good things by doing so. I think that even more can be accomplished if they were conscious of what they were doing.
A poor analogy, but I love golf (it is a connection to my Dad). A good golfer has a reliable, repeatable swing that he can call upon at all times: muscle memory if you will.
Now the right has their reliable, repeatable ideologies that they call upon. I do not think it would be a bad idea for the left to have similar tools (but not ideologies). I find that the discipline of approaching the world and its contents as having no-self has been valuable in alleviating suffering. I am still obligated to deal with people who believe in self, but freedom from notions of self does provide a good deal of maneuverability.
> In other words, the response you suggest to political left and right-- has
x let go of the self?--threatens to become a kind of primitive theism.
I do not think it becomes a theism. It is merely a prescription. If you are interested in alleviating suffering it is uselful to embrace the concept of no-self. Some suffering can be lessened without this insight, but a good amount of suffering flows from clinging to concepts of self.
> It's a litmus test of virtue or enlightenment, or something that is supposed
to have clear meaning flows politically, but doesn't.
It is not a litmus test. It is a statement of observable cause and effect: clinging to notions of self increases suffering.
> Besides, it's not a political answer--foreign policy dilemmas and budget
problems will not be solved if enough people see through the illusion of the self,
however good that would be in other ways.
I think many foreign policy dilemmas could be helped. In how many cases have persecutions of people been based on the assignment to them of particular selves?
How many times have people committed atrocities in defense of something that reinforces/bolsters their sense of self?
> Having a common experience of non-selfhood might provide a good ground
to begin with, but conflict doesn't end there.
No, but conflict is much harder to maintain without a sense of self.
> Politics is a different order of (non) reason. But that's why bodhisattvas
practice the paramita of exertion :).
Exactly. It is also why I practice Engaged Buddhism
Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister