Ann writes:
> A 1983 article might be forgiven for its anachronistic theoretical
> position in the historical context of Pomo discourse,
I was not saying the article was anachronistic -- hell, I couldn't figure out what was being said.
> . . . but even(sic) a Pure Land Buddhist should be able to understand the
> concept of an ontological dualism.
I will have to ask a Pure Land Buddhist when I meet one. I am not. Also, I have not encountered the term "ontological dualism" in any of the sutras I have read. I admit to not having read them all.
> As a counter-example, if you can explain Vedic math to me in
> "plain-spoken" terms that might be applicable to both scholarly and
> everyday life, since I would love to see its logic applied to the reducing
> diplomatic conflict, then you have some standing to complain.
I have standoing to complain since what was posted was gobbledy-gook and I am a member of this list (I also notice that while you call me to task, you haven't attempted to say what the passage meant either).
As far as Vedic math goes -- I do not know it. Is it something the Buddha taught? If you want me to post on what the Buddha did teach -- suffering, its causes, and its cessation -- as it applies to resolving diplomatic conflict I would be happy to do so. I believe a Buddhist approach could solve many problems.
Jon writes:
> . . . "ontological dualism" in general is a metaphysical view which says
> that all beings belong to two basic types which cannot be reduced to
> one -- for example, mind and body or spirit and matter.
But isn't another dualism that exists "good" and "evil"? Was dualism what Nietzche was trying to transcend when he wrote "Beyond Good and Evil" (confession: never read it, but the title popped into my head as I was writing this post). It seems dualistic thinking is more harmful than helpful.
Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister