Michael writes:
> I'm no Christian, but one could say equally
dismissive and partial things about Buddhism . .
You could, but that would not make them true. And when did I dismiss Christianity?
> which, despite its talk about transcending the
self . . .
Ok LBO, I am going to try yet again to make this clear. Buddhism is NOT about transcending self since there is NO SELF TO TRANSCEND.
Michael, stop confusing Buddhist doctrine with new age dogma.
> . . . could be accused of being premised on selfishness.
Since Buddhism maintains that there is no self, how can it be premised on selfishness? Nice try Michael, but you can do better than that. You usually never make such slips.
> And while we're at it, in a world where the overclass
sets the terms of satisfaction,
They do not set my terms of satisfaction. Do you allow them to do so for you?
> how the hell can anybody tell how much the masses are
"slaves to their desires?"
Most people I know are slaves to their desires. As has been pointed out to me, most desires are formed in part by outside influences -- remember queer-by-birth vs. queer-by-choice? Consequently, "who sets the desires" is a complicated and possibly unanswerable question.
But people can chose to be or not be slaves to the desires which arise in them. Attachment is a choice. If it is not, then being queer cannot be a choice.
> Sloppy talk and dismissals of ordinary people will get us
(and you) nowhere.
Buddhism sloppy? Rigorous is more like it.
Also, I am not dismissing anyone. I am merely pointing out the observable fact that attachment to desire leads to bad consequences. Do you think the overclass would be as ruthless as they are if they were not attached to their desires? You sentimentalize "ordinary people" (whatever that empty phrase means) by maintaining that their attaching to desire is any less harmful than the overclass's practice of the same behavior.
Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister