Bill, I'm on this list because i read Peirce and take him seriously as a writer whose concepts have some bearing on the conduct of a life -- any life -- and my working assumption is that others are here for similar reasons. Likewise, my interest in the bodhisattva concept arises from my reading of texts which represent it in a context relevant to the actual conduct of a life (or a sentient being, to use the Buddhist term). These texts include the Lotus Sutra and a broad range of Buddhist writers and translators ancient and modern (especially Dogen) who also take the concept seriously. I don't profess to be a Buddhist, just as i don't profess to be a scientist or any kind of specialist, because i don't see such professions as being relevant: i'm here as a reader, and if i'm going to discuss any concept drawn from my reading, the discussion will have to be based on the texts in question. In those terms, i don't see our exchange here as very relevant either, so pardon me if my responses are abrupt.
Bill [re the Gita]: It is not a politico telling Arjuna what his social duty is; it is a god telling a human what his duty is to God. I suppose gods tend to be a bit totalitarian, but that's just the way they are. gary: Gods do tend to come across that way in the monotheistic Abrahamic traditions; whether that transcendent alpha-male quality should be read into the immanent gods of the Vedic tradition is another question. (Hmmm, now i seem to be the one making an East/West distinction; isn't that odd? But maybe you also consider the Abrahamic religions as "Eastern"; that would be reasonable, since their region of origin is what we now call the "Middle East", but it's not what i thought you had in mind.) Bill: ... you gut the doctrine of all its stringencies, as if they were yours to explain away, and leave only a pale image of Buddhism. gary: From here, it looks like you're the one who doesn't take the bodhisattva vow seriously or recognize the stringencies involved in living by it. > What i am referring to under that name is simply a person who > has taken the bodhisattva vow and is actually living as if he means > it. Bill: Why don't you try bouncing this conception off a traditional Buddhist and see if he or she recognizes it. gary: My conception is drawn directly (with some rewording) from the likes of Dogen, Thich Nhat Hanh, etc. I'm sure there are many who call themselves Buddhists and see the concept differently, but if that's what you mean by a "traditional Buddhist", i don't see their testimony as relevant. (Likewise i'd rather read Peirce than consult a "traditional Peircean".) The point here is not at all to describe what the Buddhist masses believe. Bill: What if, for example, Buddhist logic is not rooted in the social principle? Would that affect your claim? Or is it, as I feel, just the general similarity that you are interested in. gary: If Buddhist "logic" were so different from Peircean logic as to be "not rooted in the social principle", then nobody could understand or use it at all -- including you and me. And yes, it is the general similarity that i'm interested in; but as Peirce says, you must "consider that, according to the principle which we are tracing out, a connection between ideas is itself a general idea, and that a general idea is a living feeling" (EP1, 330). Starting with a general similarity, you can always make distinctions, but doing so doesn't always advance the inquiry. gary F. }Once the whole is divided, the parts need names. There are already enough names. One must know when to stop. [Tao Te Ching 32 (Feng/English)]{ gnoxic studies }{ http://users.vianet.ca/gnox/gnoxic.htm --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com