[Buddha-l] Bertrand Russell

[Jim Peavler]

The statement by Professor Hayes that became the cause celebre on the  
subject of "right speech" is quoted here.

On Aug 13, 2006, at 4:21 PM, Richard Hayes wrote:

> There is, of course, a very long tradition in both Europe and Asia
> of refuting gross caricature's of one's opponents. (It's so much
> more fun than being intellectually honest) The Pali canon's
> depictions of Brahmanical culture are outrageous. Nagarjuna refutes
> alleged abhidharma ideas that no abhidharmika ever held. Mahayana
> sutras offer caricatures of "hinayana" that are completely absurd.
> There is no truth at all to the way Huineng's rival was depicted in
> The Platform Sutra. Nichiren torched entire armies of straw men.

I believe that this statement deserves some serious consideration. It  
is clear to anyone who reads history, philosophy, any academic stuff  
of whatever color, theology, politics, social sciences, (even  
sometimes math and science), that the above statement is obviously  
true. One of the problems I faced back when I was trying to corrupt  
the minds of the youth of our nation was convincing them of this very  
fact. I argued against reading any one particular book on any  
particular subject and then going off believing now knew the "truth".  
It is rare for any human being that I have ever heard of to be  
absolutely objective about any subject that is worth discussing. In  
fact, it is probably impossible. So, if not complete caricatures or  
strawmen, our opponents are almost always described in a less  
favorable light than our friends and fellow travelers. Or maybe always.

I believe it is necessary for any intelligent reader to realize this  
and try to take account of it (If said reader is trying to be  
objective. I don't bother to make any adjustments to polemics against  
Republicans, for example). It is also important for any writer, if  
she is trying to be fair and accurate, to take account of the  
tendency in herself.

That this kind of analysis and balance is difficult, but important,  
is exemplified especially when  the subject is religion, as  
demonstrated by the millions killed in the name of various gods.  
Certain Chinese Buddhists, even, once declared that another  
coloration of Buddhists were not sentient beings and hence it was  
alright to kill them.

So, for some wag to openly commit the sin of exaggeration, or irony,  
or humor to draw attention to or to ridicule this tendency in humans  
to overstate their virtues and their opponents' flaws is a perfectly  
acceptable for an intelligent or educated person to do. For a person  
to read carefully and to take account of the tendency in serious work  
is essential. To deliberately and seriously use such exaggeration in  
an attempt to harm one's opponent or one's opponent's ideas is  
dishonest.

I guess the lesson here (which we can learn from Mark Twain) is that  
if you are going to use ad hominem or other rhetorical devices to  
destroy your opponent's position, you had better be funny.

Jim Peavler
jmp at peavler.org