[Buddha-l] Eckhart Tolle

[Tom Troughton]

Richard,

Having read your posts over the last few days, would you kindly answer
a few questions for me?

On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 14:21:33 -0700, Richard P. Hayes wrote:

>... I am talking about science as an enterprise that has
>the following features (which I borrow, with some modifications, from
>Husserl):
>
>* Science is the development of theory for the sake of developing
>theories. It is the discovery of truth without any regard whatsoever for
>practical consequences. It is a purely intellectual practice.
>
>* Science involves the thinker's cultivating an attitude of being a
>disinterested   observer of the world, unaffected by his or her own
>personal interests.
>
>* Science involves a self-conscious awareness of the difference between
>the way the world is portrayed by various human cultures and the way the
>world actually is.
>
>* Science is a search for truth that is universal, that is, valid in all
>places at all times for all people and this is not culturally
>conditioned.
>
>* Science involves the enterprise of disseminating, through education,
>what has  already been discovered and establishing institutions that
>will perpetually engage in the never-ending task of discovering new
>truths.

Popper argues that scientific theories can be evaluated by how much
possible reality they state is impossible, because they can be
invalidated through a process of inter-subjective verifying. Scientific
theories do not present universal truths but contingent descriptions of
what should not (ontologically) be. Your description of science
contains no aspect which seems to require verification, and no method
for falsifying truth. How is your description of science different from
a description of theology?

On Fri, 06 Jan 2006 10:09:55 -0700, Richard P. Hayes wrote:

>That is almost an accurate way of characterizing my agenda as a
>secularist. I would be quite happy to see religion disappear altogether
>from the public square and promoted only in homes and churches. The only
>legitimate approach to knowledge in the public sphere, I would argue, is
>science. I don't think science is an effort to reduce the symbolic
>horizon of religion. I think science qua science just ignores religion
>and conducts inquiries into nature as if religion did not exist at all.

Where is the public square, what are some other things in it at this
time, and which of those things would you like to see removed (besides
religion of course)? How is science different from those things?

On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 14:44:48 -0700, Richard P. Hayes wrote:

>Nothing qualifies anyone to teach aside from having the ability to
>attract students. If people listen to you, you're a teacher. Period. If
>people don't find what you say useful, they'll stop listening. If no one
>listens to you, you're no longer a teacher. Pretty simple, eh?

This suggests that whatever charismatic teachers teach as science is
science. This could seem consistent with the essenceless of all things
taught in the MMK. Does madhyamaka essenceless leave only discourse as
a way identify things?
-- 
Best wishes
Tom Troughton