[Buddha-l] Re: Jesus is Buddha?

[Richard P. Hayes]

On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 10:10 +0100, Erik Hoogcarspel wrote:

> This is bull, what is a 'phenomenological consistency'?

It has nothing to do with bulls, cows or any other kind of animal. It's
a philosophical, not a veterinarian, technical term.

>  A consistency backed up by Husserl, or one only appearant after a phenomenological 
> reduction?

It is true that Husserl use the word, but he does not own it. I am using
the term as it is used in a field known as phenomenology of religion.
The basic idea is to make observations about the forms of religious
behavior that are apparent to the senses and to prescind from doctrinal
issues. So you might say there is a similarity in the observable
qualities of, say, certain insight meditation groups and many Protestant
churches in that there is a lack of religious symbols and a minimum of
ritual.

>  Do you suffer from an accute attack of Rumsfeldism?

When Rumsfeld attacks, people usually end up either dead or being
tortured. So far, I have neither died nor been tortured, so I infer I
have not yet been attacked by Rumsfeld.

> If you think N just came up with a solution for all problems, you're as 
> dumb as his sarvaastivaadin opponent in the kaarika's

No, I don't believe Nagarjuna tried to solve4 all problems. He was
content with solving just a few problems: time, space, motion,
causality, karma, bondage, liberation, person identity, essences and
accidents, defining characteristics, ethics, logic and epistemology.

As for Sarvaastivaadins, I prefer the real ones to the straw man
caricature that Nagarjuna so easily torches in the kaarikaas. But more
than the Sarvaastivaadins, I find myself attracted to the Sautraantikas,
and to some of the later Maadhyamikas, most of whom seem more
intellectually honest than Nagarjuna.

> Thank you for this excellent and subtle analysis of fanaticism, 
> professor Hayes! 

You're most welcome. I'm glad you find it edifying.

-- 
Richard