[Buddha-l] Back to the core values?

[Michael Paris]

Replies below.

--- Richard Hayes <rhayes at unm.edu> wrote:

[snip]

> [Batchelor] takes pains to say that by agnosticism he simply means
the state of not knowing.... He also says that when one does not know,
the best attitudinal stance to take is to be completely open-minded...
And this  open-mindedness, Batchelor rightly claims, is not as common
among Buddhists as it could be...
>

Or should be. But religious folk, if I may be judgmental, are
uncritical to a fault. P.T. Barnum's dictum applies in spades. 

[snip]

> As you well know, I prefer using the term "skepticism" to
characterize
my approach to Buddhism... My claim is that the word "skeptical", which
means inquisitive (not to be confused with inquisitional), has more
positive connotations than does "agnosticism," which lays etymological
stress on absence of knowing....
> 

Well, "skeptical" has more meanings, and shades thereof, than
"inquisitive." But to each their own. I rather like both terms; they
each have distinct uses but are far under-used in today's world.

I am currently reading _The Sceptics_ by R.J. Hankinson and find much
more in classical skepticism than I ever imagined. In fact, there seems
to be a bit of Taoism in skepticism. Intriguing.


> So the lesson for you (and anyone, I think) is to let yourself be
influenced by how authors say they are using words, especially when
they take pains to  explain them. If you approach any text with the
attitude that words have  fixed meanings and cannot be used in
different ways, then few texts will  yield anything sensible to you. 
>

Surely anyone that's ever taken an English course knows that. Or has
read (and appreciated) even one line of poetry. Or do I assume too
much?


Michael



 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate 
in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545367