[Buddha-l] Back to the core values?

[curt]

Richard Hayes wrote:
>
>
> I have had several long discussions with Batchelor about this very point. As 
> you well know, I prefer using the term "skepticism" to characterize my 
> approach to Buddhism, and I have notoriously argued that such critters as the 
> Buddha, Nagasena, Nagarjuna, and Dignaga are very much like skeptics. 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. 
> Batchelor and I seem to think we are in substantial agreement with each 
> other, and that our preferences for different words is a matter of no real 
> consequence.
>
> 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. Insisting that the word "agnosticism" must 
> mean precisely the stance that Batchelor takes pains to reject, and that 
> therefore Batchelor is advocating the very thing he claims to be rejecting, 
> is to take a stance so perverse as to be  counterproductive. If you read any 
> other Buddhist text with such a lack of empathy and charity as you read 
> Batchelor, you would surely find the entire Buddhist edifice of teachings 
> pointless and ineffectual.
>
>   
Perhaps if there is confusion about what Batchelor means by Agnosticism 
at least part of the blame belongs to Batchelor himself. He begins his 
chapter on "Agnosticism" (in "Buddhism Without Beliefs") by citing the 
parable of the arrow (which might be the earliest known instance of a 
straw man argument - maybe that's why Batchelor is so fond of it). Then 
having cited the parable of the arrow Batchelor proceeds to discuss not 
agnosticism, but .... "religion". "Religion" is Batchelor's own straw 
man, without which his "agnosticism" is pointless. Agnosticism, for 
Batchelor, is the solution to the problem of "religion".

But what is this "religion" of which Batchelor speaks? It is simply what 
the Romans used to call "superstition". And it is well known (and was 
readily admitted by the Romans) that "superstition" is simply any and 
all beliefs that one happens to dislike. Batchelor sets up evil 
"religion" as the foil to his heroic "agnosticism" - who saves us from 
"religion". Batchelor "defines" agnosticism as the absence of 
"religion", the absence of "esoteric doctrines", the absence of 
"worship", the absence of "institutionalization", the absence of 
"mysticism", the absence of "creed". We readily sense that "religion", 
"esoteric", "doctrine", "worship", "institutionalization", "mysticism" 
and "creed" are all words that Batchelor dislikes - but he does not 
provide any information about what he means by these words - other than 
that they are bad words for bad things.

Batchelor's only clear statement about "agnosticism" is when he quotes 
Huxley (more or less):

"For T.H. Huxley, who coined the term in 1896, agnosticism was as 
demanding as any moral, philosophical, or religious creed. Rather than a 
creed, though, he saw it as a *method* realized through 'the rigorous 
application of a single principle.' He expressed this principle 
positively as: "Follow your reason as far as it will take you," and 
negatively as: "Do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are 
not demonstrated or demonstrable.' This principle runs through the 
Western tradition: from Socrates, via the Reformation and the 
Enlightenment, to the axioms of modern science. Huxley called it the 
'agnostic faith'." (BWB p. 17)

Here is what Huxley "really said":

"Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of 
which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle. That 
principle is of great antiquity; it is as old as Socrates; as old as the 
writer who said, 'Try all things, hold fast by that which is good' it is 
the foundation of the Reformation, which simply illustrated the axiom 
that every man should be able to give a reason for the faith that is in 
him; it is the great principle of Descartes; it is the fundamental axiom 
of modern science. Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters 
of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without 
regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the 
intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not 
demonstrated or demonstrable." (see Huxley's essay "Agnosticism" here: 
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn.html ).

Batchelor excises of the phrase "in matters of the intellect" (twice!), 
as well as the reference to Descartes, and Batchelor attempts to take 
the sting out of Huxley's grotesque embrace of the Protestant 
Reformation by adding "the Enlightenment", which Huxley never mentions. 
And then there is that interesting phrase: "Try all things, hold fast by 
that which is good" - which turns out be a quote from the fifth chapter 
of Saint Paul's first epistle to the Thessalonians (5:21 - 
http://scripturetext.com/1_thessalonians/5-21.htm ).

In this epistle, Paul does in fact endorse a kind of agnosticism. Paul 
tells us that we should be "agnostic" (he does not actually use that 
word, of course) with respect to the timing of the (second) coming of 
the Lord. Since we cannot be sure of when that event will occur, we 
should simply prepare for it now. But I'll let Paul speak for himself 
(by way of the Revised Standard Version):

1 Now as to the times and the epochs, brethren, you have no need of 
anything to be written to you.
2 For you yourselves know full well that the day of the Lord will come 
just like a thief in the night.
3 While they are saying, "Peace and safety!" then destruction will come 
upon them suddenly like labor pains upon a woman with child, and they 
will not escape.
4 But you, brethren, are not in darkness, that the day would overtake 
you like a thief;
5 for you are all sons of light and sons of day We are not of night nor 
of darkness;
6 so then let us not sleep as others do, but let us be alert and sober.
7 For those who sleep do their sleeping at night, and those who get 
drunk get drunk at night.
8 But since we are of the day, let us be sober, having put on the 
breastplate of faith and love, and as a helmet, the hope of salvation.
9 For God has not destined us for wrath, but for obtaining salvation 
through our Lord Jesus Christ,
10 who died for us, so that whether we are awake or asleep, we will live 
together with Him.
11 Therefore encourage one another and build up one another, just as you 
also are doing.
12 But we request of you, brethren, that you appreciate those who 
diligently labor among you, and have charge over you in the Lord and 
give you instruction,
13 and that you esteem them very highly in love because of their work. 
Live in peace with one another.
14 We urge you, brethren, admonish the unruly, encourage the 
fainthearted, help the weak, be patient with everyone.
15 See that no one repays another with evil for evil, but always seek 
after that which is good for one another and for all people.
16 Rejoice always;
17 pray without ceasing;
18 in everything give thanks; for this is God's will for you in Christ 
Jesus.
19 Do not quench the Spirit;
20 do not despise prophetic utterances.
21 But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good;
22 abstain from every form of evil.
23 Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you entirely; and may your 
spirit and soul and body be preserved complete, without blame at the 
coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
24 Faithful is He who calls you, and He also will bring it to pass.
25 Brethren, pray for us.
26 Greet all the brethren with a holy kiss.
27 I adjure you by the Lord to have this letter read to all the brethren.
28 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.

Amen,

Curt

P.S. Please note that "examine everything carefully; hold fast to that 
which is good" is said with particular reference to "prophetic 
utterances" which are not to be "despised."