[Buddha-l] Back to the core values?

[Richard Hayes]

On Wednesday 30 May 2007 20:28, curt wrote:

> 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".

Yes, that's correct. I tend to be in agreement with his view that most of the 
world's problems stem from religion as Batchelor uses the word, namely, 
adherence to dogmas without regard to evidence. As you point out, "religion" 
is used by Batchelor (and by a good many other intellectuals these days) as a 
term of negative value judgment. As Thomas Tweed pointed out in his book on 
American flirtations with Buddhism in the 19th century, one of the types of 
American who found Buddhist attractive were those who favored scientific 
method and were hoping to find a system of ethics that was not entangled with 
metaphysical doctrines that had no evidential support. Naturally, they had to 
be very selective in their approach to Buddhism. Interestingly enough, 
another group of Americans who found Buddhism attractive were spiritualists 
and faith healers whose favored source of knowledge was what they could learn 
from disembodied spirits by means of seance. Yet another group of early 
American buddhaphiles were the Transcendentalists for whom Emerson was an 
avatar. In some ways, things have not changed much since the late 19th 
century. Buddhists are still prone to being very careful to select out of 
traditional Buddhist teachings just those things that confirm their own 
configuration of prejudices. 

And so what? As Chris Fynn has pointed out, there is something in Buddhism for 
everyone. As Geshe Wanggyal allegedly advised, the best approach is to see 
Buddhism as a vast medicine chest in which there is something that cures your 
specific disease. The thing to do is to take the medicine you need and leave 
the rest there for others who may need it. In my reading of Batchelor, this 
is precisely his attitude.  

Thanks for your message. It has a lot of information about Huxley, always an 
interesting thinker. I don't think you succeeded in making your case that 
Batchelor seriously distorted the substance of what Huxley was saying. There 
is not much space at all between what Batchelor reports Huxley as saying and 
what Huxley really said.

It has become quite clear that you have little use for Batchelor. So I wonder 
why you read him, and why you spend so much energy trying to discredit him. 
In what way does he threaten what you hold dear? What many of us would 
probably be more interested in hearing is what authors and teachers you find 
inspiring and helpful. What about Buddhism do you find attractive? We know 
what you find distasteful. So what do you find appetizing? 

-- 
Richard Hayes
Department of Philosophy
University of New Mexico