[Buddha-l] Back to the core values?

[Vicente]

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.

yes, using skeptic it would be much better. However, I'm surprised of
reading how some scholar can ignore this difference, when it is not a
little thing in Religion. As you can imagine, we readers cannot be
aware that he is agreement with your thoughts.

Beyond that,  I think really he is an agnostic sometimes, even if it
is not the real intention. When  he explore kamma and rebirth, he
ignores that  kamma and rebirth fristly are tools useful to be
positioned to get new meanings from the reality; not exactly related
as a way to conffirm the phenomenical reality of a positivist truth
about rebirth or cause-and-effect. This first utility is ignored for
the defence of a  different position, in where reason and positivism
in front the world occupies all the space,  and in this way maybe the
two can sounds contradictory. I think.


best regards,