[Buddha-l] Fsat Mnifdlunses?

[Dan Lusthaus]

Richard wrote:
>[William James is] an
> excellent antidote to the temptation to indulge in an impulse to act
> on a Lusthausian sense of duty to correct those whom one perceives to
> be in error.

You give me way too much credit. I only reiterated standard Buddhist fare.

I also like James (he used to live not far from where I presently dwell), 
but not as a substitute for Buddhist philosophers. Nor do I confute them a 
la Kalupahana. James is no "thicker" than the Buddhists, though he wrote at 
a time where various disciplines (e.g., psychology and philosophy and 
physical sciences) had been sufficiently isolated from each other that 
bringing them back together afforded a certain clarity and insight.

Since this is buddha-l, it is curious to find oneself being slammed for 
offering Buddhist viewpoints.

Dan