[Buddha-l] Prominent Neobuddhist proposes religion basedblacklisting for government jobs

[Dan Lusthaus]

I've been trying to steer clear of this morass (wasn't Sam Harris the guy 
who won Ed McMahon's Star Search by singing 'Somewhere Over the Rainbow"?), 
and I especially disapprove of ad hominem attacks, most especially when 
directed at me by various coyotes and their pack, but in this case I have to 
come -- somewhat -- to Curt's defense since there is an important qualifying 
factor at play.

The issue it would seem is exactly a matter of Harris' opinion about someone 
else's credentials and qualifications. As they would say in court, "he's 
opened the door..." Like Nagarjuna, one can, to test the viability of an 
opponent's argument, take over the opponent's assumptions -- without 
committing to them -- to see if they work. In this case, applying Harris' 
own critieria to Harris himself is a defensible move. More importantly, it 
is an effective undermining of *Harris's* authority and right to insist on 
his own ability to make a valid judgement that should be then accepted by 
others as having import beyond his own interior thoughts.

Now, Nagarjuna might in turn ask whether Curt has the authority by this 
means to pass judgement on Harris, and so the infinite regress begins.

Main point: Credentials of a claimant are indeed germane when the issue at 
hand is credentials. Let's call this one of the exceptions to the "ad 
hominem exclusion" rule. One establishes a witness's ability to offer 
"expert testimony" largely by an acknowledgement of that person's 
credentials (the testimony itself subject to undermining under 
cross-examination). Expert testimony is a special class of testimony --  
experts alone are legally permitted to express "opinions" on certain matters 
considered under their expertise.

Veracity of experts (apta-pramana, aka sabda-pramana) was accepted by Hindu 
and Buddhist alike, until Dignaga, following the Vaisesika, abandoned it in 
favor of pratyaksa and anumana alone. Dharmakirti takes this limitation even 
more seriously than did Dignaga. Yet, I am unaware of any instance in which 
this epistemological parsimony resulted in his challenging and subsequently 
rejecting well-established Buddhavacana -- so a tacit apta-pramana remains 
in force. That tacit remainder is the side of Dharmakirti that Richard finds 
less enthralling.

So, Curt, you seem to remind Richard of Dharmakirti -- high praise from a 
Dharmakirti-scholar.

Dan