[Buddha-l] Prapanca

[Richard Hayes]

> Of course,
> Richard will say something like so many posts on prapanca must be
> obsession, he doesn't care what the primary texts themselves say or mean --
> and that's exactly why he still doesn't understand the term (or Nagarjuna,
> or how Buddhists actually used the term).

It's quite impressive how well you think you know me, considering that we have 
never met face to face. In this case, you have almost correctly anticipated 
my response to your lengthy posts, neither of which I have time to read in 
full. No doubt the readers of buddha-l will benefit form your erudite typing 
skills.

You didn't quite capture my attitude to what the primary texts say. Actually, 
I do care what Buddhist texts say. I know the classical Indian literature 
pretty well. The ancient texts reveal a great deal about how the term was 
used two thousand years ago. But I think I made it clear at the outset of 
this discussion that my current curiosity is not what the text SAY, but what 
people now think those texts MEAN. I am interested in how the term is used 
today; I have noticed it is thrown around quite a bit and was curious about 
how people are using it nowadays. Buddhism is full of terms that undergo 
rather dramatic changes in meaning as they cross cultural boundaries.

> Or he'll duck the whole thing 
> with a dismissive characterization of yours truly (that he will deny has
> any relation to an ad hominem).

You're quite right. I have never used an ad hominem argument against anyone on 
buddha-l. I am content to leave such unseemly behavior to continental 
philosophers and Republicans.

-- 
Richard P. Hayes
Department of Philosophy
University of New Mexico
http://www.unm.edu/~rhayes