Guess I'm here again. Mainly to apologize for my tone in my previous post. I'm not doing very well.

I agree there are many forms of skepticism. If interested  here's some of mine.

Your examples of flat earth theory and the Flying Speghetti Monster fall into the latter category of "magic" I was referring to earlier, among other things.

I agree about the nature of appropriation with some of these concepts. Unfortunately, it appears unavoidable, and to some degree, necessary. For people to receive, accept, and understand ideas and content that is foreign to their thought paradigms and culture, they often need to put things into terms they can better understand. Not to mention that the nature of translation seems to be largely a paraphrasing of what is being translated.

Can you explain why you feel that seeing Buddha as a skeptic is a misinterpretation? I tend to see Buddha very much as a skeptic that explained things through their appearance to them and that undercurrent of skepticism actually aids in non-attachment (though, this is not the only way in which i view him). And isn't everything subject to interpretation? Considering the farther back in time we go the less we can verify with less and less veracity and considering the nature of changes of linguistics and culture over time. I feel that interpretation is inherent to these matters and is evidently so by virtue of different sects of a given religion. Different sects interpret different things differently.

And thank you. I appreciate the insight in my contributions.

I understand you more now. Thank you for taking the time.

One love