There is no "I" in "You"

[Gemini]

@Gem

I won't blow smoke up your ass by telling you I was familiar with Priest beforehand, lol, but even the most cursory glance at his wiki entry (and particularly the referenced articles he's authored and reviews of his work) firmly establish his credentials as a syncretist.

Not that this should be taken, in any way, as a refutation of the value you find in those works.  It's just a descriptor.  More skeptical than what, though, and by reference to what standard?

I'm actually astonished to find that you are so convinced Priest has some kind of syncretist agenda. The works I've read tend to focus exclusively on philosophical issues pertaining to logical paradoxes and dialetheism. Which referenced articles give you that impression?

As to eastern philosophical traditions being more skeptical, I would say they are generally more skeptical of metaphysics than western traditions. An example being platonism. You find some flirtation with platonism early on (Nyaya tradition, for example), but after Nagarjuna that was pretty much dead.

Another example would be substance theory. It may seem innocuous to say that the fundamental architecture of reality is something like relativistic fields, who existence is a brute fact with no explanation, but suppose you live in the nineteenth century, or tenth century. Why not conclude that reality bottoms out at matter and energy, or the four classical elements, and declare your quest for understanding the physical universe victorious?

(By the way, the point of this isn't to suggest anything like theism. I don't think first cause and teleological arguments even made it out of B.C.E. in the east.)

By contrast, eastern philosophers tended to conclude that the answers to questions like that were beyond the scope of conjecture. The conceptual framework we operate within is inadequate to describe regimes outside the world of empirical experience, which necessitates both empirical investigation and an expansion of our naive conceptual frameworks. 

I think this comports with the history of science better than western metaphysics.

---

Mere semantic sophistry.

You refuse to answer..for obvious enough reasons.

Moving on. I await other's answers.

G'day.

Here's my answer. As someone who has more than a passing familiarity with the subject matter.

For a Buddhist, you really are terrible at phenomenology. Perhaps you should meditate more.