There is no "I" in "You"

[The Grand Nudger]

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?

I'm not sure what you're referring to when you talk about a syncretists agenda.  I simply identified his positions as syncretism.  Syncretism is when one belief-set or tradition is combined with another belief-set or tradition (just in case you thought I meant something else, or something more by this).  Priest argues for this -explicitly- in his defense of particular buddhist traditions or beliefs from within the framework of western philosophy.  He makes this clear in proposing that we incorporate buddhist (and other assorted eastern) philosophy into western philosophy, and vv.  He states that these traditions have alot to teach each other.   From those articles, and I've since read interview transcripts, he seems to be very open and vocal syncretist.  The two things you mentiond are great examples of this. He advocates for, defends, both of these things by rephrasing or re-stating them to satisfy the conditions of western philosophy.

I don't have any problem or issue or bone to pick with syncretism - a good idea is a good idea, lol.

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?

I think that we'd need a sliding ruler to declare that either tradition is more or less skeptical than the other.

 Perhaps one sub-branch seems to be more skeptical to you, because the tradition does not accept or believe in the things you consider to be in conflict with skepticism...the things you are familiar with from the tradition in which you were born or are most familiar?  OFC, that they don't accept or believe in the weird ass shit you're familiar with is probably to do with deep cultural, temporal, and foundational differences...and not skepticism. They still accept or believe in the weird ass shit -they're- familiar with....and we'll probably be able to find a western counterpart, sub-branch, that also rejects those things.

Personally, I don't think that skepticism can be judged by a relative count of who believes in what weird ass thing...or how many weird ass things....but -why- they believe in whatever it is they do...and how they support those beliefs....whatever they are.

(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.)

They didn't make it out of the BCE in the west either.  Most of the refutations of theist arguments you'll see on this site actually predate christianity...and were formed in response to various branches of classical greek philosophy and pre-christian paganism.   

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. 

-that all sounds very skeptical, doesn't it...and then...Karma, Anatta (no, not the syncretism), etc.  

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

Science -arose- of out western philosophy, so that's a pretty high bar. Are you sure you're not counting the hits (and maybe even syncretising the hits)...and ignoring the misses?