Perhaps because he sensed that reincarnation and rebirth (in the Buddhist sense) are not quite the same. Or he had the impression that Buddhism was annihilationist, which is a common misconception (understandably). Or a number of other possibilities. Including stuff simply getting lost in translation.
Either way. Among the most difficult teachings to get a working understanding of.
Your diagram reminds me of Halton Arp's book "Seeing Red" about the redshift debate wherein a different interpretation of the evidence leads to a different conclusion - and thus challenges the official dogma. This in turn, leads to Equipollence between an orthodox perspective and an unorthodox perspective, which may then arrive at Aporia, but not necessarily Epoche, because the three words that we are unlikely to hear the orthodox dogmatist admit are "I don't know".
I would point out that the Buddhist concept is also very closely related, if not identical, with the causal model of rebirth/samsara.
https://bswa.org/bswp/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Ajahn-Brahmali-Dependent-Origination.pdf
It is often, however, rebranded as "interdependence" by the West, which isn't quite accurate.
As for anatta being difficult to grasp (through teaching)... I believe it is quite beautifully (and somewhat humorously) elucidated in the Khemaka Sutta (SN 22.89) https://suttacentral.net/sn22.89/en/sujato?lang=en&layout=plain&reference=none¬es=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin.
The idea of reincarnation existed in Greek philosophy before Pyrrho. It's interesting that Pyrrho did not adopt this Buddhist idea.
Perhaps because he sensed that reincarnation and rebirth (in the Buddhist sense) are not quite the same. Or he had the impression that Buddhism was annihilationist, which is a common misconception (understandably). Or a number of other possibilities. Including stuff simply getting lost in translation.
Either way. Among the most difficult teachings to get a working understanding of.
My hypothesis is that Pyrrho borrowed only the ideas from Buddhism that fit with Greek rationalism.
Very interesting and well written.
Thank you.
Your diagram reminds me of Halton Arp's book "Seeing Red" about the redshift debate wherein a different interpretation of the evidence leads to a different conclusion - and thus challenges the official dogma. This in turn, leads to Equipollence between an orthodox perspective and an unorthodox perspective, which may then arrive at Aporia, but not necessarily Epoche, because the three words that we are unlikely to hear the orthodox dogmatist admit are "I don't know".
thank you for this. This is really clear and I appreciate it a lot :)