[Buddha-l] Re: New trans. of petry of the Sixth DL

[Richard P. Hayes]

On Fri, 2005-06-24 at 10:28 -0400, curt wrote:

> I wouldn't dream of accusing Paul Williams of intentionally
> participating in that kind of theological propaganda, but I
> wonder if he happens to mention anywhere in this book
> that he is now an ex-Buddhist

I cannot imagine any piece of information that would be less important
than the author's former or current affiliations. Anyone interested in
knowing why Paul Williams returned to his childhood religion can find it
explained in eloquent detail in various writings he has produced. He has
hidden nothing from us, so I see no reason to mention in everything he
writes was his personal convictions are. No matter what his current
religion, he has produced some of the best studies ever done of Mahayana
Buddhist thought and Tibetan Buddhism. His intelligence verges on sheer
genius, and his command of the languages of India and Tibet is of the
highest level. The only solid criticism I have seen of his work on
Mahayana is that his command of East Asian forms of Buddhism is
derivative of the works of scholars who work with the primary sources.
But it is true of everyone who writes about more than one or two schools
of Buddhism that they have to rely on the works of others to fill out
the whole picture.

> I say this having read Williams excellent book "Buddhist
> Thought", which was published in the midst of his recent
> conversion away from Buddhism. The tone of that book
> is extremely problematic in places and he makes very strange
> choices of words - like insisting on calling the Buddha and
> by extension all Indian ascetics "dropouts". 

What other word would you use for people who abandon their biological
families and leave behind all earthly ties? People who renounce the
world do drop out of mainstream society. What is wrong, then, with
designating them with a term that accurately describes what they
advocated doing and did?


> He also goes out of his way to use Hume-esque language to describe
> the Buddhist critique of the Self.

Anyone who wishes to make Buddhism accessible to an educated Western
audience is well advised to show similarities between Buddhist ideas and
ideas put forth by various Western thinkers. People have been explaining
Gotama Buddha in the language of David Hume for decades. More recently
Derek Parfit has become a more fashionable object of comparison. To
refer to these folks is not "going out of one's way" to make perverse
comparison, but rather are trying to make what might seem foreign much
more accessible to Western readers.

> When reading a book about the drunken sexual daliances of
> a historically important figure in Buddhism, I think it is
> only fair to ask what the point is supposed to be.

That human beings are, after all, human beings? That nobody has a
monopoly on virtue? That many Western Buddhists are hopelessly naive
about Buddhism and imagine that Asian Buddhists somehow managed to avoid
debauchery, scandals, pettiness, political intrigues, hypocrisy and
akrasia?

> This is even more true when one reads that Williams is
> publicly saying that the current military occupation of Tibet
> by China is, at least in part, a result of the behavior of the
> sixth Dalai Lama.

All one has to do is read a little bit of what the Chinese routinely say
about Tibetan history to know that he is right. The Chinese do not have
to look very far to find some splendid examples of Tibetan leaders
exercising brutality against the Tibetan people. You can bet that if the
traditional Tibetan government were still in place (and if Tibet had
oil), a lot of Americans, including several in the White House, would be
screaming for regime change and establishing democracy in this benighted
part of the world. Any balanced recounting of Tibetan history will show
that the Tibetans were not much different from the other people in
Central Asia. Actually, it's quite a fascinating history. I recommend
starting with the work of Gavin Hambly, who edited a wonderful
collection of pieces on the history of Tibet, Mongolia, Uzbekistan and
all manner of peoples who at one time were part of the Soviet Union and
now have formed some of the most bloody and repressive regimes on the
face of the earth (some of whom the USA have made into trusted allies in
the farce they call The War on Terror).

On the grounds that Paul Williams is an excellent scholar, a very fine
human being, a deep thinker, and a man who is independent enough in his
thinking not to spew anyone's party line (whether the Dalai Lama's or
the Pope's), I recommend his work without any reservations at all. (Of
course, you should bear in mind that I am allegedly a former Communist,
a one-time Quaker, a quasi-Unitarian, a dharmachari in the notorious
Western Buddhist Order, a mere philosopher, and the husband of a yogini
who admires both Swami Vivekananda and a Jesuit Zen teacher, and
therefore I have no credibility whatsoever in Buddhist circles.)

-- 
Richard Hayes
http://www.unm.edu/~rhayes