[Buddha-l] MPNS & Buddha-nature (Lusthaus)

[Stephen Hodge]

Dear Dan,

I note that you conveniently gloss over some of the points I made contra 
your position in my last post.  But no matter --let's look at what you did 
respond to.

> So you are going to make me actually pull some books off the shelf (in 
> lieu
> of my notes which are not at hand). Nakamura's _Indian Buddhism_ p. 214:
Why not ?  I've done the same for you :)

> The Tang-lai-pien-ching, the Fa-mieh-chin-ching, the Nandimitraavadaana
> Ta-e-lo-han-nan-t'i-mi-lo-so-shuo-fa-chu-chi, translated by Hsuan-tsang 
> are
> excerpts from the Mahaaparinirvaa.na-suutra of Mahaayaana.
> Nakamura cites Matsumoto Bunzaburou, Koubundou, 1927source for this. I
> mentioned two of the three.
Very sorry, but I am 99.9% certain they are wrong.  Some these texts share 
similar concerns to the MPNS concerning the survival of the Dharma, but so 
do a lot of other texts.  They contain nothing specific to the doctrinal 
concerns of the MPNS.

>> Ok, if you find Chinese catalogues very reliable
> As I said, sometimes not. They are often useful for dating translations 
> and
> some contemporary background related to translations and translators. But
> not always.
Perhaps they are reliable when they corroborate our theories and inaccurate 
when they do not ?  After all, we are all human.

> As for recycling stories about India, they are useful for
> getting some account of what was thought/believed in China, not for
> historical accuracy.
Again one must use common sense.  Pls read the references I gave you for the 
accounts of where the texts were obtained.  You might disagree but I can't 
see why one should doubt them.

> These sorts of questions will require all of us to peruse and test the
> evidence you present.
Indeed, I would expect no less.

> Not necessarily. But one should not necessarily accept the claim
> uncritically either. The colophon of the Dasheng Qixinlun tells us that it
> was written by A"svagho.sa and translated by Paramaartha. Neither of those
> claims is true.
Yes, but we are not talking about colophons.  The balance of the internal 
evidence suggests that the core MPNS was compiled somewhere in the Indian 
subcontinent.  One such kind of evidence is flora and fauna -- the compilers 
had a detailed knowledge of certain Indian flora and fauna.  Of course, this 
does not prove anything by itself but it is cumulative.

>>  Be paitient and wait for my eventual book :)
> With bated breath.
Not too sure when it will see the light of day, so I wish you a long life :) 
[My Mahavairocana took over twenty years to get completed and published]

> Mahasanghika is almost as vague a catch-all designation as Sarvastivada. 
> So
> I remain unclear.
Mahasanghika as in people who used the Mahasanghika Vinaya -- the MPNS makes 
specific allusions to Vinaya matters which are only found in the 
Mahasanghika Vinaya.

> Again, Nakamura, op. cit., p. 213 n.22, states (in relation to MPNS): "The
> Sanskrit original of 'Buddhahood' is in many cases 'buddha-dhaatu' or
> 'sa.mbuddha-gotra' " and cites Mizutani, IBK [Indogaku Bukkyogaku
> Kenkyu], vol.4, no.2, pp. 550f for this.
I'll have a look for this, but I know that it does not occur on the core 
MPNS.

> The Buddha of the Pali Nikayas seems agreeable to subjecting his claims to
> that criterion (along with personal experience).
Perhaps the Buddha of the Nikayas is not the only Buddha that was 
constructed in the centuries after his death.

> Still I prefer my Buddhism clean of oozing irrationalities.
> The Pali Tipitaka, Mahaavibhaa.sa, Nagarjuna, Candrakirti, Dignaga,
> Asanga, Vasubandhu, Sthiramati, Xuanzang,
> Linji, Dogen, and a host of others satisfy this preference. Tut-tut-grubba
> doesn't. All the pernicious d.r.s.tis the aforementioned are trying to 
> help
> us extirpate return with a vengence, smuggled in with the tut-tuts. Sukha,
> aatman, "suddha, nitya -- those are viparyaasas, not foundations of
> buddha-hood.
Now you are just being childish !   If you consider youself to be a serious 
and rational scholar, I suggest you at least examine the evidence given in 
the reading list I gave previously to Robert Morrison when you have time --  
I think any balanced appraisal of the hypotheses and findings made in those 
works, that most of the key ideas of the MPNS which you so ridicule above 
were present in Buddhism at least since pre-canonical times, i.e. that there 
were two contrasting streams of Buddhist doctrines as far back as we can 
ascertain.  Which represents the personal views of Gautama is anybody's 
guess.  We all seem to create a Buddha that is congenial to our prejudices.

> One problem with much Japanese scholarship is that they view Chinese
> Buddhism through Japanese prisms rather than approaching things from the
> Indian side.
True, but Shimoda specifically addresses and crticizes that approach at soem 
length.

> Similarly much contemporary understanding of Indian Buddhism is
> flavored with Tibetan spices and overlays.
I am very much in agreement with you on this point at least.

> Because some Buddhists jumped off the bridge of reason doesn't
> mean any of us have to follow.
Is there not a danger that you are making a Buddhism in your own image ?
You are taking all this very personally -- I am not asking you to adopt TG 
doctrines or abandon reason but merely suggesting that you look at the 
evidence a little more dispassionately as a scholar, though I have not seen 
a great deal of objectivity in many of your comments.  What would you think 
of somebody posing as a scholar who made similar comments, as well they 
might, about Yogacara ?  From what I read of your work, you would get rather 
exasperated.

> Since it seems Nakamura shares my delusions, I guess we both
> disappoint you.
Nakamura is sadly long dead and gone but, as we all make mistakes sometimes, 
it is not surprsing to find the occasional mistake in his vast collection of 
writings.  On the other hand, you (I assume) are still very much alive so 
you have the opportunity to re-examine the evidence objectively.  I have 
provided you with some pointers, so the rest is down to you.

> All the host of bodhisattvas, mahasattvas, devas,
>  brahmadevas, and scholars eagerly await your book which shall certainly
> dispell our delusions and raise the thought of enlightenment in us.
You are being silly again !   Perhaps that what you secretly hoped for with 
your book on Yogacara ?

Anyway, I suggest that we wind down this discussion as it has ceased to be 
fruitful.  As  I have said above, I have given you (and others) some 
pointers, so it is up to you what you do now.  But I fear that "one man can 
lead a horse to water but ten men cannot make it drink", as we say over 
here.

Best wishes,
Stephen Hodge