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

[Dan Lusthaus]

Dear Stephen,

> 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.

I don't have the time now to confirm or disprove the relations between those
texts. It should be a relatively simple, if time-consuming task. So for now,
let's say you are correct, but let's keep an open mind.

> Perhaps they are reliable when they corroborate our theories and
inaccurate
> when they do not ?  After all, we are all human.

If it were only that simple. There are rather famous examples of unreliable
statements in some catalogs, so most of the people I know who make heavy use
of them usually also look for additional confirmation in other sources. The
case of how data concerning India gets recorded, however, can be especially
problematic. It helps to know which sources the catalog compiler relied on
(and sometimes just copied). They are sometimes reliable, sometimes not. As
you noted earlier, this needs to be examined on a case by case basis.

>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.

But this is the sort of evidence that can help build a convincing case. Much
Indian flora was exotic and unknown to the Chinese, who handle translating
it in various ways. There can be giveaway clues here.


> >>  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
:)

Unfortunately, it gets shorter every day. But thanks for the wish.

> 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.

This is intriguing, but without more detail I still don't know what to make
of it.

>
> > 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.

Lots of Buddhas were and are constructed. The Pali Nikaya Buddha has the
virtue of being VERY human, and ceasing when he's done. Subsequent invented
Buddhas lose those qualities (the changes already begin to appear even in
Theravada with the Milinda-Questions).


> >  Sukha,
> > aatman, "suddha, nitya -- those are viparyaasas, not foundations of
> > buddha-hood.
> Now you are just being childish !

Really??!! Which classical list of four viparyaasas are you familiar with.
The tathagatagarbha folks explicitly aimed to be provocative by taking
precisely that list and lionizing it (the first text to do so may have been
the Lion's Roar of Srimala). Most ttg texts recite the four, so that was
badge of the creed. Other Buddhists have convinced me it is better to see
those four as viparyasas than as marks of buddha-hood. In fact, they tell me
that such talk occupies Buddhism-for-babies (bala-buddhism, to coin a term),
those who need to cling to ideas of selfhood, promises they won't really
die, that the goal is eternal bliss -- or was that Christianity?

I am not contesting that ttg thought arises in India (Srimala is an India
text, I have no doubt). I don't think it entailed ideas of buddha-nature as
those came to be understood in East Asia. Remember that while you are
staying focused on the Faxian/Tib version, that version was quickly eclipsed
by the full blown buddha-nature version you yourself display some discomfort
with, and it is that set of ideas, and the spawn of those ideas, that has
ruled East Asian thinking for over 1500 years. It dovetails nicely into what
Matsumoto labeled as dhatu-vada, which -- and I tend to agree -- should not
be considered Buddhism.

> True, but Shimoda specifically addresses and crticizes that approach at
soem
> length.

This is now starting to appear in the new generations; they just don't
always know how best to go about it.

> > 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.

Finally, we reach at least some agreement.

> > 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 ?

Don't we all? But more seriously, if, as the Pali Buddha and Nagarjuna
claimed, views are not just neutral propositions, but beneficial or
pernicious views, then it should be encumbent on us to examine such views
and their consequents carefully. I see buddha-nature rhetoric leading to
social complaisance, mental fogginess, mappo, installing a discriminatory
caste system in Japan (i.e., Hinduism!) under Buddha's name, debilitating
and atrophied ethical sensibilities (cf. Brian Victoria, Matsumoto and
Hakamaya, etc.), and a variety of other ills. That some forms of
contemporary Taiwanese Buddhism have recovered some ethical-social
sensibilities and activities derives largely from Yin Hsun's return to
Indian, non-Mahayanic visions of the Buddha (i.e., a kind of early 20th c
precursor to Hihan Bukkyo). These are not childish concerns, nor matters for
neutered objectivity.

> > 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 ?

If any devas or brahmas go near my book, I'll whack them with it. I have no
objection to scholars reading it, however.

cheers,
Dan Lusthaus