[Buddha-l] Re: Anomalous doctrines

[Richard P. Hayes]

On Wed, 2005-03-23 at 20:39 +0000, Stephen Hodge wrote:

> > The size limit for messages is normally 10,000 characters. Your message
> > was 25% over that. [snip]
> Yes, thanks for posting it -- I thought there might be some byte limit so I 
> was tempted to split the msg into two parts.  I shall try to restrain myself 
> next time.

Well, the size limitation can easily be changed. I set it at 10K,
because no message longer than that was in the buddha-l archives in
Louisville. Sometimes people squeak up when too many long messages come
in. The gurus who give list administrators advice suggest that a limit
of 10-12K is a good idea as a way of cutting down the likelihood of
viruses being hidden in messages. For all these reasons, I have set a
size limit. The only thing that happens when a message is over that
limit is that it is held for approval, even when it is sent by a poster
who is authorized to submit messages directly without going through a
moderator. (You are such a poster, Stephen. If you write messages less
than 10K, they'll appear much more quickly.)

As I said, I could raise the size limit, or do away with it altogether,
but I'd like to hear from subscribers what they would think of such a
move.

> But not everybody is as knowledgable as yourself.

No need for sarcasm, Stephen. No one has ever accused me of being
knowledgeable. I'm not and never have been a gatherer of information,
and I don't regard myself as a scholar at all. I dabble--and am not even
very good at that, I'm afraid.

> > For as long as there have been canons Buddhists have had a choice
> > between two views of nirvana. Which one chooses is a matter of
> > personal choice.

> Yes, but I'm interested in the historical significance of that -- maybe not 
> your cup of tea, but I find it a topic not devoid of scholarly significance.

My cup of tea is coffee. I'm not sure I believe that anything has
intrinsic historical significance. Or, to put it another way, I don't
know what the phrase "historical significance" means. I think things in
history may have some philosophical significance, and I think that
people often create and support their values by telling stories about
the past. Usually this stories are based on scanty evidence and a huge
amount of speculation. What I see as a potential danger, therefore, is
the temptation to take all these stories about the past too seriously.
(To give just one example, I have noted a tendency for some people in
the FWBO take put a huge amount of emphasis on Reginald Ray's
speculations about a three-fold sangha, because Ray's speculations can
be used to legitimate certain FWBO doctrines and institutions. I am wary
of bolstering current practices, even ones that I evaluate as good ones,
with questionable historiography. But I guess bogus history is what most
religious dogma and practice is based upon, which may explain why most
orgnanized religion makes me a bit queasy.)

In the arena of tathaagata-garbha doctrines, I think there may be all
kinds of psychological and philosophical reasons that some people have
for adopting from such views; I think TG-based Buddhism works for some
people. Indeed, I have known people who probably would not practice
Buddhism at all if it weren't for that family of doctrines. That in
itself is enough for me to regard TG as having a kind of legitimacy,
although I myself find nothing at all appealing in the doctrine and
would surely not be interested in Buddhism if it had nothing but TG-
style doctrines to offer. Like Dan Lusthaus, I'm drawn to the
Nagarjunas, Dharmakiirtis and Candrakiirtis who repudiated such
doctrines. De gustibus non disputandum est.  


-- 
Richard Hayes
Department of Philosophy
University of New Mexico