[Buddha-l] Are we sick of dogma yet? (2nd of 2)

[Franz Metcalf]

Gang,

Okay, I found a few minutes to chime in again on this fascinating topic.

The historical analysis of what venerable schools of Buddhism taught 
(and did not teach) is quite beyond me. So, I'll just, for the sake of 
argument, suppose that what Dan Lusthaus asserts about the Pudgalavadin 
position is more or less accurate. I think this assertion is 
*profoundly* important and--once one gets over the shock of 
it--powerfully explanatory of contemporary Western Buddhist practice.

Dan writes,

(1)

> You would be surprised to learn that the pudgalavadins would agree 
> with you,
> except that the prajnapti "pudgala" serves a soteriological function, 
> and
> thus, even though a fiction, serves a necessary purpose, and thus, it
> "exists" as fiction, like Sherlock Holmes or Amida Buddha.

and again,

(2)

> the "missionaries" who transplanted what we
> think of as Buddhism today in places like China and Tibet, were the
> minorities, the "Mormons" of Indian Buddhism. That is not merely of 
> museum
> interest, but goes to the heart of how we think about what Buddhism is.

(1) Reminds me inescapably of Western Buddhist use of the heuristic use 
of the "self." Perhaps the most famous utterance in the dialogue 
between Buddhism and psychology is Jack Engler's dictum, "you have to 
be somebody before you can be nobody." What a perfect analogue of a 
necessary fiction of the pudgala--and it's soteriological too!

(2) Makes me wonder if--rather than seeing the new forms of Western 
practice as heterodox--we can see mainstream Asian schools of Buddhism 
as heterodox. Perhaps our psychologically-oriented Western Buddhist 
practice is a return to venerable tradition that was the majority 
practice in India. This does indeed, as Dan writes, go to "the heart of 
how we think about what Buddhism is."

Whatever you think about Buddhism, many good wishes to all for a 
gracious Thanksgiving or at least a lovely Thursday meal.

Franz Metcalf