[Buddha-l] Are we sick of dogma yet? (1st of 2)

[Richard Hayes]

On Wed, 2006-11-22 at 20:19 -0500, Dan Lusthaus wrote:

> Priestley's treatment was the beginning of a
> corrective, but, since actual Pudgalavadin literature only survives in
> Chinese translation, the resources on which he could draw was limited.

As I undertand it, Priestley drew on all the extant Chinese texts of the
various pudgalavaadin schools, as well as on recent secondary
literature. He worked on this material for decades and is one of the
most careful readers of Sanskrit, Tibetan and Chinese texts I know. He
builds carefully on the excellent work of Thich Thien Chau.

Richard