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

[Richard Hayes]

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

> I prefer to talk about the texts themselves, and consider accurate
> interpretation tantamount. 

In this we are in complete agreement. Indeed, I know of hardly any
contemporary scholars of Buddhist texts to which this is not true. We
ALL read texts with great care, and we are all aware of the difficulty
involved in interpreting them. Only an overconfident fool would consider
any interpretation "accurate" in any but a highly provisional sense of
the word. 

> My understanding of the Pudgalavadins is strongly
> dependent on, and thus in agreement with Thich's.

As is mine, except I call him by his name, Thien Chau. I also draw
heavily on Priestley's work, since builds on the work of others. Both
Thien Chau and Priestley published in 1999, a red letter year for
personalist Buddhist studies.

> So you'd rather invent your own fiction, call it "pudgalavadin," and leave
> it at that? 

Not in the least.

> When Xuanzang visited India he tabulated how many monks lived in the various
> monasteries, and what their affiliations were. As Lamotte already noted,
> when you tabulate his results, there were more Sammitiyas at that time than
> all the rest of Buddhist denominations -- Hinayana and Mahayana -- together!

Yes, we have all known that since Lamotte's Histoire was published in
1967, and I assume that all of us who Buddhism draw ample attention to
that fact.

> They were not a deviant minority, but the majority, the mainstream. 

Not surprising, given that they had a sensible doctrine that carefully
avoided reductionism.

> No
> wonder Vasubandhu and others had such a deep anxiety to refute them by any
> means.

Not be either a psychiatrist or a psychic, I have no idea how anxious
Vasubandhu was. Somehow I doubt that he was quite as driven by a
neurotic urge to defend the orthodoxy as you portray him in your attempt
to offer a cute caricature.

>  Our version of Buddhist "history" still hardly reflects that
> historical reality, 

What do you mean by "our," white man?

> So unless Richard prefers to populate his world with imaginary pudgalavadins
> and Lusthauses, while accusing others of projecting their own fantasies on
> the world, I would strongly suggest he read Thich's book, and report back to
> us whether it gives him a sense of Siderits deja vu.

Well, I have read Thien Chau's book, and I believe that Siderits gives
quite a good philosophical account of how Pudgalavadins differed from
Vasubandhu. And I think Duerlinger shows very well the inadequacies of
Vasubandhu's attempts to refute the Pudgalavadin view. Between
Duerlinger and Siderits we have an excellent philosophical account of
Thien Chau's philological work on the personalists. If we take Thien
Chau, Priestley, Duerlinger and Siderits all into account, I think we
have a rather complete account of interesting school of Buddhism. And,
as I said before, I think the Pudgalavaadin school that emerges in these
accounts is not only of historical interest but also of philosophical
interest. Indeed, I think this pudgalavaada is of far more philosophical
interest than Vasubandhu's various forms of Buddhism, each one of which
was built on a shaky edifice of questionable argumentation.

Richard Hayes