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

[Dan Lusthaus]

> > 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.

Good point, Richard. My statement, as is, was misleading. The miswording of
an email missive, perhaps. I meant that there are few actual Pudgalavadin
sources on which any of us can draw, not just Priestley.

On the other hand, Priestley gives short shrift to some of the relevant
Chinese sources, and even to portions of the texts he does consider. For
instance: Jizang's description of the Pudgalavadins is hardly mentioned
(aside from stating it is the only source describing the Pudgalavadin's
nine-fold Abdhidharma canon, which he does not discuss further); he
dismisses the Lü ershi'er mingliao lun as irrelevant, since he deems it, on
the basis of its title, to be concerned with vinaya (although many sources
tell us that vinaya was, from early on, one of Pudgalavadin's main
concerns); and of the texts he does look at, he limits his treatment only to
what he considers portions directly engaged in discussing pudgala theory -- 
which is problematic since how and why they discuss pudgala, and how they
apply it is clarified and contextualized in the remaining portions that he
ignores. They set up the theory in order to do that other work, so one
misses its import when that material is not taken into account.

While he does bring some additional material and insights into the
discussion, and writes in a much more accessible style, I still think
Thich's treatment is more thorough and informative. The two books work well
together. Because Priestley is more accessible and more straightforward in
its expository style, a reader unfamiliar with Pudgalavada might do better
to read him first for some basic orientation, and then wade into Thich for
additional details and a fuller survey of the Pudgalavada texts.

Dan Lusthaus