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

[Dan Lusthaus]

> As is mine, except I call him by his name, Thien Chau.

Thích is a respectful title for a Buddhist. When you refer to HHDL do you
also replace that with his name? If we were discussing a range of Vietnamese
Bhikshus we would have to differentiate by personal names. It's easier and
faster to type than either Thien Chau or Bhikshu.

>Both
> Thien Chau and Priestley published in 1999, a red letter year for
> personalist Buddhist studies.

Indeed. We should plan some way to celebrate the ten year anniversary coming
up in a few years.

> > They were not a deviant minority, but the majority, the mainstream.
>
> Not surprising, given that they had a sensible doctrine that carefully
> avoided reductionism.

Ha ha.

> > 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.

This is neither rocket science nor freudian over-interpretation. Consider
the following:

1. One of the canonical works of the Sarvastivada Abhidharma, the
Vijnana-kaya by Deva"sarman written ca. 2nd c., was a direct response to the
challenge of Pudgalavada, ostensibly a no longer extant treatise by an Arhat
Gopa.

2. The Sarvastivadins were displaced in numerous places (such as Sarnath,
see earlier message) by the Vatsiputriyas and/or Sammitiyas.

3. Vasubandhu devotes an entire chapter, ch. 9, of his Kosa to refuting
them, which is a unique feature of that text. Its style also differs from
the rest of the Kosa. One doesn't do that for minor annoyances.

4. Vasubandhu was doctrinally restless. The Kosa karikas were largely
orthodox Sarvastivada. Its bhasya becomes critical of some Vaibhasika
doctrines, embracing Sautrantika and Yogacara positions in various places.
His "intermediate" texts -- Karmasiddhiprakarana, Pancaskandhaprakarana,
etc., are somewhere in between his earlier Vaibhasika-Sautrantika positions
on the way to full blown Yogacara. We have, in short, few comparable
examples in Buddhist literature of an important author charting his
doctrinal journey through various schools in his own writings (though the
legendary literature suggests it was often commonplace).

5. His characterization of their position is a distortion, emphasizing
undesirable tenets that, on the evidence of their own texts, they not only
did not hold, but centuries earlier had taken great pains to deny.

> >  Our version of Buddhist "history" still hardly reflects that
> > historical reality,
>
> What do you mean by "our," white man?

What we find in the typical "history" of Buddhism books. Pudgalavadins are
usually barely an afterthought. Maybe that will change now -- but outside
this discussion on buddha-l, it has not penetrated the academy yet.

> 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.

By privileging the Kosa's account, one of the least reliable and most
distorted presentations of Vatsiputriya and Sammitiya thought, even if done
critically, one is not basing one's speculations on the best available
foundation.

> I think the Pudgalavaadin school that emerges in these
> accounts is not only of historical interest but also of philosophical
> interest.

Here we are in strong agreement.

>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.

While I wouldn't dismiss Vasubandhu so easily (one might compare him in some
sense to Plato, who was not a great logician but inspired one of the
greatest logicians, Aristotle, as well as setting the course for much of
what has subsequently been pursued by Western philosophy; Vasubandhu also
contributed significantly to the development of Buddhist logic, carried out
by Dignaga and Dharmakirti, et al., as well as setting the course for much
subsequent Buddhist thinking), I agree that the Pudgalavadins were
incredibly interesting and intelligent in their formulations and thinking.
Otherwise, how could they have thrived for so long, with such popularity,
under the unrelenting assault of some of the best minds and rhetoricians
Buddhism had to offer? It is a shame that more of their literature has not
come to light so far.

Dan Lusthaus