[Buddha-l] Fsat Mnifdlunses?

[andy]

On Thursday 13 August 2009 15:51:02 Dan Lusthaus wrote:
>>el coyote:
> > Given how difficult it is to get a handle on most Indian Buddhists, I
> > see no alternative to being quite tolerant of those who arrive at
> > different interpretations than one's own.
>
> That's very generous, magnanimous even. One should be initially open-minded
> and entertain alternative interpretations, esp. if they are challenging and
> ruffle feathers and disturb complacency; but, after due consideration, when
> it is determined that someone is simply wrong, it is important to point
> that out. When a mistake has become embedded in the discourse so deeply
> that it seems almost impossible to extirpate, all the more reason to roll
> up one's sleeves and try to set the record straight. Otherwise we all
> become mere dawdlers.

Well, that's what I thought I was doing.  Fortunately, Dan and I now agree. 
>
> Yogacara was not idealism in the sense most people repeatedly claim. That
> is simply a fact. That they have been accused of being idealists for at
> least 1500 years by opponents who wanted to make them look ridiculous is
> also a fact (and hence labeling such assaults "malicious" is just). That
> Yogacaras denied those charges with refutations is also a fact. That,
> occasionally, some became mischievious, and, thinking there might be some
> upayic value in shocking some opponents, they played with epistemological
> riddles that can sound very idealist, that's also a fact. But insisting
> that they held idealist ontological commitments is to completely
> misconstrue their project.
>
Now this is what I still don't get.  Why would being accused of being an 
idealist be a bad thing?  How could it possibly make one look ridiculous?   
And I have no idea what "idealist ontological commitments"  could be, unless 
it is the aforementioned wet-dreams.  Idealists don't make ontological 
commitments, they are "idealists"!  Perhaps we are confusing them with 
"mentalists"  of the "it's all in your head" variety. 

> When someone (e.g., Pereira, Eliade) argues that Buddha -- in the Pali
> texts -- is really arguing FOR an atmanic self, generosity can go just so
> far. Pointing out that they are wrong, and showing why, is a duty, unless
> one enjoys wading in unnecessary muck.
>
> Dan
>
Yes, I completely agree on this point!   Amazing how often reification can 
rear its ugly head in such a satisfying idealist system like Buddhism.   
Almost makes me think the Buddha was not clear enough in his teaching!  Maybe 
just not answering a few questions from an angry young man was not enough.   
True selves or ultimate reality, or even just unmediated apprehension seem to 
constantly pop up, in spite of the clear teaching that there are no such 
things.   But Richard is right.   It is more important to be helpful than 
right, and so somethings it is right to be wrong, or at least that is how I 
read "upaya".   

Cheers!  (and Metta!)
Andy
-- 
Ari Fleisher said people should watch what they say.  Obama says people should 
be careful who they listen to.  See the difference?