[Buddha-l] Dogmatic opinions vs. philosophical convictions

[Dan Lusthaus]

Richard writes:

> Don't forget the maxim śāstrād rūḍhir balīyasī, which can mean,
> among other things, that conventional usage prevails over derivation.
> Usage confirms that this distinction is made by many thinkers. What I
> am asking is how widespread the distinction was and when it was first
> made.

Since this distinction is not a rūḍha I recognize from any of the material
I've studied, so I feel comfortable saying that prior to and including
Santaraksita and Kamalasila, this was not how the terms were employed in
Buddhist texts. As I suggested, in Nagarjuna and Candrakirti drsti included
philosophical views, and even especially philosophical views.

> That not withstanding, there are Mādhyamikas who would claim that
> Nāgārjuna most definitely did have a darśana,

Whom do you have in mind? If we can identify them, then we might begin to
etch out a chronology.

> > There were periodic debates, esp. once Nagarjuna entered the picture,
> > concerning whether there was any such thing as an actual "right
> > view" --
> > whether all views were misleading, moha, etc. (one understanding of
> > Madhyamaka, consistent with MMK and Candrakirti); or whether Buddhism
> > required the acceptance of some "right" view. Yogacara tended to make
> > arguments for the latter position, as did most other Buddhist schools,
> > although what each identified as acceptable "right views" invariably
> > differed between schools.
>
> Yes, that is exactly one of the issues being contested by the
> followers of Candrakīrti and followers of Bhāvaviveka. I am trying to
> sort out their interpretations. Hence my request for information about
> the distinction between dṛṣṭi and darśana.

The debates about whether there is a "right" view as opposed to all views
being somehow false, were in swing long before the followers of Bhavaviveka
and Candrakirti went at it -- one finds, e.g., Buddhaghosa already
addressing precisely this in the Visuddhimagga (he argues there IS a right
view, which is NOT merely the absence of wrong views).

Vose focuses on 10th-11th c Tibetan developments that were drawn from
Bengali and esp. Kashmiri circles. He shows somewhat convincingly that the
effort to explicitly harmonize Dharmakirti and Madhyamaka was undertaken by
competing Tibetan groups, based somewhat on forced misreadings of Indic
materials. Are the Madhyamakans you have in mind Indian or Tibetan?

Dan