[Buddha-l] As Swami goes, so goes the nation? (Dan Lusthaus and Richard P. Hayes)

[Dan Lusthaus]

Mitchell et al.,

> If the exchanges were private between you and Dan, then that would be one 
> thing. But they are occurring in this (somewhat) public forum, which is 
> quite a different context. It strikes me as significant or important in 
> some of your exchanges (being what stands out most prominently and 
> memorably at times), which leads me to mention it and ask about it.


As Richard explained -- with some pathetic attempt at wit and the 
pronouncement of the end of civilization as he prefers it -- our repartee on 
buddha-l is mostly for amusement... our own and others'. I suspect long-time 
buddha-l-ers have seen enough of our exchanges to know they are all in fun, 
even if they do have a pointed point at time.

I'm not sure I agree with Richard's assessment that we disagree on 
everything important, but we do have disagreements. He thinks every current 
repressive tyrant and homicidal threat to civilian peace gets a gold star 
for trash-talking the US (nevermind how badly they treat their own people 
and others). I don't share that sickness and I don't find it very Buddhist.

On matters of Buddhism we also have our disagreements. He thinks Nagarjuna's 
thinking has logical flaws, I don't. He thinks Dharmakirti was a mere 
propogandist, I don't (he was a propogandist, but not merely that). He 
doesn't think Dignaga was a Yogacara, I do (as did his contemporaries and 
generations of Buddhists in India and China). He claims to dislike and not 
understand Yogacara texts, yet presumes to inform others that my reading of 
their materials is off, apparently since I do like and understand them (must 
be a sign of some failing or other on my part, I guess). He thinks Buddhism 
belongs to left-leaning ex-hippies, I'm sadly resigned to the fact that 
through most of its history Buddhism was the darling of the merchant class 
(capitalists and others), with very conservative king-supporting, 
powers-that-be supporting conservative politics -- even fascistic at 
times -- Buddhism typically sucks up to money and power, and has been 
institutionally and ideologically structured to do so since the Sangha was 
designed to be parasitic and non-offensive to power (read the Vinaya rules 
on meat-eating, for instance).

We agree that Buddhism -- esp. the writings and thought of its best 
proponents over the ages -- have much to offer. It is a certain 
countercurrent within Buddhism, plucked and pedestal-ed by Western scholars 
(aside from the fascist ones -- Evola, Tucci, Lindtner, etc.) that has been 
paraded in the West as "Buddhism", so there currently is an experiment in 
"Western Buddhism" underway that might alter its historical trajectories 
(it's mostly archaic, corrupt, and right-wing in Asia, considered 
old-fashioned and dispensible in many Asian countries). Richard would like 
to turn Buddhism into an ally or clone of the Quaker-Unitarian-Universalist 
mode, while I think it is important to take full cognizance of Buddhism's 
actual history and contemporary leanings in order to not repeat all those 
mistakes -- and, yes, Buddhists and Buddhism have made mistakes and continue 
to do so.

Both Richard and I would like to the world improve and less suffering for 
all sentient beings (I don't eat them, he does), but we have different ideas 
about how to go about that -- as did Buddhists themselves.

So have no doubts, Mitchell. A lot of mutual respect goes along with the 
sneering and snarls. Whenever list traffic gets slow, Richard tries to liven 
things up by posting some provocations attached to my name. Sometimes I 
respond. Take it in the spirit of amusement in which it offered.

Dan