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

[Richard Hayes]

On Apr 22, 2010, at 3:26 PM, Dan Lusthaus wrote:

> 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.

Notice how Dan loves to offer caricatures. That is his idea of wit.

> On matters of Buddhism we also have our disagreements. He thinks Nagarjuna's 
> thinking has logical flaws, I don't.

That is an accurate assessment of my views. Notice how Dan deftly mixes clumsy caricature with accuracy, just as a good baseball pitcher throws fastballs, curves, spitballs and screwballs.

> He thinks Dharmakirti was a mere 
> propogandist, I don't (he was a propogandist, but not merely that).

Again, an accurate assessment.

> He 
> doesn't think Dignaga was a Yogacara, I do (as did his contemporaries and 
> generations of Buddhists in India and China).

Totally false. The truth is I have no opinion on the question of Dignāga's scholastic affliliation, and I don't think it matters at all. If I were to put a label on him, however, it would be Yogācāra. I can't imagine what other label would stick.

> 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).

Another caricature. It is true that I don't like Yogācāra much more than I like root canal treatments, and it is also true that I don't understand them and know next to nothing about them. About Dan's reading of Yogācāra, I do not feel at all qualified to have an opinion of my own. At the most I can say detect that there are ways in which Dan's interpretation differs in important ways from the interpretations of other scholars, but I don't know who is correct, and I really don't care. The Yogācāra race is one in which I don't have a pony.

> He thinks Buddhism 
> belongs to left-leaning ex-hippies,

Another distortion that is not close enough to qualify even as a caricature. At the most I would say that left-leaning hippies are entitled to interpret Buddhist doctrines and practices in ways that they find helpful. But for the most part I agree entirely with what Dan says next (except that I'm neither sad nor resigned about the history of Asian Buddhism as he describes it):

> 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).

All the above is quite accurate. The following, however, is utter nonsense.

> Richard would like 
> to turn Buddhism into an ally or clone of the Quaker-Unitarian-Universalist 
> mode,

I have no interest of turning Buddhism into anything. I love the diversity of Buddhism, and I would not wish to subtract anything from the richness of Buddhism. While it is true that I am a Quaker and a small-u unitarian and a small-u universalist and a pragmatist and a pluralist, all that means is that I see some common ground among all those traditions and have personally derived benefit from all of them and hope to continue to do so. It is my most fervent desire that others find as much satisfaction in their melanges of spiritual traditions as I hae found in mine.

> 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.

Yes, on that I am in full agreement.

> 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.

I have no idea where Dan got his ideas about what I eat. One suspects it is a fantasy of some kind based on his false assumption that I am a left-leaning hippie (I am politically middle-of-the-road by Canadian and European standards and have never been even close to hippiedom in any sense of the word) and his assumption that left-leaning hippies eat sentient beings.

> So have no doubts, Mitchell.

Very, very bad advice. One should always have doubts. Doubt is the golden path to wisdom. Moreover, it is the best antidote to the cancerous form of certainty that drives people to fly airplanes into buildings, shoot abortion providers, blow themselves up in crowded marketplaces, massacre innocent travelers and declare that Haiti and New Orleans had natural disasters as a result of divine punishment for allowing people to play jazz while dressing appropriately for hot and muggy climates.

> Whenever list traffic gets slow, Richard tries to liven 
> things up by posting some provocations attached to my name.

Again, that is totally false. I only pick on Dan when Curt hasn't been saying something misguided and belligerent. 

> Take it in the spirit of amusement in which it offered.

Be amused. Be very amused. It is ever so much more pleasant and healthy than being paranoid and/or earnest.

Richard