[Buddha-l] Dharmapala

[Dan Lusthaus]

andy,

I also don't have time now to get too involved in this, but there is no 
conspiracy because each of the author's is coming from a different place, 
and making a different set of points -- many would be surprised by what the 
others claim. Quite a few of the authors still believe that Buddhism = 
pacifism, except where they specifically look. In other words, they think 
they are presenting the aberrant exception that proves the rule. The power 
of the book is to gather that great variety of exceptions, to the point 
where holding the idea of exceptionalism simply turns out to be lack of 
awareness of the broader picture. "Buddhists are nonviolent, except wherever 
I happen to be looking..."

As for "original Buddhism," what might that be? The acceptance and condoning 
of what a ruler needs to do to preserve the Dharma and protect his people 
goes back to the earliest layers. The extreme deference given the ruler 
(e.g., read in the vinaya the rules concerning which animals are not to be 
eaten, and why) involves sometimes chiding and sometimes praising his 
militancy and strong-armed measures. Issue turns less on the violence, and 
more on the purpose for which it is employed. That's "original." Unless one 
is the type of fundamentalist who likes to pretend the version of the 
tradition made up yesterday was the original before all the corrupting and 
corrupted influences ruined it.

>a ground for
> accusations of heresy, which is not, of course, very Buddhist of us.

Buddhists were sectarians. They usually didn't burn their heretics at the 
stake (unless they happened to also be the power that be -- check out the 
chapters on the TIbetans and Mongols in the book), but they spared no 
sarcasm and could make life miserable. The irony, at least for Indian 
Buddhism, is that the poster kids for Buddhist "heretics" in India were the 
so-called pudgalavadins (falsely accused of holding a heretical "self" 
theory), but for many centuries -- exactly those centuries they were most 
loudly decried as beyond the pale -- they were the majority (or, since Lance 
will object to that, one of the largest and most popular "sects" in India 
and the Sind). Why were these "heretics" so popular? Talk about 
conspiracies...

Jealousy seems to be emerging as a topic...

Dan