[Buddha-l] Buddhism and Psychology research

[Richard P. Hayes]

On Fri, 2010-09-03 at 14:18 -0400, Dan Lusthaus wrote:

> Note that Vasubandhu, one of the premier abhidharmists, produced a work that 
> is a unique genre unto itself, esp. in the Indian context. The 
> Abhidharmakosa-bhasya consists of verses more or less espousing the 
> Vaibhasika doctrinal line. The commentary on those verses, by the same 
> author, deconstructs and rejects many of those positions, offering reasoned 
> arguments for preferring positions closer to Sautrantika, Yogacara, and 
> other non-Vaibhasikas. I don't know of a single other classical Indian text 
> where an author deconstructs and refutes his own verses with his own 
> commentary. That is the antithesis of being dogmatic.

Let me see if I can follow your argument. Vasubandhu was unique in
classical India for having offered a critique of his own position.
Therefore Vasubandhu was not dogmatic. And therefore the entire
abhidharma tradition, of which this uniquely non-dogmatic writer was
only a small part, was free of dogmatism. Is this your claim? 

Or is your claim that Vasubandhu is the only Indian philosopher (and
hence the only ābhidharmika) who was not dogmatic, which would mean that
you concede my point that abhidharma was on the whole a dogmatic
enterprise and therefore quite unlike science?

-- 
Richard