[Buddha-l] Personalists. Was: Are we sick of dogma yet?

[L.S. Cousins]

Joy,

>  >I don't think it prefigures the Mahaayaana in any way.
>
>What exactly is Mahaayaana,

That would need a book ! But here I was talking historically (not 
doctrinally). So my meaning was simply that I think that Leonard 
Priestley and Peter Skilling are mistaken to see the Pudgalavaadin 
texts preserved in Chinese as presenting material which is old and 
influenced the formation of the ideas found in e.g. Naagaarjuna. I 
see them rather as adopting some of the methods of early Mahaayaana 
literature in order to mount an effective response. To put it another 
way, those texts belong to the period of "saastra and commentarial 
literature.

>where could that line need to be drawn (if it does)

It would need to be specific.

>and what would you say does prefigure it?
>
>Joy

The extant Canonical literature of Theravaada and Sarvaastivaada. I 
see it as mostly a natural development from the trends found in later 
canonical literature.

Lance Cousins