[Buddha-l] Fsat Mnifdlunses?

[Dan Lusthaus]

> Talking about schools seems unpromising. Talking about particular
> texts seems a better use of time.

At some point, talking about both becomes necessary and desirable. 6th and 
7th c Chinese Buddhism consisted of competing forms of Yogacara Buddhism, 
and one can extrapolate from their texts, translations, discussions, etc., 
about contemporary situations in India. Defining groups by their doctrinal 
commitments and the arguments they make to support those commitments and 
challenge their rivals goes back at least to Kathaa-vatthu, and is a 
prominent feature of such abhidharma texts as the Mahaavibhaa.sa (the Kosa 
is a pale echo of the diversity of arguments and positions recorded there). 
It's important to identify and keep in mind the differences -- both major 
and minor -- between different Yogacaras. There are major differences 
between Asanga and Vasubandhu (even limiting ourselves to just the texts we 
are comfortable assigning to each). But there are also features they share 
that differentiates them from their Buddhist contemporaries, which, with 
modifications, continued to define Yogacaras afterward. Ignoring or denying 
that does not seem like a good idea.

> Given how difficult it is to get a handle on most Indian Buddhists, I
> see no alternative to being quite tolerant of those who arrive at
> different interpretations than one's own.

That's very generous, magnanimous even. One should be initially open-minded 
and entertain alternative interpretations, esp. if they are challenging and 
ruffle feathers and disturb complacency; but, after due consideration, when 
it is determined that someone is simply wrong, it is important to point that 
out. When a mistake has become embedded in the discourse so deeply that it 
seems almost impossible to extirpate, all the more reason to roll up one's 
sleeves and try to set the record straight. Otherwise we all become mere 
dawdlers.

Yogacara was not idealism in the sense most people repeatedly claim. That is 
simply a fact. That they have been accused of being idealists for at least 
1500 years by opponents who wanted to make them look ridiculous is also a 
fact (and hence labeling such assaults "malicious" is just). That Yogacaras 
denied those charges with refutations is also a fact. That, occasionally, 
some became mischievious, and, thinking there might be some upayic value in 
shocking some opponents, they played with epistemological riddles that can 
sound very idealist, that's also a fact. But insisting that they held 
idealist ontological commitments is to completely misconstrue their project.

When someone (e.g., Pereira, Eliade) argues that Buddha -- in the Pali 
texts -- is really arguing FOR an atmanic self, generosity can go just so 
far. Pointing out that they are wrong, and showing why, is a duty, unless 
one enjoys wading in unnecessary muck.

Dan