[Y-Indology] samkara tradition and temple worship

[Guest guest]

> It certainly can be taken as evidence, even if nothing can be taken

>as proof. I think it's fair to feel that it would be more

>farfetched to dismiss Xuanzang as a liar or a psychotic.

 

I'm not saying he was either - nobody can say anything conclusive on

this.

 

But what's basis of his claims regarding the domimance of the

satyasiddhi schools - that he visited 1000 monastries and did a

survey of the satyasiddhi school - but this is simply not believable

given the duration of time, he was in India.

 

> If we are to trust Buddhist schools' account of themselves and one

>another, why not trust the Buddhist Xuanzang?

 

Well I would think that the Indian Buddhists would have known more

about their religion in their own lands than a foreigner.

 

> Yes, so Nagarjuna may well have had the Pudgalavadins in mind as

>well. He does not, after all, name names (so to speak) in the

>Mulamadhyamakakarika and most of his works.

 

You have a point here.

 

> This makes sense. Yogacara has a lot of problems with Madhyamaka

>and Sarvastivada, but the Pudgalavada would really not have been

>worth the effort outside of the comprehensive Abhidharmakosa.

 

Not really - unlike Naagaarjuna who neither affirms or negates the

self, the Yogaacaarins outright negate the self - according to them

it is an illusion.

 

Philip don't misunderstand me - it is possible that the Satyasiddhi

at one point in time was prominent. All I'm saying is that we need

much more evidence that what we have at the moment to take a

conclusive stand on this issue.

[Guest guest]

-

"vpcnk" <vpcnk

<INDOLOGY>

Wednesday, March 19, 2003 3:19 PM

[Y-Indology] Re: samkara tradition and temple worship

 

 

 

 

> Well I would think that the Indian Buddhists would have known more

> about their religion in their own lands than a foreigner.

 

The accounts of Xuanzang and Yijing must owe some of their value to the fact

that they were able to appreciate the situation with a somewhat less

overdetermined judgement. On the other hand, most of their statistical

information would have come from the mouths of their Indian guides and

hosts.

 

>

> > Yes, so Nagarjuna may well have had the Pudgalavadins in mind as

> >well. He does not, after all, name names (so to speak) in the

> >Mulamadhyamakakarika and most of his works.

>

> You have a point here.

 

There are a few passages in the MMK where one may feel the unnamed presence

of the Pudgalavada. But in the Prasannapada on MMK 22, the

Tathagatapariksa, Candrakirti's opponent is certainly a Pudgalavadin.

 

> Not really - unlike Naagaarjuna who neither affirms or negates the

> self, the Yogaacaarins outright negate the self - according to them

> it is an illusion.

 

But many Yogacarins assert consciousness as a reality, and here they do put

themselves in great danger of Madhyamika attack.

 

> I'm not saying he was either - nobody can say anything conclusive on

> this.

 

....

 

> Philip don't misunderstand me - it is possible that the Satyasiddhi

> at one point in time was prominent. All I'm saying is that we need

> much more evidence that what we have at the moment to take a

> conclusive stand on this issue.

 

I agree with you that we must be very cautious. Intellectual history is too

full of examples of rash and premature judgement, the results of which can

be dire- and even, when they catch the attention of the 'secular arm',

murderous. But I think that scholarly progress might ideally be 'founded'

on 'inconclusive stands', which we should hope that scholars can quickly

abandon, in a Prasangika spirit, when they become useless. Priestley

writes:

 

--

 

It might be suggested, then, that a study of this kind is premature. The

most important of the surviving texts are exceptionally difficult, and all

the work that has been done on them so far represents no more than the

initial stages in the process of their elucidation. Would it not be better

to wait until they have been studied thoroughly and then to proceed with the

attempt at reconstruction on the basis of evidence that has been properly

established? But the elucidation of these texts requires a knowledge of the

schools they belonged to, and for that we need the kind of study that I have

undertaken.

 

--

 

P