The exposition  in Professor Mary Bockover's  review
        of my book, Rationality and Mind  in Early  Buddhism
         (Philosophy  East and West 39, no.  2 (April 1989)),
        is  accurate  for  chapters  two  through  six.  I am
        grateful  for what is, in general, a skillful review.
        However, the  first  and  second  paragraphs  of that
        review contain several glaring inaccuracies. Bockover
        says that I demonstrate that early Buddhism is a
        "rational,  'accurate  and  non-trivial'   school  of
        thought."  But  (a)  my  usage  of  the  term  "early
        Buddhism"   refers  to  a  set  of  texts  (the  five
        Nikaayas), not to a school  (p.  1).  In contrast  to
        Sarvaastivaada,   Sautraantika,  and   others,  early
        Buddhism is not a "school." (Some scholars would like
        to think  that  everything  in the five  Nikaayas  is
        indisputably  prior to all schools, but this, too, is
        a gratuitous  assumption.) In addition, (b) my  words
        "accurate  and non-trivial"  refer to the ideal study
        of  early  Buddhism  rather  than  to early  Buddhism
        itself (as pp. 1-2 make plain).

            In Bockover's account of my method as set out in
        chapter  1, she says: "Going  to the Pali  texts  is
        essential, but it is also methodologically necessary
        to  look  at certain  commentaries, given  the  more
        specific  goal of understanding  how Early  Buddhism
        can be taken to bear on pertinent  issues  of mind."
        However,  (c)  my  point   is   that   it   is   not
        methodologically    necessary    to   consider   the
        commentaries for the purposes of this study (p.  5).
        Finally, (d) the phrase, "internally  consistent and
        linguistically  precise"  is  not  applied  by me to
        early Buddhism  overall, but to that language in the
        texts which merits this description (p. 7).

            In sum, Professor Bockover has misunderstood  my
        expressed   attitude   in  this  study  towards  the
        Abhidhamma  commentaries, as well as my basic  usage
        of the term "early Buddhism."