at  the  [successful]   adaptation?  It  cannot   be
　　   measured absolutely; the verdict will vary according
　　   to the point of view adopted.(75)

　　　　  In their pragmatic  theories of truth, James and
　　   Yogaacaara  were  both concerned  with the practical
　　   necessities  of daily  life, but also with the moral
　　   and spiritual  dimension  of life.  James was deeply
　　   interested  in religion but, in accordance  with his
　　   pragmatism,  was   more   interested   in  religious
　　   experience  and  in the fruits  of a spiritual  life
　　   than  he  was  in  the  doctrinal  or  institutional
　　   aspects  of  religion.   He  held  that  theological
　　   statements  can be subjected  to the  same  test  of
　　   truth as practical  ones, that is, by judging  their
　　   practical results:

　　   If  theological  ideas  prove  to have  a value  for
　　   concrete　　 life,   they　　 will　　 be   true,   for
　　   pragmatism.(76)

　　   Therefore,

　　   on pragmatistic principles, if the hypothesis of God
　　   works  satisfactorily  in the  widest  sense  of the
　　   word, it is true.  Now...  experience  shows that it
　　   certainly does work.(77)

　　   His   Varieties   of  Religious   Experience   is  a
　　   compendium   of  the  fruits  of  various  religious
　　   beliefs and even different types of religious belief
　　   and temperament. These fruits include courage; hope;
　　   moral strength;  personal integration;  and lives of
　　   great   piety.   charitable   works,  and   mystical
　　   attainment.  Clearly, James' criteria  for religious
　　   truth--which   include  immediate   luminosity   and
　　   philosophical   reasonableness   along   with  moral
　　   helpfulness(78)--allow  of a plurality  of religious
　　   "truths."   He   acknowledged   and   defended   his
　　   conflation  of the notions  of "truth"  and "what is
　　   beneficial  or efficacious"(79) and concluded: "What
　　   other

　　　　　　　　　　　　  P.240

　　   kind of truth could there be, for [pragmatism], than
　　   all this agreement with concrete reality?"(80)

　　　　  The   Madhyaantavibhaaga   does   not  say  that
　　   religious  beliefs  and practices  are justified  by
　　   their   practical   consequences,  but  this  stance
　　   characterizes  Buddhism in general.  Buddhists  have
　　   long  upheld  the difference  between  conventional,