[Buddha-l] Pudgalavada - Vasumitra2b

[L.S. Cousins]

Stephen,

>L.S. Cousins wrote:
>
>>Surely, the point is that they are not cittasamprayukta i.e. they 
>>don't share the same object, material base, etc. They are not 
>>dissociated from citta in the sense of being quite separated.
>
>Lance,
>
>Well, perhaps it depends from what context you are speaking.  As far 
>as I know, the Vaibhasika view is that they are quite separate from 
>mind.

But that would mean that arising, etc. and passing away of each 
caitta and of consciousness itself is 'quite separate from mind'. How 
could that be ?

>But I am not sure why you are bringing this up -- the viprayukta / 
>asamprayukta in the Vasumitra text doesn't seem to be obviously 
>talking about citta-viprayukta-dharmas.  Perhaps I'm missing 
>something.

Well, I expect we're wandering from the point. My original objection 
is partially met by using 'na samprayukta' or 'asamprayukta' if that 
occurs.

You originally wrote:
>A Buddha's cognition (jñaana ?) with regards to morality ("siila), 
>etc. is not associated (viprayukta?) with cognitive-objects 
>(vi.saya).

To me that looked as if it belongs in the context of the discussions 
about the knowledge of Buddhas that are collected in chap, VI of 
Griffiths, _On Being Buddha_. Of course, that is later, but we could 
be dealing with an earlier Sammatiiya version.

The other part of my problem is that it otherwise doesn't quite make sense.

Rephrasing,
"A Buddha's knowledge of the path is not associated with colour, etc."

Did anybody suggest it was ? Or, am I missing something here ?

Lance