[Buddha-l] Dependent arising variants

[Mike Austin]

In message <006e01c627ce$b90e82c0$cba05b40 at Dan>, Dan Lusthaus 
<dlusthau at mailer.fsu.edu> writes

>Garfield seems to miss the point of these four conditions. They are not
>really four different ways of describing the same event (lights on), but
>each entails a different sphere of activity (though some events can involve
>more than one of the four conditions).

Thanks for your comments. I am pretty much limited to Garfield's book at 
the moment. I should not expect to understand much from a cartoon cat. I 
think he was speaking in various subjective ways about the event and did 
not intend to identify them as valid stand-alone alternatives.


>So the four are:
>
>1. hetu-pratyaya
>2. 
lambana-pratyaya
>3. anantara-pratyaya
>4. adhipati-pratyaya
>
>Whether hetu pratyaya can be reduced to efficient causality depends on which
>school of Buddhism one is looking at (my impression is that Dharmakirti, for
>instance, pretty much reduces all causality to efficient causality --
>Richard can correct me if that is wrong).

I think that an analysis of causes and conditions tends to identify some 
conditions that appear to be more effective than other conditions. But I 
suspect that is a limitation of one's own purview.  For example, from my 
perspective, I am the efficient condition for the light coming on. From 
the perspective of an electrician, it may be different. Does Dharmakirti 
consider all conditions as efficient based on multiple perspectives, or, 
more correctly, not based on any specific perspective?


>Alambana is concerned with cognitive conditions, not wiring.

In a metaphorical sense, a wire connects cognition to the object. Would 
this not be an apt example?


>Have fun mixing and matching these four with Garfield's explanation.

Certainly. My ideas are already half-baked.

-- 
Metta
Mike Austin