[Buddha-l] Withdrawal of the senses

[Dan Lusthaus]

Richard wrote:

> I have never encountered a Dignaaga who stressed radical momentariness.

His retooling of svalak.sa.na entails momentariness, and it was so
understood long before Dharmakirti (e.g., Sthiramati's appropriation of the
AAlambana-parik.sa and Pramaa.nasamuccaya in the early parts of his
Tri.m"sikaa-bhaa.sya).

> It seems to
> me that if one argues, as Ratnakiirti did, that all moments are but
> episodes in the thought of a single mind, that of the omniscient Buddha,
> then one is a monist in one of the acceptable senses of that word.

Ekacitta, even the Buddha's, is itself momentary and radically particular.
As I suggested, we might want to wait until Parimal's book comes out before
taking this further, unless you have specific texts or passages you'd like
to put into evidence.

> > Not only was Vedanta -- especially of the Sankarite variety -- never
> >that  important nor predominant in pre-modern India
>
> Its imporance do4es not matter. You asked for an example of a monist
> philosophy in classical India, and I gave one.

If you followed the entire thread of the argument, I first tried to show
that Sankarite Vedanta was not the dominant metonymy for Indian
philosophy -- as it has been portrayed in the West for nearly 200 years -- 
and THEN turned to the question of whether Sankarite vedanta itself was
neoplatonic. I suggested it wasn't.

> > First, Ramanan is not really dealing with the authentic Nagarjuna of the
> > Madhyamaka-karikas, Vigraha-vyavartani, etc.
>
> That does not matter at all. You asked for an example of someone in
> classical India who had a family resemblance to neo-Platonism, and I
> offered the Nagarjuna depicted by Venkata Ramanan.

"...in classical India..."? Let's see if I follow this line of reasoning. If
someone finds a Tibetan text that purports to hold the teachings of Jesus,
then we should treat that as representing Mediterranean thinking of two
thousand years ago? Even if, not having read that particular Tibetan text,
we only hear about its contents from an interpretor who has provided a
questionable reading of it? In terms of Ramanan and the Dazhidulun, I assume
you are familiar with Nagarjuna's writings and with the thrust of the
Prajnaparamita literature (on which the Dazhidulun purports to be a
commentary). Do you find Ramanan's presentation accurately representative of
their contents? If not, what then?

> >  It was the vogue in 20th c religious studies to depict
> > Asian thought as neoplatonic, and Ramanan is simply a casualty figure in
> > that trend
>
> Your command of fallacies is impressive. You now resort to begging the
> question. Again.

Oh? So you are supporting the idea that all thinking in Asia is mystical and
neoplatonic? Am I really the first person to bring that problem to your
attention?

Dan Lusthaus