[Buddha-l] Withdrawal of the senses

[Dan Lusthaus]

Richard wrote:

> Dignaaga's concept of svalak.sa.na ENTAILS radical momentariness? Sorry,
> but I am slow-witted and must see all the steps in this entailment
> spelled out.

I can't believe you are disputing this, as if I were saying something
unusual. And you accuse me of weird interpretations?

Ok. Is H.N. Randle completely wrong when he writes:

"Dinnaga accordingly abstracted the five predicables, namely generic
character, specific character, relation to other substances, quality, and
action -- as 'fictions of the understanding' (kalpanaa), from the momentary
existent (k.sana, svalak.sa.na) which alone is the object (graahya) of pure
perception..."

Fragments from Dinnaga, p. 70. And if you disagree with his take on that,
how do you explain/read (so much more carefully than I, apparently!) the
following?

[contra Vaiśeṣika]

anyatra vartamānasya tato 'nya-sthāna-janmani tasmād acalataḥ sthānād vṛttit
ity atiyuktitatā yatrā 'sau vartate bhāvas tena saṃbadhyate na tu taddeśinaṃ
na vyāpnoti kim apy etan mahādbhutam || na yāti na ca tatrā 'sīd asti pascān
na cāṃśavat jahāti pūrvaṃ nādhāram aho vyasana-saṃtatiḥ ||

 (Randle, Fragments From Diṅnāga, p.56)



What in the Vaiśeṣika position is atiyuktitatā ("exceeding reasonability")
here?

And more explicitly, how about:



sāntara-grahaṇaṃ na syāt prāptau, jñāne 'dhikasya ca ||

bahir vartivād indriyasyopapannam sāntara-grahaṇam iti ced | ata uktam :

adhiṣṭhānād bahir nākṣam… ||

kiṃtv adhiṣṭhāna-deśa evendriyam | kutaḥ?

…tac-cikitsādi-yogataḥ | satyapi ca bahir-bhāve na śakti-viṣaye kṣaṇe | yadi
ca syāt tadā paśyed apy unmīlya nimīlanāt ||

yadi ca syād, unmīlya nimīlya nimīlita-nayano 'pi rūpaṃ paśyet | unmīlanād
asti bahir indriyam iti ||

(Ibid. pp. 14-15)



How do you understand śakti-viṣaye kṣaṇe and its import for this argument
about vision?


> I have no idea how one measures the accuracy of an interpretation of a
> text. Accuracy is an entirely subjective category.

In which case your accusations about my ability to read is simply subjective
caprice. Very responsible.

> No, but you are the first person I have encountered whose ability to
> interpret texts is so abysmal that he reads someone saying that there
> are SOME texts from INDIA that CAN legitimately be seen as having a
> family resemblance to neo-Platonism and interprets that to mean that ALL
> thinking in ASIA is NECESSARILY mystical.

Silly Hayes. Go back and reread the passage from my message that you went
off on. It was precisely that there was a trend of interpreting "all" of
Eastern thought as neoplatonic. You called me a bunch of names in response.
A reasonable inference is that you disagreed with that idea. Otherwise, why
the tirade.

These distortions and silly tirades don't become you, Richard.

Dan Lusthaus