[Buddha-l] Re: Filtered Buddhism

[Dan Lusthaus]

Interesting post, Richard.

Two observations:

> In this, HHDL is probably following Dharmakirti, who argues at some length
> that it is, strictly speaking, impossible to determine whether awareness
is
> caused by matter or the other way around.

The "impossibility" of proving whether matter (indriyas and vi.sayas) are
the same as or different from consciousness was already observed by Dignaga
at the end of the Alambana-pariksa. The Tib translation differs slightly
from the two Chinese versions, which also differ slightly from each other,
but they all amount to almost the same claim. The Tib and Xuanzang seem to
allow that one is free to believe either way: Xuanzang says that it is
considered yathaa-aa"saya (you can "say however you wish"), and the Tib
seems to suggest the same: ci dgar brjod par bya'o.

[full sentence: rnam par shes pa las de gnyis gzhan nyid dang gzhan ma yin
pa nyid du ci dgar brjod par bya'o ]

Xuanzang: 根境二色與識一異或非一異。隨樂應說。
As to whether the two rūpas—viz. indriya and viṣaya—and consciousness are
the same or different, or whether they are neither the same nor different:
One can say according to one’s wishes (隨樂, yathā-āśaya).

Paramartha: 識者或異二或不異二或不可說。
Some [claim that] consciousness is different than those two; some [claim] it
isn't different from the two; some are unable to say (one way or another).

> It is not a dodge provided that one adds, as Dharmakirti does, a
qualifying
> phrase. What he says is that the failure to observe something THAT WOULD
BE
> OBSERVED IF IT WERE PRESENT suffices to prove that it is absent.

That crucial qualifying phrase seems to be Dharmakirti's addition to
Dignaga, who, in the Nyayamukha, seems to argue that non-existence can be
"assumed" for what is non-demonstrable or non-observable (leaving the onus
on those making the claim to provide further evidence). I believe
Dharmakirti reaffirms this in his Nyayabindu while discussing negation.
Allowing for non-observable "reals" would, as you observe, open the door to
all sorts of unfalsifiable metaphysical and theological assertions, so if
Dharmakirti is really opening that door here, that would curious.

Dan Lusthaus