[Buddha-l] Sabba Sutta

[Jayarava]

HI Dan

> Their opponents (Bhav., Candrakirti, etc.) also identify as
> such, so much so

Could you say if these commentators were critiquing Dignaga on the basis of his own writings, or are they critiquing the presentation and interpretation of him by Yogacarins? It's not clear.

> If nothing else, a good philosopher -- not just historian
> -- has to ask why do both their enemies as well as they themselves see
> Dignaga as a Yogacara?

I would think that Yogacarins having written about Dignaga as a Yogacarin, that their detractors, in responding, would be bound to write about him in the same terms wouldn't they? 

If the detractors only wrote about Dignaga as they found him in the writing of the Yogacarins, then I would assume that they only knew about him in the context of the writings of the Yogacarins, and had not read him directly.

> I did:
> (1) eliminate erroneous cognition.
> (2) sva- and para- bijas (cf. Vimsatika and Alambana-pariksa).
> (3) develop pramana theory 
> (yes, Jayarava, this was a project that Yogacara
> put on the map for Buddhists; 

Never heard of any of these. So this is probably why I overlooked you "explicit points". I was looking for something that was recognisably Yogacara, but couldn't see anything. 

> As I suggested (and the point of including Takasaki's
> TOC) is that Yogacara is NOT simply what everyone seems to think are the
> "central" doctrines.

Sure. But your project is to redefine what Yogacara means, and it's not clear that you or your colleagues have achieved this yet. There's no reason to think that anyone outside your specialist circle would or could understand this, and someone with only a general knowledge of Yogacara would be bound to misunderstand it as general works (like Skilton) are not going to mention your New Yogacara - this is you shooting yourself in the foot. A contents table is completely meaningless to me because I would have to *be you* to understand the significance of it.

> Alayavijnana and trisvabhava are the exotic doctrines, the
> ones that appear most dissimilar to prior Buddhist doctrines. 
> But those are not the key doctrines of Yogacara, and especially not the 
> key to Yogacara. 

Well again this kind of redefinition is far from established outside your rarefied world. Are you assuming that I have kept up with the latest research on Yogacara, or could take in such esoteric stuff just by reading what you've given us? Neither seem that likely.

> You will continue to confuse yourself if you keep playing
> like this instead of keeping your eye on the ball. How many Buddhists 
> claim Buddha is Visnu? This is not comparable to the situation we are 
> talking about.

I think it's clear that it's you who are confusing me. I am looking for parallels that might make a bridge, because you aren't providing one.

> Buddhists of that time, and for centuries afterward, saw
> Dignaga as a Yogacara, regardless of their own affiliation.

But I think it's clear that this isn't that meaningful. In the light of your redefinition of what is important in Yogacara we can see that received traditions can be really quite wrong! If the general view of Yogacara is wrong, very wrong according to you, then why not this view?

> Non-Buddhists also saw Dignaga as an exemplar of vijnana-vada (the 
> ambiguity here is that the term "vijnanavada" applied to Sautrantika as 
> well as Yogacara; and some Abhidharma texts also apply it to Sthaviras).

There is ambiguity and you are exploiting it to your favour, which hardly bolsters your case.

I haven't the heart to carry on with part 2 or your post. I think I've learned that I'm not going to learn much by pursuing this. I'm going back to the Sabba Sutta which I am learning a great deal from investigating.


Jayarava