[Buddha-l] Prapanca

[Richard Hayes]

On Thu, 2008-02-14 at 19:28 -0500, Dan Lusthaus wrote:

> Everything. The proliferation of all these entities from a single root, such
> that each is assigned its own essentialist niche, is what I take Nagarjuna
> to mean by prapanca (cf. the example I developed vis-a-vis Frege's
> Bedeutung).

Your tangential excursion into Frege completely baffled me. And your
interpretation of Nagarjuna does as well. I know Frege fairly well I
probably know Nagarjuna as well as any man alive. What I can't seem to
get a handle on is the mysterious Lusthaus.

> > > As for appearances in hetuvidya literature, the upanisadic meaning is
> > > displayed in Vatsyayana's comm. on the Nyayasutra at 3.1.67
> >
> > The last I checked, that was not considered a Buddhist text.
> 
> Never said it was. Only said it was a hetuvidya text.

Another red herring then? I somehow thought we were talking about how
the term was used in Buddhism, and the reference to Pakshilasvamin sheds
no light on that issue whatsoever.

-- 
Richard Hayes
Department of Philosophy
University of New Mexico