[Buddha-l] Sabba Sutta

[Dan Lusthaus]

Richard Hayes wrote:

>let's remember
> that buddha-l was not designed for fulminating against people whose
> professional careers do not meet your (or anyone else's) approval.

Absolutely right. And since everything I said about Jung is well documented
and admitted by the leading practicing Jungians today, there is no need for
me to document that any further here. For anyone unsure of what I said,
check out the Bollingen edition of Jung's lectures on Nietzsche's
Zarathustra (if you can find a copy -- they made it unaffordable for mere
mortals, unlike the rest of the Jung corpus which remains perpetually in
print at affordable, paperback prices; to their credit, however, at least
they published it).

> > In part, that's because it doesn't seem to have sunk in that Dignaga and
> > Dharmakirti were Yogacaras.
>
> That's an interesting claim, for which I have yet to see any evidence.

Bhavaviveka thought so (see ch. 5 of his Madhyamakah.rdaya and the
corresponding Tarkajvala commentary). He devotes a major portion of his
refutation of Yogacara to Dignaga's theories. David Eckel's splendid
translation of that chapter (and the Sravaka chapter), with detailed
annotations, has just come out from Harvard University Press.

So did Candrakirti (who criticizes Dignaga as part of his refutation of
Yogacara in ch. 6 of Madhyamakaavatara).

So, for that matter, did Jinendrabuddhi in his commentary of Dignaga's
Pramanasamuccaya.

So did Xuanzang, Yijing, and all their contemporaries. So did the Yogacara
author(s) of the Buddhabhumyupade"sa. The list goes on and on and on...

Apparently all those poor devils lacked Prof. Hayes' profound understanding
of what Yogacara really is, and so were profoundly mistaken in their
unanimous opinion.

> And now I see that turning to Dan Lusthaus for reliable information
> about Dignaga is like turning to Dan Lusthuas for reliable information
> about Freud and Jung.

Willful ignorance fails to recognize the reliable.

Dan the Reliable