[Buddha-l] Fsat Mnifdlunses?

[Mike Austin]

Dan Lusthaus <vasubandhu at earthlink.net> writes

"You are echoing the kantian and post-kantian impasse -- no way to reach 
the noumenal, except in phenomenal approximations. The noumenal is 
supposed to be forever out of reach."

I know nothing of philosophy or philosophers. I am way out of my depth.


"That's vedanta, not Yogacara. For Yogacara, eliminating apprehension of 
an object consequently eliminates apprehension of a subject, No "unity,"
monism, pantheistic self-hugging, or other displays of cosmic 
narcissism."

I picked the wrong word with 'unity' because I was trying to avoid 
'non-separateness' because it sounded too clumsy. Using a negative is an 
easy way to avoid asserting anything. 'Unity' is an awkward word also. 
It has no meaning for a single entity because there is nothing to unite. 
And it has no meaning for multiple entities because multiple nature is 
excluded by it. So we are probably best served by 'non-separateness'. 
Indeed, you seem to be saying that apprehension is the separating agent:

"By the apprehending of citta-m
tra, there is the nonapprehension of 
cognized artha. By nonapprehending cognized artha, citta also is 
nonapprehended."


"Getting better all the ti-ime..."

I get the impression that philosophy is a return ticket. One comes back 
to the same place having passed through some enthralling verbal scenery.

I was a poet and I didn't noet.

-- 
Metta
Mike Austin