[Buddha-l] Fsat Mnifdlunses?

[Mike Austin]

Dan Lusthaus <vasubandhu at earthlink.net> writes

"One doesn't have to "know" or have read philosophers to be influenced 
by them."

Well, yes - because of interdependence.  I have no knowledge of who said 
what in the philosophical world, so mentioning a philosophical view or a 
philosopher by name, I have no referent. There seem to be parallels with 
the current topic here.


"Why would you think there is "reality" beyond your cognitive 
apprehension? How would you even know about it?"

It is a 'reality' that my mind is hazy and ignorant at the moment. But I 
speak of 'reality' from the perspective of a clear and knowing mind. And 
that is 'out there' because I am separated from it by mental constructs. 
And I would know about it through education - which is knowing something 
that was previously not known. For example, if the results of my actions 
do not turn out as I planned, I say something is missing - something not 
taken into account. I say that is 'out there' because of my ignorance.


"Who whispered that in your ear?"

Well, it started with these inner voices ...


I said:
"You seem to be saying that apprehension is the separating agent:"

You said:
"No, you are saying that, only attributing that to me."

You quoted Vasubandhu as saying, "By the apprehending of citta-matra, 
there is the nonapprehension of cognized artha. By nonapprehending 
cognized artha, citta also is nonapprehended." And you went on to say, 
"In other words, not only is the object, the artha, negated, but that 
which noetically constitutes it (vijnapti-matra, citta-matra) is also 
negated." Has the word 'apprehension' been used consistently here?

-- 
Metta
Mike Austin