[Buddha-l] Withdrawal of the senses

[Richard Hayes]

On Wed, 2006-11-22 at 17:39 -0500, Dan Lusthaus wrote:

> Ratnakirti is too radically dignagan -- stressing foundational
> momentariness -- to elicit even the slightest monistic sentiment, so I
> simply don't see that.

I have never encountered a Dignaaga who stressed radical momentariness.
A fellow named Dharmakiirti picked up that ball and ran with it, until
he fell flat on his face. But never mind all that. I can't see why a
commitment to radical momentariness would preclude monism. It seems to
me that if one argues, as Ratnakiirti did, that all moments are but
episodes in the thought of a single mind, that of the omniscient Buddha,
then one is a monist in one of the acceptable senses of that word.

> Not only was Vedanta -- especially of the Sankarite variety -- never that
> important nor predominant in pre-modern India

Its imporance do4es not matter. You asked for an example of a monist
philosophy in classical India, and I gave one.

> First, Ramanan is not really dealing with the authentic Nagarjuna of the
> Madhyamaka-karikas, Vigraha-vyavartani, etc.

That does not matter at all. You asked for an example of someone in
classical India who had a family resemblance to neo-Platonism, and I
offered the Nagarjuna depicted by Venkata Ramanan.


> I don't think he is even getting the
> Dazhidulun right.

When have you ever thought that anybody got anything right? I can't
recall a single instance.

>  It was the vogue in 20th c religious studies to depict
> Asian thought as neoplatonic, and Ramanan is simply a casualty figure in
> that trend

Your command of fallacies is impressive. You now resort to begging the
question. Again.

> So I see nothing legitimate in the misrepresentation of Yogacara as
> idealism

Yes, I know that. One cannot see what one has determined not to see. You
see, Dan, your methodology stinks. You determine a priori that everyone
is a fool, and then you find evidence to show just that. That is not
careful reading of texts. It is just stubborn prejudice.


-- 
Richard Hayes
Department of Philosophy
University of New Mexico