[Buddha-l] Prapanca

[Jim Anderson]

On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 01:49:34 -0500, Dan Lusthaus responds:

> Hi Jim,
>> I think the commentator (Saariputta) would reject the notion of the three
>> types of papa~nca being correlates of the three unwholesome roots or
> poisons
>
> I don't think so. It's a very transparent move and I suspect a deliberate
> move. Here's an easy substitution test. Replace the three poisons for the
> three papancas and see if they make sense. In fact, the poisons make 
> *more*
> sense as causes of samsara since that has always been their traditional
> roles. The commentator is piggybacking the papancas on this, by a bit of
> terminological conflation.

Dan,

In my response to Richard Hayes, I quoted a passage from the Mahaaniddesa to 
show that the 12th cent. commentator I quoted earlier wasn't the first to 
come up with the three types of papa~ncas. He is just borrowing from his 
predecessors like so many others have done. I'm not in a position to have a 
philosophical debate with you although I wish I could. I'm too unfamiliar 
with the works of Nagarjuna or Asanga to carry on a debate. For this 
lifetime, however, I only have the time to focus on the Pali language and 
its texts. I think I've made my point. You and others are at liberty to pick 
faults with the Pali Tipitaka and its commentaries.

Jim Anderson 

---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]