[Buddha-l] Non-Arising

[Dan Lusthaus]

Dee writes:

> On the other hand, Indians have had a complex and subtle knowledge of the 
> mind for thousands of years while western psychology is only one hundred 
> years old.

Yes they do, and it begins by not reductively using categories like subject 
and object. It is the poverty of our categories and available vocabulary 
that forces us to translated visaya, artha, alambana, vastu. grahya, gocara, 
vijneya, jneya, et al. as "object."


> I didn't make any such assumption.

Good.

> I didn't even notice that you asked any questions, difficult or otherwise.

Mindfulness.

>That old chestnut about the disnction between scholars and practitioners is 
>as tiresome as it is unhelpful.

Sure is. Why are you bringing it up?

 > And yet the Yogacarins talk about experiencer and experience quite a bit, 
which may not be a direct trasnaltion into subject and object, but we get 
the point.

No they don't. They, like some Abhidharmikas before them, talk about 
appropriation (upadana), and the problems that infusing that into what 
should be a simple "pure" perceptual process entail. So they talk about 
grahaka and grahya, graspers and grasped. The issue is not to stop 
perceiving, but to remove the upadana. This has nothing to do with solving 
the Western subject-object dualism. Applying them that way is like using 
carpenter tools to fix your car.

> Dan, I am not accusing you of anything.

That's reassuring.


> On the other hand, for someone to categorically claim that only 
> neuroscience has the authority to define mind

No one said "only" and no one used the word "authority." The library is full 
of books, the world is full of obsolete "knowledge," and everyone can decide 
for themselves who/what they find reliable.

If you took the time to read up on current neuroscience, which is rapidly 
developing in very interesting ways, you would find that it would deepen 
rather than challenge your understanding of Buddhism.

Asanga relied on the medical science of his day to understand the relation 
of mind and body(*); we should do the same. Our data is better.

Dan

(*) I have an article detailing that scheduled to appear in a volume on the 
Yogacarabhumi later this year.