Paññāsikhara wrote:I am amazed that they could ever conflate the Sarvastivada Vaibhasikas with the Prajnaptivadins and Ekavyavaharikas!
But, considering that the Tibetans actually didn't have any root texts of any of these schools, it is kind of understandable.
I eagerly await the "reasons"!
It's obvious then that the we're using the same word (Vaibhashika) to refer to different things. You use the word to refer to a specific division in Sarvastivada, whereas in the presentation of tenets Vaibhashika refers to [at least] the 18 early schools.
So when i say Vaibhashika, the 3 reasons I gave (starting with "1. Etymology of Vaibhashika") should be understood in that context.
I don't need to read Jamyang or Ngawang, because I can just read the Mahavibhasa myself, I have a copy right at hand. Neither of them did!
It's not like the commentators conjur their opinions from thin air. The monastic system relies on a long study of Vasubhandu, Dharmakirti, etc, so there are various methods available.
How anybody could say that "Sarvastivada and Vibhajyavada are described as synonyms" is completely beyond me!
As explained in the reasons, they follow the same general presentation of asserting existing things to be substantial things / very many substantial entities (with of course considerable differences, ie. subtle variations of how persons exist, and even more significant ones). So as i previously said, although ultimate truths and deceptive truths are [as you say] "completely mutually exclusive", this does not necessarily imply that they are not both substantial entities (substantial meaning to be an entity such that it can perform a function). To me, it seems that the line between Vaibhashika and real Sautrantika is that Sautrantika asserts deceptive truth to be mutually inclusive with nonsubstantial things and ultimate truth to be mutually inclusive with substantial things, whereas in Vaibhashika this is never the case, regardless of the sometimes significantly varying assertions about what exists substantially and what does not amongst all of the schools.
Regarding the need to read Jamyang (etc) or to study the tenets in general, Dr Hopkins writes:
“..the very format of the four schools and their sub-divisions does not represent an historical account of self-asserted identities but is the result of centuries of classification of systems in India and Tibet in order to get a handle on the vast scope of positions found in Indian Buddhism. Given this situation, the format of the four schools should be used as a horizon that opens a way to appreciate the plethora of opinions, not as one closes and rigidifies investigation. In Tibet, students are taught this four-fold classification first, without mention of the diversity of opinion that it does not include, but then over decades of study the structure of such presentations of schools of thought is gradually recognized by many students as a technique for gaining access to a vast store of opinion, a way to focus on topics crucial to authors within Indian Buddhism.”
Are you going to continue to quote third and fourth hand 17th cty material on 3rd cty BCE - 7th cty CE period schools? And also ignore all the other primary and secondary sources on the matter, while giving us the "true meaning"?
There is great merit in understanding all the very subtle distinctions between the 18 schools and it would take an extremely sharp mind to try to do it. But another question is do these schools ever encroach upon Sautrantika territory.
As it says in Cutting Through Appearances
, "The Proponents of the Great Exposition differ from other Buddhist schools in asserting that the factors of production, abiding, aging, and disintegration are external to the entity that undergoes these. All other systems hold that production itself is a cause or sufficient condition for disintegration; disintegration begins with
, and not after, the very first moment of production.
... that which is produced is that which abides and that which disintegrates. This is because production is understood to be the arising of a new entity due to certain causes; abiding is the continued existence of that type of entity; disintegration is its quality of not lasting for a second moment; and aging is the factor of its being a different entity from the entity of the previous moment. In this way, the four can occur simultaneously. The Great Exposition School, however, asserts that the factors of production, duration, aging, and disintegreation act on the object and occur in series, one after the other."
A Japanese man has been arrested on suspicion of writing a computer virus that destroys and replaces files on a victim PC with manga images of squid, octopuses and sea urchins. Masato Nakatsuji, 27, of Izumisano, Osaka Prefecture, was quoted as telling police: "I wanted to see how much my computer programming skills had improved since the last time I was arrested."