Dear Derek,

> Like Dimitry, I find this an interesting digression.

Glad somebody is enjoying it :)

> Doesn't the first verse of Vasubandhu's Twenty Verses refer to
> objects as being "non-existent"?

The big mistake one often encounters when reading some translations of
Yogacara material is that somebody has failed to realize that the discussion
is epistemological not ontological. The key word here is "artha" -- yet
again translated by that over-worked little word "object". When "artha" is
used in this kind of context, it basically denotes "the referent of a
linguistic or cognitive act" and these are not real because they are mental
constructs. Due to the involvement of language, I am inclined to think that
they are equivalent to sa.mj~naa in the sense of products of ideation.

> > The Yogacarins and Pramanikas posited a special kind of yogic
> > perception which gives direct access to sense objects and which is
> > not mediated by the normal mental processes. Buddhas are thought
> > to have a similar ability.
>
> Isn't that a sort of stealth realism?

Not necessarily, if one understands Yogacara tenets as epistemological in
intent. The Yogacarins did not deny the existence (ontological) of external
objects per se (vastu-maatra) but that we do not have direct access to them.
Think of the example they use concerning vastu-maatra X which we cognize as
water, pretas as something unpleasant, probably excretory in origin,
hell-beings as fire, gods as nectar, fish as a home etc. It can thus be
deduced that they do not deny an underlying "object" but claim that we only
know it through the nimitta (perceptual image) we create according to our
situation in samsara. Whereas, they seem to be suggesting that the way
Buddhas "perceive" things yathaabhuuta.m is by some faculty which is not
mediated by the normal sensory perceptual processes.

Best wishes,
Stephen Hodge