Paññāsikhara wrote:
Then they really seem to not know what they are talking about! It is my turn to be amazed!
What’s there to get amazed about? I have not told you their reasons, and perhaps you don't know them. From Maps of the Profound:
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"!
1. Etymology of Vaibhashika
Because of mainly propounding the Great Exposition of Particulars and because of propounding particulars of substantialities, they are called Proponents of the Great Exposition or Proponents of Particulars.
Word Commentary on Root Text: Because they propound tenets mainly following Vasumitra’s Great Exposition of Particulars, they are called Vaibhashikas [Proponents of the Great Exposition], or because they propound that the three time [that is, past, present, and future objects] are particulars of substantialities (dravya) or propound many substantially established phenomena like the Forder Vaisheshikas.
Nga-wang-bel-den’s Annotations: The three times are asserted to be particulars [or instances] of the substantially established things with respect to which they are posited. For example, when divided, a shoot has the three times which are itself. According to explanations in some Indian texts, [Proponents of the Great Exposition hold that] any phenomenon must have a separately apprehendable entity of its own, and since they do not know how to posit objects that are merely imputed to factors of other phenomena, their way of positing the existence of phenomena accords greatly with the Vaisheshika’s components-possessing substance, due to which they are called Vaibhashikas. This also appears to be a suitable [etymology].
Etymologically, they are called Vaibhasikas because they take the (Maha)Vibhasa as pramana. Add an adjectival "-ika" suffix, and strengthen the first vowel from "vi-" to "vai-". Simple as that.
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!
And if that isn't enough, I can always read Samghabhadra, too.
Nga-wang-bel-den later says,
It is not suitable to treat all that are synonyms as equivalents because, for example, although Sarvastivada and Vibhajyavada are described as synonyms, it can be known from their etymologies that they are not equivalent:
1. Because Bhavaviveka explains that:
- Sarvastivadins are so called because of asserting that all three times substantially exist.
- Vibhajyavadins are so called because of propounding [tenets] within differentiating that past [objects] that have not issued forth effects and present [objects] are substantially existent, whereas past [objects] that have issued forth effects and future [objects] are imputedly existent.
How anybody could say that "Sarvastivada and Vibhajyavada are described as synonyms" is completely beyond me!
This shows the confusion where they just conflate a bunch of early schools.
In effect, the two terms are doctrinally complete opposites.
A quick read of the Kathavatthu or the Vijnanakaya sastra will quickly show who is who.
Oh, wait, Jamyang didn't have either of these, did he?
Paññāsikhara wrote:
"puts forth as its own the thesis according to which all dharmas are of purely nominal existence (prajnapti)."
And, as we know, in the lingo of the time, what is a prajnapti is not a paramartha dharma, ie. what is a designation is not an ultimate (phenomena).
This is subtle material and it is very easy to misunderstand true meanings and become confused. For example, just because something is a designation does not necessarily imply that it is not substantial. Vaibhashika asserts that some things are imputed whilst simultaneously asserting that they are substantial. This is because NOTHING has a nature of being merely imputed, the way Sautrantikas assert.
So, don't tell me: You don't have have the source yourself, but you are going to reveal the "true meaning" to me, right?
In Abhidharma speak, a prajnapti is definitely not a paramartha / dravyasat dharma. Completely mutually exclusive.
This is known as early as the Vijnanakaya sastra, a text which the Vaibhasikas used as support of their Vibhasa.
The quote is a critique of the Prajnaptivada and Ekavyavaharikas. They are not Sautrantikas, either.
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"?