Donald S. Lopez, Jr. - Keynote of the 2019 Tathāgatagarbha Symposium
< Media
M.Koblensky (talk | contribs) m (Text replacement - "commons.tsadra.org/images-commons" to "commons.tsadra.org/images") |
|||
| (40 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Media | {{Media | ||
| + | |TilePhoto=Vienna_2019_-_Day_1_-_July_16th_-_05.jpg | ||
| + | |TileDescription=In his keynote lecture to the Vienna Tathāgatagarbha Symposium, Donald Lopez provides an overview of the history and influence of tathāgatagarbha doctrine as well as its various interpretations across the Mahāyāna world. | ||
|MediaEventPage=Tathāgatagarbha Across Asia | |MediaEventPage=Tathāgatagarbha Across Asia | ||
|MediaNumberInEvent=2 | |MediaNumberInEvent=2 | ||
| − | |RelatedWritings=Laṅkāvatārasūtra;Ratnagotravibhāga Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra | + | |RelatedWritings=Laṅkāvatārasūtra;Ratnagotravibhāga Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra;Tathāgatagarbhasūtra;Śrīmālādevīsiṃhanādasūtra;Aṅgulimālīyasūtra;The Awakening of Faith in the Mahāyāna;Bde gshegs snying po gsal ba'i rgyan;Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra;Jingang sanmei jing;The Platform Sutra of the Sixth Patriarch (McRae) |
|MoreWikipediaSource={{ExTile | |MoreWikipediaSource={{ExTile | ||
|link= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulasarvastivada | |link= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulasarvastivada | ||
| Line 10: | Line 12: | ||
|watermark= WIKIPEDIA | |watermark= WIKIPEDIA | ||
}} | }} | ||
| − | | | + | {{ExTile |
| − | | | + | |link= http://databases.aibs.columbia.edu/index.php?id=813e9a7179d24fb8afde6d445003c072&enc=sanskrit_romanized_title_4_search&coll=kangyur |
| − | + | |header= Mahābherīhārakaparivarta | |
| − | + | |image= https://commons.tsadra.org/images/d/d0/Sutra.jpg | |
| − | + | |content= ārya-mahābherīhāraka-parivarta-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra · 'phags pa rnga bo che chen po'i le'u zhes bya ba theg pa chen po'i mdo | |
| − | + | |watermark= BCRD | |
| − | + | }} | |
| − | + | {{ExTile | |
| − | + | |link= https://adarsha.dharma-treasure.org/kdbs/degetengyur/pbs/2910680. | |
| − | + | |header= Daśabhūmivyākhyāna | |
| − | + | |image= | |
| − | + | |content= In Sanskrit, “Explanation of the Daśabhūmikasūtra”; a commentary on the Daśabhūmikasūtra attributed to the Indian exegete Vasubandhu. | |
| − | + | |watermark= ADARSHA | |
| − | + | }} | |
| − | === | + | {{ExTile |
| − | + | |link=https://adarsha.dharma-treasure.org/kdbs/degekangyur/pbs/3010540 | |
| − | + | |header=Gaṇḍavyūhasūtra | |
| − | + | |image=https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/Avatamsaka_Gandavyuha_Teaching_1.jpeg | |
| − | + | |content=It depicts one of the world's most celebrated spiritual pilgrimages, and comprises the 39th chapter of the Avatamsaka Sutra, or Flower Ornament Scripture. | |
| − | + | |watermark=ADARSHA | |
| − | + | }} | |
| − | + | {{ExTile | |
| − | + | |link= https://adarsha.dharma-treasure.org/kdbs/degekangyur/pbs/3014188 | |
| − | + | |header= Śūraṅgama Sūtra | |
| − | + | |image= https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/Astasahasrika_Prajnaparamita_Victory_Over_Mara.jpeg | |
| − | + | |content= The Śūraṅgama Sūtra (Sanskrit: शूरङ्गम सूत्र; traditional Chinese: 大佛頂首楞嚴經) (Taisho 945) is a Mahayana Buddhist sutra that has been especially influential in Chan Buddhism. The general doctrinal outlook of the Śūraṅgama Sūtra is that of esoteric Buddhism and Buddha-nature, with some influence from Yogacara. | |
| − | + | |watermark= ADARSHA | |
| − | + | }} | |
| − | + | {{ExTile | |
| − | + | |link=https://adarsha.dharma-treasure.org/kdbs/tsongkhapa/pbs/1477455 | |
| − | + | |header= Tsongkhapa: ''The Essence of Eloquence on the Provisional and True Meanings (Drang nges legs bshad snying po)'' | |
| − | + | |image= https://commons.tsadra.org/images/c/c9/Tsongkhapa_%28R._Beer%29.jpg | |
| − | + | |content= Explores the categories of the provisional and definitive as they are presented in the Yogācāra, Svātantrika, and Prāsaṅgika schools. | |
| − | + | |watermark= ADARSHA | |
| − | + | }} | |
| − | + | {{ExTile | |
| + | |link=https://archive.org/details/bdrc-W3CN5042/page/n1/mode/2up | ||
| + | |header= Changkya Rolpai Dorje: ''A Beautiful Adornment of Mount Meru: Presentation of Classical Indian Philosophies (Grub mtha' thub bstan lhun po'i mdzes rgyan)'' | ||
| + | |image= https://commons.tsadra.org/images/a/a4/Changkya_Rolpai_Dorje_HAR.png | ||
| + | |content= Changkya Rolpai Dorje's classic work on philosophical tenets | ||
| + | |watermark= ARCHIVE | ||
| + | }} | ||
| + | |RelatedPubs=Apophatic and Kataphatic Discourse in Mahāyāna: A Chinese View;Original Enlightenment and the Transformation of Medieval Japanese Buddhism | ||
| + | |PeopleMentioned=Gregory Schopen;Eugène Obermiller;Ngawang Nyima;David Seyfort Ruegg;Bhāvaviveka;Eugène Burnouf;Paramārtha;Vasubandhu;Asaṅga;Maitreya;Robert Gimello;Nāgārjuna;Bodhiruci;Daniel Stevenson;Heshang Moheyan;Hakamaya Noriaki;Matsumoto Shirō;Tsongkhapa;Dolpopa Sherab Gyaltsen;Changkya Rolpai Dorje;Yumo Mikyö Dorje;Kunga Drolchok;Rendawa Zhönu Lodrö | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 12:10, 31 January 2023
Abstract from the Author
Sources Mentioned
Volume 48
The Platform Sutra of the Sixth Patriarch consists of a record of the teachings of Hui-neng, the Sixth Patriarch of the Chan School in China, recorded by his disciple Fahai, and is known by several abbreviated titles such as Platform Sūtra or Platform Sūtra of the Dharma Treasure. It proclaims the independence of the Southern School of Chan from the Northern School on such subjects as "sudden enlightenment" (Ch. dun-wu) and the external expression of one's real nature (Ch. jian-xing).
Source
Secondary Publications Mentioned
There is no doubt excellent reason for such acclaim as this. The clarity, force, and elegance of Nāgārjuna's arguments are undeniable. They can easily overwhelm, and often have. However, the lavish traditional and modern appreciations of Nāgārjuna's thought have not been without untoward consequences for our understanding of other varieties of Mahāyāna. The Mahāyāna is a far more various thing than a reading of the Kārikas, or even of their antecedent Prajñāpāramitā scriptures, would indicate; and the Mādhyamika position has hardly gone unchallenged in Buddhist intellectual history. Indeed, much of the subsequent history of Mahāyāna thought may be read as a cumulative qualification of the Śūnyavāda that one finds in the Perfection of Insight Literature and in Nāgārjuna. Such at least was the case with the Yogācāra and Tathāgatagarbha traditions; and when Buddhism found its way to China, Chinese Buddhist thinkers often expressed a clear preference for the later qualifications or modulations of Mādhyamika rather than for the severity of an unadulterated Nāgārjunism. It may well be that our enthusiasm for Nāgārjuna along with the comparative complexity and inaccessibility of other traditions have predisposed us to give less attention than deserved to the alternative forms of Mahāyāna. Should this be so, the remarks that follow may be taken as an effort at compensation.
The criticisms, explicit or implicit, that have been leveled against classical Śūnyavāda are many and diverse. One might undertake to examine the question of whether Mādhyamika is normative for the whole of Mahāyāna by investigating, for example, the claim of the Madhyāntavibhāga that an understanding of emptiness is crude and incomplete unless tempered by an understanding of the reality and potency of constructive imagination. For the Yogācāra authors of this text, emptiness is always and ever coincident with the imagination of the unreal (abhūtaparikalpa; hsü-wang fen-pieh) and it is only the coefficiency of the two principles that can wholly account for the way things really are. It is in recognition of this—the essential duplexity of reality—that the Madhyāntavibhāga may say, as one would not expect Nāgārjuna to say:
na śūnyaṁ napi caśūnyam tasmat sarvvam vidhīyate
satvad asatvāt satvāc ca madhyama pratipac ca sā
ku shuo i-ch'ieh fa fei k'ung fei pu-k'ung
yu wu chi yu ku shih ming chung-tao i
Therefore it is said that all dharmas
Are neither empty nor nonempty,
Because they exist, do not exist, and yet again exist.
This is the meaning of the "middle-path."
One might choose also to consider the theory of the "three revolutions of the wheel of the law" found in the Saṁdhinirmocanasūtra:
Formerly, in the second period and for the sake only of those aspiring to practice of the Mahayana-reckoning on the fact that all dharmas lack own-being, neither arise nor perish, and are originally calm and essentially of nirvāṇa—the Lord turned the Wheel of the Law which is characterized by a hidden intent (i yin-mi hsiang). [But] this too (i.e., like the first turning) had [other teachings] superior to it to which it deferred. It was of a sense still to be interpreted (yu wei liao-id; neyartha), and [thus] the subject of much dispute.
In the present third period and for the sake of aspirants to all vehicles—reckoning [again] on the fact that all dharmas lack own-being, neither arise nor perish, are originally calm and essentially of nirvāṇa, and have the lack of own-being as their nature-the Lord has turned the Wheel of the Law which is characterized [this time] by a manifest meaning (i hsien-liao hsiang). This is the most rare and precious [of teachings]. There is nothing superior to this Turning of the Wheel of Law by the Lord and nothing to which it defers. It is of truly explicit meaning (chen liao-i; nīthārtha) and not the subject of disputes.
The third revolution of the dharmacakra here described is, of course, the annunciation of what was to become Yogācāra Buddhism. The second corresponds to the Śunyavāda of the Prajñāpāramitā canon and, proleptically, to its Mādhyamika systematization. The implication of this passage is that although both dispensations of the law teach emptiness (here called "lack of own-being," "nonarising," etc.), the Prajñāpāramitā and Mādhyamika versions of the doctrine are inchoate, eliptical, imprecise and a source of controversy, whereas the Yogācāra version is definitive, explicit, and not liable to conflicting interpretations.
A third approach might be to follow the masterful lead of Ruegg, Takasaki, and Wayman in considering the claims of the Tathāgatagarbha tradition to superiority over classical Śunyavāda. The Tathāgatagarbha, after all, is a tradition which argues forcefully that the reality of all things is as much "nonempty" (aśūnya; pu-k'ung) as it is "empty" (śūnya; k'ung) and which employs such un-Mādhyamika terminology in its locutions about reality as "permanence" (nītya; chang), "purity" (śubha; ching), and even "self" (ātman; wo).
A fourth option, and the one we take here, is to look at the differences among Mādhyamika and the other varieties of Mahāyāna through the eyes of those Chinese Buddhist who, in devising their own systems of thought, were given the opportunity to compare and choose. I refer here to the numerous sixth-and-seventh-century Chinese thinkers who formulated "division of the doctrine" (p'an-chiao) and similar schemes in the course of fashioning new and uniquely sinic schools of Buddhism. Almost without exception these thinkers chose to subordinate Śūnyavāda of the sort one finds in the Perfection of Insight literature and the Kārikās to other kinds of Mahāyāna, often to doctrines and texts of Tathāgatagarbha provenance or association. The Hua-yen p'an-chiao system, for example, relegated Śūnyavāda to the category of "incipient" or "elementary" (shih) Mahāyāna but held the Tathāgatagarbha tradition to be representative of an "advanced" or "final" (chung) Mahāyāna, both of which fell short of the perfection of its own "rounded" or "comprehensive" (yüan) teaching.
A theme that unites all of these challenges to Mādhyamika primacy—the Yoācāra, the Tathāgatagarbha, and the Chinese—is a profound dissatisfaction with the seemingly relentless apophasis of Nāgārjuna and, to a lesser extent, of his sources. All are able to acknowledge Nāgārjuna's caution—that uncritical use of the constructive language of philosophical views is a species of intellectual bondage—but they acknowledge it only as a caution, a corrective to false views. They insist, however, that the way of denial and negation, the unremitting distrust of positive language, is necessary but not sufficient unto enlightenment. It allows one to fend off error but does not actively advance one toward the truth and may even impede the practical religious life by generating more subtle forms of error and by inhibiting compassion. Therefore, the various alternatives to Mādhyamika that we have mentioned took it upon themselves to reassert the salvific value of kataphasis, the spiritual utility of positive and affirmative language. They chose, in short, eloquence over silence.
Scholars and commentators have long recognized the historical importance of original enlightenment thought but differ heatedly over how it is to be understood. Some tout it as the pinnacle of the Buddhist philosophy of absolute non-dualism. Others claim to find in it the paradigmatic expression of a timeless Japanese spirituality. According other readings, it represents a dangerous anti-nomianism that undermined observance of moral precepts, precipitated a decline in Buddhist scholarship, and denied the need for religious discipline. Still others denounce it as an authoritarian ideology that, by sacralizing the given order, has in effect legitimized hierarchy and discriminative social practices. Often the acceptance or rejection of original enlightenment thought is seen as the fault line along which traditional Buddhist institutions are to be differentiated from the new Buddhist movements (Zen, Pure Land, and Nichiren) that arose during Japan’s medieval period.
Jacqueline Stone’s groundbreaking study moves beyond the treatment of the original enlightenment doctrine as abstract philosophy to explore its historical dimension. Drawing on a wealth of medieval primary sources and modern Japanese scholarship, it places this discourse in its ritual, institutional, and social contexts, illuminating its importance to the maintenance of traditions of lineage and the secret transmission of knowledge that characterized several medieval Japanese elite culture. It sheds new light on interpretive strategies employed in pre-modern Japanese Buddhist texts, an area that hitherto has received a little attention. Through these and other lines of investigation, Stone problematizes entrenched notions of “corruption” in the medieval Buddhist establishment. Using the examples of Tendai and Nichiren Buddhism and their interactions throughout the medieval period, she calls into question both overly facile distinctions between "old" and "new" Buddhism and the long-standing scholarly assumptions that have perpetuated them. This study marks a significant contribution to ongoing debates over definitions of Buddhism in the Kamakura era (1185–1333), long regarded as a formative period in Japanese religion and culture. Stone argues that "original enlightenment thought" represents a substantial rethinking of Buddhist enlightenment that cuts across the distinction between "old" and "new" institutions and was particularly characteristic of the medieval period.
People Mentioned
About the video
| Featuring | Donald S. Lopez, Jr. |
|---|---|
| Creator | University of Vienna, Tsadra Foundation |
| Event | Tathāgatagarbha Across Asia (16 July 2019, University of Vienna, Austria) |
| Related Website | Buddha-Nature Project |
| Video Web Location | Tathāgatagarbha Across Asia |
| Creation Date | 16 July 2019 |
| Citation | Lopez, Donald S., Jr. “Tathāgatagarbha: A Brief History.” Keynote lecture at the University of Vienna Symposium, Tathāgatagarbha Across Asia, Vienna, Austria, July 2019. Video, 40:17. https://youtu.be/0SSSdNNbeu8. |
