Difference between revisions of "Ideas"
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | ==Key | + | ==Key Binaries== |
| − | + | Binary opposites in Buddhism—such as saṃsāra and nirvāṇa, emptiness and luminosity, ignorance and wisdom, and scores more—have been the stuff of debates since Śākyamuni Buddha first preached in Sarnath. He himself became the subject of a central binary: on his parinirvāṇa, did he dissipate into non-existence, or does he abide as a luminous universal principle? It's an age-old dialectic of presence and absence that cuts to the heart of Buddhist metaphysics and is particularly relevant for buddha-nature theory. Similarly, over the centuries teachers have explored multiple ways of explaining the relationship between us ordinary deluded beings and fully perfect buddhas; at the moment of our enlightenment will we be transformed or will our true nature be revealed? Is something that isn't here now somehow produced? Do we share a common nature with the buddhas, or are we fundamentally different from them? The Buddha may have proposed a middle way between binary dualism, but there's a lot of disagreement about where that middle falls. | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | Buddha-nature theory seems to have been initially offered as one such middle way, a previously missing link between extremes offered by the Madhyamaka and Yogācāra schools of Mahāyāna doctrine. On the one hand was a theory of emptiness that was so extreme that, many argued, certain meditative practices were undermined. On the other hand was a theory of mind that proposed a permanently existent consciousness, an idea that was accused of violating the Buddhist doctrines of impermanence and no-self. In its earliest appearances buddha-nature was vague, more poetry than theoretical principle, hinting at possible interpretations and promising salvation for all without necessarily explaining much. But as the doctrine grew in popularity, debate lines developed. It has been categorized as provisional and definitive, defined as emptiness as well as luminosity, labeled Madhyamaka, Yogācāra, or neither as it has been tugged one way and the other across the middle-ground. | |
| − | + | ||
| + | To better understand what the debate lines are and where the great thinkers in Buddhist history have stood, we offer the following binaries that appear in buddha-nature theory. Each is briefly introduced, with suggestions for further reading. Great Buddhist thinkers who populate this website, as well as scriptures and classic works of doctrinal exegesis, are presented with a checklist of positions. Readers are encouraged to explore and compare these binaries ... | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | Provisional / definitive | ||
| + | |||
| − | + | Buddhist scholars classify all doctrine as either definitive or provisional. Concepts and statements are deemed definitive when they accurately describe reality. Those that do not, but are of practical value, are provisional. Buddha-nature has generated considerable controversy since the theory was first developed in the early centuries of the common era. The concept was initially offered as a palliative for those who feared emptiness as taught by the Mahāyāna. It was also a guarantee for those who might be dissuaded from a path to salvation that was said to take near-infinite lifetimes to traverse. As such, the concept was plainly intended as a provisional teaching, an encouragement to those on and not yet on the path, but not actually true. Yet buddha-nature scriptures are remarkably vague, allowing for a wide range of definitions and interpretations. Beginning in the eleventh century, with the popularity of the Ratnagotravibhāga, theorists began to debate over whether the scriptures were to be taken as definitive or provisional. Candrakīrti, one of the greatest Madhyamaka philosophers, deemed tathāgatagarbha to be provisional for it did not conform to emptiness. His fellow Mādhyamika Kamalaśīla, however, categorized it as definitive based on the attractive (and anti-Yogacārā) promise that all beings will eventually attain buddhahood. Yogācāra philosophers also varied in their categorization depending on how they interpreted the doctrine's contradiction with the Three Vehicle theory. | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
*Is Buddha-nature considered definitive or provisional? | *Is Buddha-nature considered definitive or provisional? | ||
*All beings have Buddha-nature | *All beings have Buddha-nature | ||
| Line 28: | Line 29: | ||
**Buddha-nature as the Disposition | **Buddha-nature as the Disposition | ||
**Buddha-nature as Nonconceptuality | **Buddha-nature as Nonconceptuality | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Key Questions== | ||
| + | *What is buddha-nature? | ||
| + | *Is buddha-nature emptiness or luminosity? | ||
| + | *How did buddha-nature thought develop in Tibet? | ||
| + | *How do I engage with buddha-nature in my practice? | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Core Research Topics== | ||
| + | *Title Debates | ||
| + | *Author Attributions | ||
| + | *etc | ||
==Interesting Areas of Debate== | ==Interesting Areas of Debate== | ||
Revision as of 23:25, 3 October 2018
Key Binaries[edit]
Binary opposites in Buddhism—such as saṃsāra and nirvāṇa, emptiness and luminosity, ignorance and wisdom, and scores more—have been the stuff of debates since Śākyamuni Buddha first preached in Sarnath. He himself became the subject of a central binary: on his parinirvāṇa, did he dissipate into non-existence, or does he abide as a luminous universal principle? It's an age-old dialectic of presence and absence that cuts to the heart of Buddhist metaphysics and is particularly relevant for buddha-nature theory. Similarly, over the centuries teachers have explored multiple ways of explaining the relationship between us ordinary deluded beings and fully perfect buddhas; at the moment of our enlightenment will we be transformed or will our true nature be revealed? Is something that isn't here now somehow produced? Do we share a common nature with the buddhas, or are we fundamentally different from them? The Buddha may have proposed a middle way between binary dualism, but there's a lot of disagreement about where that middle falls.
Buddha-nature theory seems to have been initially offered as one such middle way, a previously missing link between extremes offered by the Madhyamaka and Yogācāra schools of Mahāyāna doctrine. On the one hand was a theory of emptiness that was so extreme that, many argued, certain meditative practices were undermined. On the other hand was a theory of mind that proposed a permanently existent consciousness, an idea that was accused of violating the Buddhist doctrines of impermanence and no-self. In its earliest appearances buddha-nature was vague, more poetry than theoretical principle, hinting at possible interpretations and promising salvation for all without necessarily explaining much. But as the doctrine grew in popularity, debate lines developed. It has been categorized as provisional and definitive, defined as emptiness as well as luminosity, labeled Madhyamaka, Yogācāra, or neither as it has been tugged one way and the other across the middle-ground.
To better understand what the debate lines are and where the great thinkers in Buddhist history have stood, we offer the following binaries that appear in buddha-nature theory. Each is briefly introduced, with suggestions for further reading. Great Buddhist thinkers who populate this website, as well as scriptures and classic works of doctrinal exegesis, are presented with a checklist of positions. Readers are encouraged to explore and compare these binaries ...
Provisional / definitive
Buddhist scholars classify all doctrine as either definitive or provisional. Concepts and statements are deemed definitive when they accurately describe reality. Those that do not, but are of practical value, are provisional. Buddha-nature has generated considerable controversy since the theory was first developed in the early centuries of the common era. The concept was initially offered as a palliative for those who feared emptiness as taught by the Mahāyāna. It was also a guarantee for those who might be dissuaded from a path to salvation that was said to take near-infinite lifetimes to traverse. As such, the concept was plainly intended as a provisional teaching, an encouragement to those on and not yet on the path, but not actually true. Yet buddha-nature scriptures are remarkably vague, allowing for a wide range of definitions and interpretations. Beginning in the eleventh century, with the popularity of the Ratnagotravibhāga, theorists began to debate over whether the scriptures were to be taken as definitive or provisional. Candrakīrti, one of the greatest Madhyamaka philosophers, deemed tathāgatagarbha to be provisional for it did not conform to emptiness. His fellow Mādhyamika Kamalaśīla, however, categorized it as definitive based on the attractive (and anti-Yogacārā) promise that all beings will eventually attain buddhahood. Yogācāra philosophers also varied in their categorization depending on how they interpreted the doctrine's contradiction with the Three Vehicle theory.
- Is Buddha-nature considered definitive or provisional?
- All beings have Buddha-nature
- Which Wheel Turning
- Yogācāra vs Madhyamaka
- Zhentong vs Rangtong
- Svātantrika (རང་རྒྱུད་) vs Prāsaṅgika (ཐལ་འགྱུར་པ་)
- Promotes how many vehicles?
- Analytic vs Meditative Tradition
- What is Buddha-nature?
- Buddha-nature as the Emptiness That is a Nonimplicative Negation
- Buddha-nature as Mind's Luminous Nature
- Buddha-nature as the Alaya Consciousness
- Buddha-nature as a Sentient Being
- Buddha-nature as the Dharmakaya
- Buddha-nature as Suchness
- Buddha-nature as the Disposition
- Buddha-nature as Nonconceptuality
Key Questions[edit]
- What is buddha-nature?
- Is buddha-nature emptiness or luminosity?
- How did buddha-nature thought develop in Tibet?
- How do I engage with buddha-nature in my practice?
Core Research Topics[edit]
- Title Debates
- Author Attributions
- etc
Interesting Areas of Debate[edit]
Zhentong
