|
|
Line 2: |
Line 2: |
| |ArticleLayout=Academic Layout | | |ArticleLayout=Academic Layout |
| |ArticleTitle=Śākya mchog-ldan on gotra in Yogācāra and Madhyamaka | | |ArticleTitle=Śākya mchog-ldan on gotra in Yogācāra and Madhyamaka |
− | |AuthorPage=Gilks, P. | + | |AuthorPage=People/Gilks, P. |
− | |ArticleSummary=This paper is being presented as part of a panel on the topic of Reformulations of Yogācāra in | + | |ArticleSummary=This paper is being presented as part of a panel on the topic of Reformulations of Yogācāra in Tibet. Particularly, it relates to Tibetan commentary on ''Abhisamayālaṃkāra'' (''AA'') I:39, in which it is taught that the foundation (''pratiṣṭhā'') for religious practice is the ''dharmadhātu'' and that since the ''dharmadhātu'' is undifferentiated (''asaṃbhedā''), there are ultimately no distinct ''gotras'' corresponding to the three vehicles. This teaching is usually interpreted as a Mādhyamaka justification for one final vehicle, as opposed to the three-vehicle theory, attributed to Cittamātra/Vijñaptimātratā, and which is closely related to the doctrine of three gotras found in sutras such as ''Saṃdhinirmocana'' and ''Laṅkāvatāra'' and śāstras such as ''Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra''. However, there are some Tibetan writers outside the influential Gelug tradition who see the equation of ''gotra'' with ''dharmadhātu'' as an essentially Yogācāra doctrine. This alternative viewpoint implies that Yogācāra and Cittamātra are not, as is commonly held to be the case, the same thing and brings to the fore the question of whether Yogācāra is better understood as a tradition that transcends traditional doxographic categories. Through an analysis of Śākya-mchog-ldan’s explanation of ''AA'' I:39, which includes a differentiation of two other terms that are also often held to be synonymous, namely ''gotra'' and buddha-essense (or ''tathāgatagarbha''), I aim to highlight some of the ways in which his ‘reformulation’ of Yogācāra implies a reformulation of certain Cittamātra doctrines. Finally, I conclude the paper with a brief discussion on the extent to which doxographical discourse both restricts and allows for the formulation of an individual point of view. (Gilks, introduction, 1) |
− | Tibet. Particularly, it relates to Tibetan commentary on ''Abhisamayālaṃkāra'' (''AA'') I:39, in | + | |DisableDropcap=No |
− | which it is taught that the foundation (''pratiṣṭhā'') for religious practice is the ''dharmadhātu'' and | |
− | that since the ''dharmadhātu'' is undifferentiated (''asaṃbhedā''), there are ultimately no distinct | |
− | ''gotras'' corresponding to the three vehicles. This teaching is usually interpreted as a | |
− | Mādhyamaka justification for one final vehicle, as opposed to the three-vehicle theory, | |
− | attributed to Cittamātra/Vijñaptimātratā, and which is closely related to the doctrine of three | |
− | gotras found in sutras such as ''Saṃdhinirmocana'' and ''Laṅkāvatāra'' and śāstras such as | |
− | ''Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra''. However, there are some Tibetan writers outside the influential | |
− | Gelug tradition who see the equation of ''gotra'' with ''dharmadhātu'' as an essentially Yogācāra | |
− | doctrine. This alternative viewpoint implies that Yogācāra and Cittamātra are not, as is | |
− | commonly held to be the case, the same thing and brings to the fore the question of whether | |
− | Yogācāra is better understood as a tradition that transcends traditional doxographic categories. | |
− | Through an analysis of Śākya-mchog-ldan’s explanation of ''AA'' I:39, which includes a | |
− | differentiation of two other terms that are also often held to be synonymous, namely ''gotra'' | |
− | and buddha-essense (or ''tathāgatagarbha''), I aim to highlight some of the ways in which his | |
− | ‘reformulation’ of Yogācāra implies a reformulation of certain Cittamātra doctrines. Finally, I | |
− | conclude the paper with a brief discussion on the extent to which doxographical discourse | |
− | both restricts and allows for the formulation of an individual point of view. (Gilks, introduction, 1) | |
| |ArticleReferences=* Brunnhölzl, Karl. ''The Center of the Sunlit Sky''. Ithaca, NY: Snow Lion, 2004. | | |ArticleReferences=* Brunnhölzl, Karl. ''The Center of the Sunlit Sky''. Ithaca, NY: Snow Lion, 2004. |
| | | |