Mahāmudrā and the Middle Way
From Buddha-Nature
< Books
((by SublimeText.Mediawiker)) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Book | {{Book | ||
| − | |||
|BookPerson={{Book-person | |BookPerson={{Book-person | ||
|PersonPage=Higgins, D. | |PersonPage=Higgins, D. | ||
| Line 21: | Line 20: | ||
}} | }} | ||
|FullTextRead=No | |FullTextRead=No | ||
| − | |BookEssay=David Higgins and Martina Draszczyk's Mahāmudrā And The Middle Way is a study of four Tibetan philosophers from the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries who attempted to forge a middle way between contemporary doctrinal extremes regarding Mahāmudrā and buddha-nature theory. Three of the four authors were Kagyu: Karma Trinle Chokle Namgyel, the Eighth Karmapa, and the Fourth Drukchen Pema Karpo, and one was Sakya, Śākya Chokden, who was, late in life, a student of the Seventh Karmapa. The four authors did not agree with each other, all finding their own ways to steer, as Higgins and Draszczyk put it, "a middle course between the Scylla and Charybdis of eternalism and nihilism." | + | |BookEssay=David Higgins and Martina Draszczyk's ''Mahāmudrā And The Middle Way'' is a study of four Tibetan philosophers from the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries who attempted to forge a middle way between contemporary doctrinal extremes regarding Mahāmudrā and buddha-nature theory. Three of the four authors were Kagyu: Karma Trinle Chokle Namgyel, the Eighth Karmapa, and the Fourth Drukchen Pema Karpo, and one was Sakya, Śākya Chokden, who was, late in life, a student of the Seventh Karmapa. The four authors did not agree with each other, all finding their own ways to steer, as Higgins and Draszczyk put it, "a middle course between the Scylla and Charybdis of eternalism and nihilism." |
| − | All four authors studied were "scholar-yogis,"—philosophers who were also keenly interested and accomplished in the meditative practices of their traditions. Higgins and Draszczyk position the four as responding to the doctrinal extremes of the Geluk and Jonang traditions, the first representing nihilism of Tsongkhapa's interpretation of Candrakīrti, and the second being Dolpopa's teaching on zhentong. All four wrote in an era in which Geluk Prasangika was becoming dominant, in a language that suggested an anti-tantric polemic; Geluk and Sakya authors were rejecting Saraha, an Indian saint whose writings form part of the Mahāmudrā canon. Certainly, the two hierarchs of Kagyu traditions could not afford to leave their central doctrines undefended. This perspective is true to the authors studied, but it should be noted that followers of the Geluk or Jonang would certainly not accept the label of extremism, and would—and did—view the authors' positions as intellectually naive. | + | All four authors studied were "scholar-yogis,"—philosophers who were also keenly interested and accomplished in the meditative practices of their traditions. Higgins and Draszczyk position the four as responding to the doctrinal extremes of the Geluk and Jonang traditions, the first representing nihilism of Tsongkhapa's interpretation of Candrakīrti, and the second being Dolpopa's teaching on ''zhentong''. All four wrote in an era in which Geluk Prasangika was becoming dominant, in a language that suggested an anti-tantric polemic; Geluk and Sakya authors were rejecting Saraha, an Indian saint whose writings form part of the Mahāmudrā canon. Certainly, the two hierarchs of Kagyu traditions could not afford to leave their central doctrines undefended. This perspective is true to the authors studied, but it should be noted that followers of the Geluk or Jonang would certainly not accept the label of extremism, and would—and did—view the authors' positions as intellectually naive. |
| − | Still, the four attempts at reconciliation between doctrinal poles are a needed corrective to the many studies in which the extremes are presented as contradictory; for all four authors, the philosophical binaries were complementary and integral to the practice of Buddhism. They each advocated for an intellectual inquiry of emptiness using the language of negation favored by Geluk and mainline Sakya teachers, paired with or followed by a meditative engagement with positive-language doctrines of buddha-nature and the natural luminosity of mind. The great debates of the era between Madhyamaka and Yogacāra, zhentong and rangtong, analytical or meditative approach, Sudden vs. Gradual Enlightenment, and so forth, were for these authors not issues of either/or but matters of synthesis and balance. | + | Still, the four attempts at reconciliation between doctrinal poles are a needed corrective to the many studies in which the extremes are presented as contradictory; for all four authors, the philosophical binaries were complementary and integral to the practice of Buddhism. They each advocated for an intellectual inquiry of emptiness using the language of negation favored by Geluk and mainline Sakya teachers, paired with or followed by a meditative engagement with positive-language doctrines of buddha-nature and the natural luminosity of mind. The great debates of the era between Madhyamaka and Yogacāra, ''zhentong'' and ''rangtong'', analytical or meditative approach, Sudden vs. Gradual Enlightenment, and so forth, were for these authors not issues of either/or but matters of synthesis and balance. |
|BookToc='''Volume One''' | |BookToc='''Volume One''' | ||
Revision as of 17:03, 29 March 2019
Mahāmudrā and the Middle Way
Book
Book
This two-volume publication explores the complex philosophy of Mahāmudrā that developed in Tibetan Dwags po Bka’ brgyud traditions between the 15th and 16th centuries CE. It examines the attempts to articulate and defend Bka’ brgyud views and practices by four leading post-classical thinkers: (1) Shākya mchog ldan (1423‒1507), a celebrated yet controversial Sa skya scholar who developed a strong affiliation with the Karma Bka’ brgyud Mahāmudrā tradition in the last half of his life, (2) Karma phrin las Phyogs las rnam rgyal (1456‒1539), a renowned Karma Bka’ brgyud scholar-yogin and tutor to the Eighth Karma pa, (3) the Eighth Karma pa himself, Mi bskyod rdo rje (1507‒1554), who was among the most erudite and influential scholar-hierarchs of his generation, (4) and Padma dkar po (1527‒1592), Fourth ’Brug chen of the ’Brug pa Bka’ brgyud lineage who is generally acknowledged as its greatest scholar and systematizer. It is an important academic work published in the Vienna series WSTB and is divided into two volumes: the first offers a detailed philosophical analysis of the authors’ principal views and justifications of Mahāmudrā against the background of Indian and Tibetan Buddhist doctrines on mind, emptiness and buddha nature; the second comprises an annotated anthology of their seminal writings on Mahāmudrā accompanied by critical editions and introductions. These two volumes are the result of research that was generously funded by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) from 2012 to 2015 under the supervision of Prof. Klaus-Dieter Mathes. The project was entitled “‘Emptiness of Other’ (Gzhan stong) in the Tibetan ‘Great Seal’ (Mahāmudrā) Traditions of the 15th and 16th Centuries” (FWF Project number P23826-G15). (Source: WSTB Description)
| Citation | Higgins, David, and Martina Draszczyk. Mahāmudrā and the Middle Way: Post-Classical Kagyü Discourses on Mind, Emptiness and Buddha-Nature. Vol. II, Translations, Critical Texts, Bibliography and Index. Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde 90.2. Vienna: Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien Universität Wien, 2016. |
|---|---|
- PaN chen shAkya mchog ldan. phyag rgya chen po gsal bar byed pa'i bstan bcos tshangs pa'i 'khor lo. In gsung 'bum shAkya mchog ldan, Vol. 17: 359-412. Kathmandu: sachen international, 2006.
- karma phrin las pa. dri lan yid kyi mun sel zhes bya ba lcags mo'i dris lan. In chos kyi rje karma phrin las pa'i gsung 'bum las rdo rje'i mgur gyi phreng ba dang thun mong ba'i dris lan gyi phreng ba. New Delhi: ngawang topgay, 1975: 88-92.
- ____________. yin lug sgrog pa lta ba'i mgur. In chos kyi rje karma phrin las pa'i gsung 'bum las rdo rje'i mgur gyi phreng ba dang thun mong ba'i dris lan gyi phreng ba. New Delhi: ngawang topgay, 1975: 8-10.
- ____________. rdo rje mgur. In chos kyi rje karma phrin las pa'i gsung 'bum las rdo rje'i mgur gyi phreng ba dang thun mong ba'i dris lan gyi phreng ba. New Delhi: ngawang topgay, 1975: 43-44.
- mi bskyod rdo rje. bdud rtsi'i dri mchog. In gsung 'bum mi bskyod rdo rje, Vol. 15: 975-1024. Lhasa: s.n., 2004.
- ____________. bla ma khams pa'i dris lan mi gcig sems gnyis. In gsung 'bum mi bskyod rdo rje, Vol. 3: 219-223. Lhasa: s.n., 2004.
- ____________. zab mo phyag chen gyi mdzod sna tshogs 'dus pa'i gter. In gsung 'bum mi bskyod rdo rje, Vol. 15: 1025-1038. Lhasa: s.n., 2004.
- ____________. sku gsum ngo sprod rnam bshad. In gsung 'bum mi bskyod rdo rje, Vol. 21: 208-210. Lhasa: s.n., 2004.
- ____________. dgongs gcig 'grel pa. In gsung 'bum mi bskyod rdo rje, Vol. 6: 98-102. Lhasa: s.n., 2004.
- pad+ma dkar po. phyag chen rgyal ba'i gan mdzod. In gsung 'bum pad+ma dkar po, Vol. 21: 38-42, 173-192. Darjeeling: kargyud sungrab nyamso khang, 1973-1974.
- ____________. klan ka gzhom pa'i gtam. In gsung 'bum pad+ma dkar po, Vol. 21: 553-561. Darjeeling: kargyud sungrab nyamso khang, 1973-1974.
- ____________. shar rtse zhal snga'i brgal lan. In gsung 'bum pad+ma dkar po, Vol. 21: 585-587. Darjeeling: kargyud sungrab nyamso khang, 1973-1974.
- ____________. snying po don gyi man ngag. In gsung 'bum pad+ma dkar po, Vol. 21: 414-415. Darjeeling: kargyud sungrab nyamso khang, 1973-1974.
