Difference between revisions of "Tibetan Buddhist Philosophy"
(Created page with "Since the mid-1980s, the study of Tibetan Buddhist philosophy has greatly expanded. The volume of available publications now surpasses the scope even of most specialists in th...") |
|||
(5 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
− | Since the mid-1980s, the study of Tibetan Buddhist philosophy has greatly expanded. The volume of available publications now surpasses the scope even of most specialists in the field. Under these circumstances, the present bibliography aspires not to present the area comprehensively, but instead to offer a selection of materials that, in the judgment of this writer, will enable those beginning research to navigate effectively in this domain. Scholars of Tibetan thought are not wholly agreed as to what counts as | + | [[File:C.jpga6e7114e.jpg|thumb|250px|]] |
+ | Since the mid-1980s, the study of [[Tibetan Buddhist]] [[philosophy]] has greatly expanded. The volume of available publications now surpasses the scope even of most specialists in the field. Under these circumstances, the {{Wiki|present}} bibliography aspires not to {{Wiki|present}} the area comprehensively, but instead to offer a [[selection]] of materials that, in the [[judgment]] of this writer, will enable those beginning research to navigate effectively in this domain. [[Scholars]] of [[Tibetan]] [[thought]] are not wholly agreed as to what counts as “[[philosophy]]” within [[Tibetan]] [[traditions]]. There is no [[Tibetan]] term that is a straightforward {{Wiki|equivalent}} to the [[Western]] expression, though such {{Wiki|distinctions}} as that between [[rigs]] pa’i rjes ’brangs (followers of [[reason]]) and dad pa’i rjes ‘brangs (followers of [[faith]]) do mark out areas of [[thought]] and [[practice]] that significantly overlap with [[Western]] conceptions of [[philosophy]] as opposed to [[religion]], [[mysticism]], or [[faith]]. With this in [[mind]], there are some who favor a narrow [[definition]] of [[philosophy]] in [[Tibet]], stressing above all those [[traditions]] {{Wiki|emphasizing}} [[education]] through [[debate]] and works concerning [[Buddhist logic]] and {{Wiki|epistemology}} (Skt. [[pramāṇa]], Tib. [[tshad ma]]), [[Madhyamaka]] (Tib. [[dbu ma]]), the analysis of [[philosophical]] systems (Skt. [[siddhānta]], Tib. [[grub mtha]]’), and similar [[subjects]]. (For an introduction to the [[Tibetan]] educational system and the major departments of [[philosophical]] [[thought]], refer to Dreyfus 2003, cited under General Overviews.) On the other hand, there are those who insist that important [[philosophical]] issues are often addressed, and trenchantly so, in works [[emanating]] from outside the [[debate]] schools, most notably within the {{Wiki|contemplative}} [[traditions]] of the “[[Great Seal]]” ([[Mahāmudrā]]) and “[[Great Perfection]]” ([[Dzogchen]], [[rdzogs chen]]). The late H. V. Guenther, several of whose works are cited in this entry, was the pioneering figure in this [[latter]] approach. Many of those who have enthusiastically contributed to the translation of [[Tibetan Buddhist]] [[philosophical]] texts in recent years have had no appreciable background in [[philosophy]] before encountering its [[Tibetan]] versions, often as a result of their studies under the [[direction]] of contemporary [[Tibetan]] [[religious]] [[teachers]]. One result has been a remarkable [[effort]] to translate the writings favored by these [[teachers]], as well as the [[discourses]] of the [[teachers]] themselves. Although much that is of genuine [[philosophical]] [[interest]] is to be found in some of these works, the expression of [[ideas]] that we find in them is often {{Wiki|naive}} with [[respect]] to [[Western]] [[philosophical]] usage. Accordingly, the [[selection]] of translations used here has been limited, {{Wiki|emphasizing}} materials that are exceptionally informed by sufficient [[philosophical]] background so as to render [[philosophical]] [[Wikipedia:concept|concepts]] in a relatively limpid [[manner]], together with a number of texts of such [[outstanding]] importance within the [[Tibetan tradition]] that they [[merit]] the [[effort]] required to read them even when the translations fail to be adequately perspicacious {{Wiki|philosophically}}. It should be noted, too, that much of [[Tibetan]] [[philosophy]] is {{Wiki|scholastic}} in the strict [[sense]] that it is based on and expresses itself in scholia, comments and glosses on the works of {{Wiki|past}} [[masters]] (in [[Tibetan]] usually called [[mchan]] bu, “annotation,” or [[’grel pa]], “commentary”). The majority of the works studied in this way are [[Indian]] [[Buddhist]] treatises, above all the writings attributed to [[Nāgārjuna]], [[Āryadeva]], [[Candrakīrti]] and [[Śāntideva]]; [[Maitreya]], [[Asaṅga]] and [[Vasubandhu]]; [[Dignāga]] and [[Dharmakīrti]]; and [[Bhāviveka]], [[Śāntarakṣita]], and [[Kamalaśīla]]. Though some [[Tibetan]] commentaries on the writings of these figures are noted here, their [[principal]] works, which [[form]] the backbone for all serious study of [[Tibetan Buddhist]] [[thought]], are not. Details pertaining to these [[Indian]] [[Buddhist]] authors will be found elsewhere in {{Wiki|Oxford}} Bibliographies Online. Similarly, the bibliographies devoted to specific topics in [[Buddhist doctrine]] and [[philosophy]] contain [[information]] of use to those pursuing the study of [[Tibetan Buddhist]] [[intellectual]] [[traditions]] in particular. | ||
General Overviews | General Overviews | ||
− | + | [[File:Buddha-a.jp.jpg|thumb|250px|]] | |
− | The indispensible background for the study of Tibetan Buddhist philosophy is to be found in Indian Buddhist philosophy, as mentioned above. The works listed in this section will be most useful for those who have at least an elementary background in the Indian sources and are now taking up the contributions of Tibetan intellectual traditions in particular. Dreyfus 2003 may be recommended as introducing, in the engaging manner of a personal memoir, the practice of philosophical debate in the context of Tibetan monastic education. The literary counterpart of debate practice, textual exegesis, is the subject of Cabezón 1994, while a number of philosophical genres of writing—including doxography, polemics, and debate manuals—are surveyed in Cabezón and Jackson 1996. The history of Buddhist philosophy in Tibet is introduced in Kapstein 2009, which includes a brief anthology of relevant texts in translation. Further aspects of the history of Tibetan philosophical traditions are studied in Kapstein 2000 and Smith 2001. Schaeffer 2009 offers a pioneering study of the history of the book in Tibet, contributing to the general cultural background. Although the distinctions among the various orders and lineages of Tibetan Buddhism were not in the first instance philosophical, philosophical dispute has played a role in sectarian rivalry and self-definition. Kapstein 2005 surveys these traditions in brief, while Thuken Losang Chökyi Nyima 2009 offers a complete translation of the most thorough traditional account of the philosophical distinctions among them. As it will be necessary to use their Tibetan names throughout the remainder of this bibliography, a few words of explanation may be useful to readers new to this area: The Nyingmapa (Rnying ma pa) order claims to represent the forms of Buddhism first introduced into Tibet under the rulers of the old Tibetan empire of the 7th–9th centuries CE. In its present forms, however, it is largely the product of renewal and reform from the 11th century on, the period of the “later spread of the | + | The indispensible background for the study of [[Tibetan Buddhist]] [[philosophy]] is to be found in [[Indian]] [[Buddhist philosophy]], as mentioned above. The works listed in this section will be most useful for those who have at least an elementary background in the [[Indian]] sources and are now [[taking up]] the contributions of [[Tibetan]] [[intellectual]] [[traditions]] in particular. Dreyfus 2003 may be recommended as introducing, in the engaging [[manner]] of a personal memoir, the [[practice]] of [[philosophical]] [[debate]] in the context of [[Tibetan]] [[monastic]] [[education]]. The {{Wiki|literary}} counterpart of [[debate]] [[practice]], textual {{Wiki|exegesis}}, is the [[subject]] of Cabezón 1994, while a number of [[philosophical]] genres of writing—including {{Wiki|doxography}}, {{Wiki|polemics}}, and [[debate]] manuals—are surveyed in Cabezón and Jackson 1996. The {{Wiki|history}} of [[Buddhist philosophy]] in [[Tibet]] is introduced in [[Wikipedia:Matthew Kapstein|Kapstein]] 2009, which includes a brief {{Wiki|anthology}} of relevant texts in translation. Further aspects of the {{Wiki|history}} of [[Tibetan]] [[philosophical]] [[traditions]] are studied in [[Wikipedia:Matthew Kapstein|Kapstein]] 2000 and Smith 2001. Schaeffer 2009 offers a pioneering study of the {{Wiki|history}} of the [[book]] in [[Tibet]], contributing to the general {{Wiki|cultural}} background. Although the {{Wiki|distinctions}} among the various orders and [[lineages]] of [[Tibetan Buddhism]] were not in the first instance [[philosophical]], [[philosophical]] dispute has played a role in {{Wiki|sectarian}} rivalry and self-definition. [[Wikipedia:Matthew Kapstein|Kapstein]] 2005 surveys these [[traditions]] in brief, while [[Thuken Losang Chökyi Nyima]] 2009 offers a complete translation of the most thorough [[traditional]] account of the [[philosophical]] {{Wiki|distinctions}} among them. As it will be necessary to use their [[Tibetan]] names throughout the remainder of this bibliography, a few words of explanation may be useful to readers new to this area: The [[Nyingmapa]] ([[Rnying ma pa]]) [[order]] claims to represent the [[forms]] of [[Buddhism]] first introduced into [[Tibet]] under the rulers of the old [[Tibetan]] [[empire]] of the 7th–9th centuries CE. In its {{Wiki|present}} [[forms]], however, it is largely the product of renewal and reform from the 11th century on, the period of the “later spread of the [[teaching]]” in [[Tibet]]. The [[Bön]] [[religion]], though often [[thought]] of as the autochthonous, pre-Buddhist [[religion]], is, in its institutional [[form]], in fact a {{Wiki|distinctive}} “indigenized” [[Buddhism]] that also developed beginning in about the 11th century. The “later spread of the [[teaching]],” however, is associated primarily with several new schools that were based on renewed infusions of [[Indian]] [[Buddhist]] {{Wiki|learning}}: the [[Kadampa]] ([[Bka’ gdams pa]]), which stressed the [[ethical]] [[education]] of [[Mahayana Buddhism]], also played an important role in the [[development]] of the [[monastic]] {{Wiki|college}} system; the [[Sakyapa]] ([[Sa skya pa]]), though {{Wiki|distinguished}} initially by its particular expertise in [[Tantric]] [[Buddhism]], became prominent {{Wiki|philosophically}} from the early 13th century onward; and the [[Kagyüpa]] ([[Bka’ brgyud]] pa), also primarily [[Tantric]] in its early orientation, later produced a number of notable [[philosophical]] thinkers as well, particularly during the 14th–16th centuries. Two of the later orders that were {{Wiki|philosophically}} {{Wiki|productive}} were the [[Jonangpa]] ([[Jo nang pa]]), condemned by some as a sort of [[heresy]], and the [[Gelukpa]] ([[Dge lugs pa]]), which emerged in the 15th century and which, under the [[Dalai]] [[Lamas]], came to dominate [[Tibetan]] affairs, including [[monastic]] [[education]] and the production of [[philosophical]] writings, from the 17th century until the {{Wiki|present}}. Aspects of the [[philosophical]] contributions of all of these orders are detailed in the works cited throughout the remainder of this entry. |
{{R}} | {{R}} | ||
[http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780195393521/obo-9780195393521-0167.xml www.oxfordbibliographies.com] | [http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780195393521/obo-9780195393521-0167.xml www.oxfordbibliographies.com] | ||
− | |||
− | |||
[[Category:Tibetan Buddhist Philosophy]] | [[Category:Tibetan Buddhist Philosophy]] |
Latest revision as of 07:19, 21 March 2015
Since the mid-1980s, the study of Tibetan Buddhist philosophy has greatly expanded. The volume of available publications now surpasses the scope even of most specialists in the field. Under these circumstances, the present bibliography aspires not to present the area comprehensively, but instead to offer a selection of materials that, in the judgment of this writer, will enable those beginning research to navigate effectively in this domain. Scholars of Tibetan thought are not wholly agreed as to what counts as “philosophy” within Tibetan traditions. There is no Tibetan term that is a straightforward equivalent to the Western expression, though such distinctions as that between rigs pa’i rjes ’brangs (followers of reason) and dad pa’i rjes ‘brangs (followers of faith) do mark out areas of thought and practice that significantly overlap with Western conceptions of philosophy as opposed to religion, mysticism, or faith. With this in mind, there are some who favor a narrow definition of philosophy in Tibet, stressing above all those traditions emphasizing education through debate and works concerning Buddhist logic and epistemology (Skt. pramāṇa, Tib. tshad ma), Madhyamaka (Tib. dbu ma), the analysis of philosophical systems (Skt. siddhānta, Tib. grub mtha’), and similar subjects. (For an introduction to the Tibetan educational system and the major departments of philosophical thought, refer to Dreyfus 2003, cited under General Overviews.) On the other hand, there are those who insist that important philosophical issues are often addressed, and trenchantly so, in works emanating from outside the debate schools, most notably within the contemplative traditions of the “Great Seal” (Mahāmudrā) and “Great Perfection” (Dzogchen, rdzogs chen). The late H. V. Guenther, several of whose works are cited in this entry, was the pioneering figure in this latter approach. Many of those who have enthusiastically contributed to the translation of Tibetan Buddhist philosophical texts in recent years have had no appreciable background in philosophy before encountering its Tibetan versions, often as a result of their studies under the direction of contemporary Tibetan religious teachers. One result has been a remarkable effort to translate the writings favored by these teachers, as well as the discourses of the teachers themselves. Although much that is of genuine philosophical interest is to be found in some of these works, the expression of ideas that we find in them is often naive with respect to Western philosophical usage. Accordingly, the selection of translations used here has been limited, emphasizing materials that are exceptionally informed by sufficient philosophical background so as to render philosophical concepts in a relatively limpid manner, together with a number of texts of such outstanding importance within the Tibetan tradition that they merit the effort required to read them even when the translations fail to be adequately perspicacious philosophically. It should be noted, too, that much of Tibetan philosophy is scholastic in the strict sense that it is based on and expresses itself in scholia, comments and glosses on the works of past masters (in Tibetan usually called mchan bu, “annotation,” or ’grel pa, “commentary”). The majority of the works studied in this way are Indian Buddhist treatises, above all the writings attributed to Nāgārjuna, Āryadeva, Candrakīrti and Śāntideva; Maitreya, Asaṅga and Vasubandhu; Dignāga and Dharmakīrti; and Bhāviveka, Śāntarakṣita, and Kamalaśīla. Though some Tibetan commentaries on the writings of these figures are noted here, their principal works, which form the backbone for all serious study of Tibetan Buddhist thought, are not. Details pertaining to these Indian Buddhist authors will be found elsewhere in Oxford Bibliographies Online. Similarly, the bibliographies devoted to specific topics in Buddhist doctrine and philosophy contain information of use to those pursuing the study of Tibetan Buddhist intellectual traditions in particular. General Overviews
The indispensible background for the study of Tibetan Buddhist philosophy is to be found in Indian Buddhist philosophy, as mentioned above. The works listed in this section will be most useful for those who have at least an elementary background in the Indian sources and are now taking up the contributions of Tibetan intellectual traditions in particular. Dreyfus 2003 may be recommended as introducing, in the engaging manner of a personal memoir, the practice of philosophical debate in the context of Tibetan monastic education. The literary counterpart of debate practice, textual exegesis, is the subject of Cabezón 1994, while a number of philosophical genres of writing—including doxography, polemics, and debate manuals—are surveyed in Cabezón and Jackson 1996. The history of Buddhist philosophy in Tibet is introduced in Kapstein 2009, which includes a brief anthology of relevant texts in translation. Further aspects of the history of Tibetan philosophical traditions are studied in Kapstein 2000 and Smith 2001. Schaeffer 2009 offers a pioneering study of the history of the book in Tibet, contributing to the general cultural background. Although the distinctions among the various orders and lineages of Tibetan Buddhism were not in the first instance philosophical, philosophical dispute has played a role in sectarian rivalry and self-definition. Kapstein 2005 surveys these traditions in brief, while Thuken Losang Chökyi Nyima 2009 offers a complete translation of the most thorough traditional account of the philosophical distinctions among them. As it will be necessary to use their Tibetan names throughout the remainder of this bibliography, a few words of explanation may be useful to readers new to this area: The Nyingmapa (Rnying ma pa) order claims to represent the forms of Buddhism first introduced into Tibet under the rulers of the old Tibetan empire of the 7th–9th centuries CE. In its present forms, however, it is largely the product of renewal and reform from the 11th century on, the period of the “later spread of the teaching” in Tibet. The Bön religion, though often thought of as the autochthonous, pre-Buddhist religion, is, in its institutional form, in fact a distinctive “indigenized” Buddhism that also developed beginning in about the 11th century. The “later spread of the teaching,” however, is associated primarily with several new schools that were based on renewed infusions of Indian Buddhist learning: the Kadampa (Bka’ gdams pa), which stressed the ethical education of Mahayana Buddhism, also played an important role in the development of the monastic college system; the Sakyapa (Sa skya pa), though distinguished initially by its particular expertise in Tantric Buddhism, became prominent philosophically from the early 13th century onward; and the Kagyüpa (Bka’ brgyud pa), also primarily Tantric in its early orientation, later produced a number of notable philosophical thinkers as well, particularly during the 14th–16th centuries. Two of the later orders that were philosophically productive were the Jonangpa (Jo nang pa), condemned by some as a sort of heresy, and the Gelukpa (Dge lugs pa), which emerged in the 15th century and which, under the Dalai Lamas, came to dominate Tibetan affairs, including monastic education and the production of philosophical writings, from the 17th century until the present. Aspects of the philosophical contributions of all of these orders are detailed in the works cited throughout the remainder of this entry.