深刻的意义和可疑的佛像:阅读十五世纪早期西藏的密宗论战

IF 0.4 3区 哲学 N/A RELIGION
JOURNAL OF RELIGION Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1086/722581
R. Dachille
{"title":"深刻的意义和可疑的佛像:阅读十五世纪早期西藏的密宗论战","authors":"R. Dachille","doi":"10.1086/722581","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article considers what it means to take Buddhist authors “seriously” by critically investigating the choices available to Buddhologists interpreting tantric polemics. This genre fuses conventions of philosophical debate and of tantric commentary, presenting a rich array of issues of interpretation and practice, along with broader philosophical questions. In Tibet, it is common for centuries to pass before a reply to a critique is issued, often raising one simple question for scholars: Why now? Scholars of tantric polemics therefore negotiate between choices to abstract or to contextualize these arguments, as well as between interpretive dispositions of good faith and the hermeneutics of suspicion. The Sakyapa monk Ngor chen Kun dga’ bzang po composed a text and commentary on Overcoming Objections to the Three Tantras in 1406 in response to a charge that threatened the foundations of his tradition’s approach to both sutra and tantra. The problematic claim is that the Hevajra Tantra embraces the philosophy of Cittamātra. The article evaluates the undesirable consequences that would result if his opponent’s claims were valid, with particular attention to Ngor chen’s use of contradiction, absurdity, and the tendency to “get personal.” I explore the role of one opponent, Red mda ba’ (Gzhon nu blo gros), and the challenges he poses: the cross-contamination of lineages and inconsistency in interpretive stance. Through this analysis of Ngor chen’s approach in Overcoming Objections to the Three Tantras, I demonstrate how tantric polemical texts demand tempering “pure philosophical questions” with concerns with human and institutional relationships, ritual, and exegesis.","PeriodicalId":45199,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF RELIGION","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Profound Meanings and Dubious Buddhas: Reading the Tantric Polemics of Early Fifteenth-Century Tibet\",\"authors\":\"R. Dachille\",\"doi\":\"10.1086/722581\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article considers what it means to take Buddhist authors “seriously” by critically investigating the choices available to Buddhologists interpreting tantric polemics. This genre fuses conventions of philosophical debate and of tantric commentary, presenting a rich array of issues of interpretation and practice, along with broader philosophical questions. In Tibet, it is common for centuries to pass before a reply to a critique is issued, often raising one simple question for scholars: Why now? Scholars of tantric polemics therefore negotiate between choices to abstract or to contextualize these arguments, as well as between interpretive dispositions of good faith and the hermeneutics of suspicion. The Sakyapa monk Ngor chen Kun dga’ bzang po composed a text and commentary on Overcoming Objections to the Three Tantras in 1406 in response to a charge that threatened the foundations of his tradition’s approach to both sutra and tantra. The problematic claim is that the Hevajra Tantra embraces the philosophy of Cittamātra. The article evaluates the undesirable consequences that would result if his opponent’s claims were valid, with particular attention to Ngor chen’s use of contradiction, absurdity, and the tendency to “get personal.” I explore the role of one opponent, Red mda ba’ (Gzhon nu blo gros), and the challenges he poses: the cross-contamination of lineages and inconsistency in interpretive stance. Through this analysis of Ngor chen’s approach in Overcoming Objections to the Three Tantras, I demonstrate how tantric polemical texts demand tempering “pure philosophical questions” with concerns with human and institutional relationships, ritual, and exegesis.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45199,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JOURNAL OF RELIGION\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JOURNAL OF RELIGION\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1086/722581\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"N/A\",\"JCRName\":\"RELIGION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JOURNAL OF RELIGION","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1086/722581","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"N/A","JCRName":"RELIGION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文通过批判性地调查佛教学者解释密宗论战的选择,来思考“认真”对待佛教作者意味着什么。这一类型融合了哲学辩论和密宗评论的惯例,呈现了一系列丰富的解释和实践问题,以及更广泛的哲学问题。在西藏,几个世纪后才对批评做出答复是很常见的,这经常给学者们提出一个简单的问题:为什么是现在?因此,密宗论战的学者们在抽象或语境化这些论点的选择之间,以及在善意的解释性倾向和怀疑的解释学之间进行谈判。释迦牟尼僧人恩哥尔真昆德加布藏波于1406年撰写了一篇关于克服对三宗的反对的文本和评论,以回应一项威胁到其传统经藏和密宗方法基础的指控。有问题的说法是,合金刚密宗信奉Cittamātra的哲学。这篇文章评估了如果他的对手的说法是有效的,将会产生的不良后果,特别是注意到吴使用矛盾、荒谬和“个人化”的倾向,以及他提出的挑战:谱系的交叉污染和解释立场的不一致。通过对恩哥尔真在《克服对三宗的反对》中的方法的分析,我展示了密宗辩论文本如何要求调和“纯粹的哲学问题”,以及对人与制度关系、仪式和注释的关注。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Profound Meanings and Dubious Buddhas: Reading the Tantric Polemics of Early Fifteenth-Century Tibet
This article considers what it means to take Buddhist authors “seriously” by critically investigating the choices available to Buddhologists interpreting tantric polemics. This genre fuses conventions of philosophical debate and of tantric commentary, presenting a rich array of issues of interpretation and practice, along with broader philosophical questions. In Tibet, it is common for centuries to pass before a reply to a critique is issued, often raising one simple question for scholars: Why now? Scholars of tantric polemics therefore negotiate between choices to abstract or to contextualize these arguments, as well as between interpretive dispositions of good faith and the hermeneutics of suspicion. The Sakyapa monk Ngor chen Kun dga’ bzang po composed a text and commentary on Overcoming Objections to the Three Tantras in 1406 in response to a charge that threatened the foundations of his tradition’s approach to both sutra and tantra. The problematic claim is that the Hevajra Tantra embraces the philosophy of Cittamātra. The article evaluates the undesirable consequences that would result if his opponent’s claims were valid, with particular attention to Ngor chen’s use of contradiction, absurdity, and the tendency to “get personal.” I explore the role of one opponent, Red mda ba’ (Gzhon nu blo gros), and the challenges he poses: the cross-contamination of lineages and inconsistency in interpretive stance. Through this analysis of Ngor chen’s approach in Overcoming Objections to the Three Tantras, I demonstrate how tantric polemical texts demand tempering “pure philosophical questions” with concerns with human and institutional relationships, ritual, and exegesis.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
65
期刊介绍: The Journal of Religion is one of the publications by which the Divinity School of The University of Chicago seeks to promote critical, hermeneutical, historical, and constructive inquiry into religion. While expecting articles to advance scholarship in their respective fields in a lucid, cogent, and fresh way, the Journal is especially interested in areas of research with a broad range of implications for scholars of religion, or cross-disciplinary relevance. The Editors welcome submissions in theology, religious ethics, and philosophy of religion, as well as articles that approach the role of religion in culture and society from a historical, sociological, psychological, linguistic, or artistic standpoint.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信