{"title":":A Brief Apology for a Catholic Moment","authors":"S. DeLay","doi":"10.1086/723746","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/723746","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45199,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF RELIGION","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43102887","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":":Bernard of Clairvaux: An Inner Life","authors":"R. Brown","doi":"10.1086/723766","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/723766","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45199,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF RELIGION","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45425621","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":":Thou Art the Man: The Masculinity of David in the Christian and Jewish Middle Ages","authors":"J. Murray","doi":"10.1086/723707","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/723707","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45199,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF RELIGION","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45690214","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":":Thinking Nature and the Nature of Thinking: From Eriugena to Emerson","authors":"Thomas A. Carlson","doi":"10.1086/723775","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/723775","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45199,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF RELIGION","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42275781","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":":On Not Dying: Secular Immortality in the Age of Technoscience","authors":"Sara-Jo Swiatek","doi":"10.1086/723709","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/723709","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45199,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF RELIGION","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43248472","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Previous articleNext article No AccessBook ReviewsLaurence, Jonathan. Coping with Defeat: Sunni Islam, Roman Catholicism, and the Modern State. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2021. xxvi+580 pp. US$35.00/£28.00 (paper).Iza HussinIza HussinUniversity of Cambridge. Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUSFull Text Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by The Journal of Religion Volume 103, Number 2April 2023 Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/723713 For permission to reuse, please contact [email protected]PDF download Crossref reports no articles citing this article.
上一篇文章下一篇文章不可访问书评劳伦斯，乔纳森。面对失败:逊尼派伊斯兰教、罗马天主教和现代国家。普林斯顿，新泽西州:普林斯顿大学出版社，2021。xxvi+580页。US$35.00/£28.00(纸)。Iza HussinIza hussin剑桥大学。搜索本文作者的更多文章PDFPDF plus全文添加到收藏列表下载CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints转载分享在facebook twitterlinkedinredditemail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by The Journal of Religion Volume 103, Number 2April 2023文章DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/723713如需允许重复使用，请联系[email protected]PDF下载Crossref报告没有文章引用本文。
{"title":":<i>Coping with Defeat: Sunni Islam, Roman Catholicism, and the Modern State</i>","authors":"Iza Hussin","doi":"10.1086/723713","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/723713","url":null,"abstract":"Previous articleNext article No AccessBook ReviewsLaurence, Jonathan. Coping with Defeat: Sunni Islam, Roman Catholicism, and the Modern State. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2021. xxvi+580 pp. US$35.00/£28.00 (paper).Iza HussinIza HussinUniversity of Cambridge. Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUSFull Text Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by The Journal of Religion Volume 103, Number 2April 2023 Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/723713 For permission to reuse, please contact [email protected]PDF download Crossref reports no articles citing this article.","PeriodicalId":45199,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF RELIGION","volume":"203 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135672134","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":":Blood Theology: Seeing Red in Body- and God-Talk","authors":"C. Bynum","doi":"10.1086/723712","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/723712","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45199,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF RELIGION","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44479982","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Tibetan Buddhist polemics are often perceived as a type of hairsplitting or logic chopping, where defeating one’s opponent is more highly prized than arriving at truth. This assumes that Tibetan polemicists are obsessed with inconsequential minutiae and invested in nitpicking, trite attempts at self-aggrandizement. This article seeks to undermine the notion of Tibetan polemics as mere quibbling, arguing that what appears to be competitive carping in fact involves high stakes. Each Tibetan Buddhist philosophical system is constituted by tightly imbricated tenets, which not only are deeply interconnected with each other but individually comprise a microcosm of that system’s broader philosophical view. Inconsistencies between two systems’ seemingly subsidiary tenets thus demarcate proxy battles indicating larger conflicts over each system’s total cogency. To explore this point, I investigate one “polemic” initiated by Taktsang Lotsāwa (1405–77) against the Gelug school concerning yogic perception and where it occurs along the adherent’s spiritual progression. Although this point seems trivial at first blush, a deeper analysis reveals that it is central to Taktsang’s entire philosophy. Taktsang is invoking a wider philosophical framework in which reality transcends appearances. Impermanence entails appearances, and so cannot be an object of yogic perception, which necessarily perceives reality. Tsongkhapa, on the other hand, argues that reality remains accessible to appearances, and so yogic perception can realize impermanence. In this small debate, much larger stakes become clear—the very connection between appearances and reality, a cornerstone issue of both ontology and epistemology.
{"title":"Polemical Paths: Tsongkhapa and Taktsang on Yogic Perception","authors":"J. Forman","doi":"10.1086/722542","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/722542","url":null,"abstract":"Tibetan Buddhist polemics are often perceived as a type of hairsplitting or logic chopping, where defeating one’s opponent is more highly prized than arriving at truth. This assumes that Tibetan polemicists are obsessed with inconsequential minutiae and invested in nitpicking, trite attempts at self-aggrandizement. This article seeks to undermine the notion of Tibetan polemics as mere quibbling, arguing that what appears to be competitive carping in fact involves high stakes. Each Tibetan Buddhist philosophical system is constituted by tightly imbricated tenets, which not only are deeply interconnected with each other but individually comprise a microcosm of that system’s broader philosophical view. Inconsistencies between two systems’ seemingly subsidiary tenets thus demarcate proxy battles indicating larger conflicts over each system’s total cogency. To explore this point, I investigate one “polemic” initiated by Taktsang Lotsāwa (1405–77) against the Gelug school concerning yogic perception and where it occurs along the adherent’s spiritual progression. Although this point seems trivial at first blush, a deeper analysis reveals that it is central to Taktsang’s entire philosophy. Taktsang is invoking a wider philosophical framework in which reality transcends appearances. Impermanence entails appearances, and so cannot be an object of yogic perception, which necessarily perceives reality. Tsongkhapa, on the other hand, argues that reality remains accessible to appearances, and so yogic perception can realize impermanence. In this small debate, much larger stakes become clear—the very connection between appearances and reality, a cornerstone issue of both ontology and epistemology.","PeriodicalId":45199,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF RELIGION","volume":"103 1","pages":"5 - 26"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47804436","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
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.
{"title":"Profound Meanings and Dubious Buddhas: Reading the Tantric Polemics of Early Fifteenth-Century Tibet","authors":"R. Dachille","doi":"10.1086/722581","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/722581","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":"103 1","pages":"27 - 48"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45562949","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This is a reflective response to the articles in this special issue, “Tibetan Polemics as Genre.” It argues that just as we might use polemics as way to think through Tibetan texts, we can use these texts as a way to think through the scholar’s use of polemics. The response illustrates that by paying close attention to a debate between Go rams pa (1429–89) and Tsong kha pa (1357–1419), the scholar gains a greater sensitivity to perspective, both to the multiple perspectives Tibetan authors are seeking to address and that they themselves inhabit and to the scholar’s own perspective and the decision to approach a work as polemical. This call for perspectivalism reveals that the question of whether a work is polemical is ill-formed and flat-footed. Rather, the genre of polemics is simply one hermeneutic tool that allows for a particular type of interpretation. It would be foolish to assume the utility of this lens affords some ultimate claim about the text itself or that no other interpretation is necessary. Polemics denotes a useful tool but never the be-all and end-all of the text as a whole. These concluding thoughts offer helpful advice for how to nuance the study of polemics successfully without having to jettison the category.
{"title":"Response: Polemics? Who Cares!?","authors":"Constance Kassor","doi":"10.1086/722596","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/722596","url":null,"abstract":"This is a reflective response to the articles in this special issue, “Tibetan Polemics as Genre.” It argues that just as we might use polemics as way to think through Tibetan texts, we can use these texts as a way to think through the scholar’s use of polemics. The response illustrates that by paying close attention to a debate between Go rams pa (1429–89) and Tsong kha pa (1357–1419), the scholar gains a greater sensitivity to perspective, both to the multiple perspectives Tibetan authors are seeking to address and that they themselves inhabit and to the scholar’s own perspective and the decision to approach a work as polemical. This call for perspectivalism reveals that the question of whether a work is polemical is ill-formed and flat-footed. Rather, the genre of polemics is simply one hermeneutic tool that allows for a particular type of interpretation. It would be foolish to assume the utility of this lens affords some ultimate claim about the text itself or that no other interpretation is necessary. Polemics denotes a useful tool but never the be-all and end-all of the text as a whole. These concluding thoughts offer helpful advice for how to nuance the study of polemics successfully without having to jettison the category.","PeriodicalId":45199,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF RELIGION","volume":"103 1","pages":"105 - 113"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41996874","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：