论战之路:宗喀巴与扎克曾的瑜伽觉知

IF 0.4 3区 哲学 N/A RELIGION JOURNAL OF RELIGION Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1086/722542
J. Forman
{"title":"论战之路:宗喀巴与扎克曾的瑜伽觉知","authors":"J. Forman","doi":"10.1086/722542","DOIUrl":null,"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":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Polemical Paths: Tsongkhapa and Taktsang on Yogic Perception\",\"authors\":\"J. Forman\",\"doi\":\"10.1086/722542\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"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\":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/10.1086/722542\",\"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/10.1086/722542","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

藏传佛教的论战通常被视为一种分裂或逻辑切割,在这种情况下,击败对手比得出真相更受重视。这是假设西藏的辩论家痴迷于无关紧要的细节,并致力于挑剔、陈腐的自我夸大尝试。这篇文章试图破坏西藏论战仅仅是狡辩的概念,认为看似竞争性的吹毛求疵实际上涉及高风险。每一个藏传佛教哲学体系都是由紧密重叠的信条组成的,这些信条不仅彼此之间有着深刻的联系,而且各自构成了该体系更广泛哲学观的缩影。因此,两个系统看似次要的原则之间的不一致划分了代理权之争,这表明在每个系统的完全说服力方面存在更大的冲突。为了探讨这一点,我调查了Taktsang Lotsāwa(1405–77)发起的一场反对格鲁派的“论战”,关于瑜伽感知以及它在信徒精神发展过程中发生的位置。虽然这一点乍看微不足道,但更深入的分析表明,这是德宗整个哲学的核心。Taktsang援引了一个更广泛的哲学框架,在这个框架中,现实超越了表象。无常需要表象,因此不能成为瑜伽感知的对象,瑜伽感知必然感知现实。Tsongkhapa,另一方面,认为现实仍然可以接近表象,因此瑜伽感知可以实现无常。在这场小辩论中,更大的利害关系变得清晰起来——表象和现实之间的联系,这是本体论和认识论的基石问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Polemical Paths: Tsongkhapa and Taktsang on Yogic Perception
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.
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.
期刊最新文献
The Violence of New Religious Movements and the Entrepreneurial Model: With a Focus on the Shincheonji Church of Jesus in Korea Writing an Amish Theology :Knowing Illusion: Bringing a Tibetan Debate into Contemporary Discourse. Vol. 1, A Philosophical History of the Debate :The Book of Job in Jewish Life and Thought: Critical Essays :Anarchy and the Kingdom of God: From Eschatology to Orthodox Political Theology and Back
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1