The Disputed Middle Ground: Tibetan Mādhyamikas on How to Interpret Nāgārjuna and Candrakīrti

By the twelfth century, a broad consensus had developed among Tibetan Buddhists: The Middle Way School (Madhyamaka) of Nāgārjuna (c. 2nd century), as interpreted by Candrakīrti (c. 600–650), would be normative in Tibet. However, Tibetans had inherited various trajectories of commentary on Madhyamaka...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal:	John Powers
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	MDPI AG 2021
Materias:	Buddhist philosophy Madhyamaka epistemology Nāgārjuna Candrakīrti Daktsang Sherap Rinchen Religions. Mythology. Rationalism BL1-2790
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/9b651737432e4027ba57e254b5e3a5f3
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:9b651737432e4027ba57e254b5e3a5f3
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:9b651737432e4027ba57e254b5e3a5f32021-11-25T18:53:09ZThe Disputed Middle Ground: Tibetan Mādhyamikas on How to Interpret Nāgārjuna and Candrakīrti10.3390/rel121109912077-1444https://doaj.org/article/9b651737432e4027ba57e254b5e3a5f32021-11-01T00:00:00Zhttps://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/12/11/991https://doaj.org/toc/2077-1444By the twelfth century, a broad consensus had developed among Tibetan Buddhists: The Middle Way School (Madhyamaka) of Nāgārjuna (c. 2nd century), as interpreted by Candrakīrti (c. 600–650), would be normative in Tibet. However, Tibetans had inherited various trajectories of commentary on Madhyamaka, and schools of thought developed, each with a particular reading. This article will examine some of the major competing philosophical stances, focusing on three figures who represent particularly compelling interpretations, but whose understandings of Madhyamaka are profoundly divergent: Daktsang Sherap Rinchen (1405–1477), Wangchuk Dorjé, the 9th Karmapa (1556–1603), and Purchok Ngawang Jampa (1682–1762). The former two contend that Nāgārjuna’s statement “I have no thesis” (<i>nāsti ca mama pratijñā</i>) means exactly what it says, while the latter advocates what could be termed an “anthropological” approach: Mādhyamikas, when speaking as Mādhyamikas, only report what “the world” says, without taking any stance of their own; but their understanding of Buddhism is based on insight gained through intensive meditation training. This article will focus on how these three philosophers figure in the history of Tibetan Madhyamaka exegesis and how their respective readings of Indic texts incorporate elements of previous work while moving interpretation in new directions.John PowersMDPI AGarticleBuddhist philosophyMadhyamakaepistemologyNāgārjunaCandrakīrtiDaktsang Sherap RinchenReligions. Mythology. RationalismBL1-2790ENReligions, Vol 12, Iss 991, p 991 (2021)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Buddhist philosophy Madhyamaka epistemology Nāgārjuna Candrakīrti Daktsang Sherap Rinchen Religions. Mythology. Rationalism BL1-2790
spellingShingle	Buddhist philosophy Madhyamaka epistemology Nāgārjuna Candrakīrti Daktsang Sherap Rinchen Religions. Mythology. Rationalism BL1-2790 John Powers The Disputed Middle Ground: Tibetan Mādhyamikas on How to Interpret Nāgārjuna and Candrakīrti
description	By the twelfth century, a broad consensus had developed among Tibetan Buddhists: The Middle Way School (Madhyamaka) of Nāgārjuna (c. 2nd century), as interpreted by Candrakīrti (c. 600–650), would be normative in Tibet. However, Tibetans had inherited various trajectories of commentary on Madhyamaka, and schools of thought developed, each with a particular reading. This article will examine some of the major competing philosophical stances, focusing on three figures who represent particularly compelling interpretations, but whose understandings of Madhyamaka are profoundly divergent: Daktsang Sherap Rinchen (1405–1477), Wangchuk Dorjé, the 9th Karmapa (1556–1603), and Purchok Ngawang Jampa (1682–1762). The former two contend that Nāgārjuna’s statement “I have no thesis” (<i>nāsti ca mama pratijñā</i>) means exactly what it says, while the latter advocates what could be termed an “anthropological” approach: Mādhyamikas, when speaking as Mādhyamikas, only report what “the world” says, without taking any stance of their own; but their understanding of Buddhism is based on insight gained through intensive meditation training. This article will focus on how these three philosophers figure in the history of Tibetan Madhyamaka exegesis and how their respective readings of Indic texts incorporate elements of previous work while moving interpretation in new directions.
format	article
author	John Powers
author_facet	John Powers
author_sort	John Powers
title	The Disputed Middle Ground: Tibetan Mādhyamikas on How to Interpret Nāgārjuna and Candrakīrti
title_short	The Disputed Middle Ground: Tibetan Mādhyamikas on How to Interpret Nāgārjuna and Candrakīrti
title_full	The Disputed Middle Ground: Tibetan Mādhyamikas on How to Interpret Nāgārjuna and Candrakīrti
title_fullStr	The Disputed Middle Ground: Tibetan Mādhyamikas on How to Interpret Nāgārjuna and Candrakīrti
title_full_unstemmed	The Disputed Middle Ground: Tibetan Mādhyamikas on How to Interpret Nāgārjuna and Candrakīrti
title_sort	disputed middle ground: tibetan mādhyamikas on how to interpret nāgārjuna and candrakīrti
publisher	MDPI AG
publishDate	2021
url	https://doaj.org/article/9b651737432e4027ba57e254b5e3a5f3
work_keys_str_mv	AT johnpowers thedisputedmiddlegroundtibetanmadhyamikasonhowtointerpretnagarjunaandcandrakirti AT johnpowers disputedmiddlegroundtibetanmadhyamikasonhowtointerpretnagarjunaandcandrakirti
_version_	1718410605390462976

The Disputed Middle Ground: Tibetan Mādhyamikas on How to Interpret Nāgārjuna and Candrakīrti

Ejemplares similares