On Tibetan basic Buddhist logic and dialectics.

Collection of five major Mahāyāna Buddhist studies: 1. Pramāṇa (Tshad ma), 2. Mādhyamika (Dbu ma), 3. Prajñāpāramitā (Phar phyin) 4. Abhidharmakośa (Mngon pa mdzod), and 5. Vinaya ('Dul ba).

Analytical view on Buddhist logic in dialectical debate.

Selected explanation on the difficult points of the Buddhist philosophical view and realization in the translated words of the Buddha and their commentaries and treatises by Indian panditas. Includes detailed analysis on the meaning of the word "dharma", predominantly on the Vaibasika and Madhyamaka school of thought with special references to the Bkaʾ-ʾgyur and Bstan-ʾgyur and interpretation of difficult points.

On the developments of logic and epistemology in India, and the history of logic and epistemology in India and Tibet.

Study on general principles of Buddhist logic.

Critical study on Mādhyamika philosophy of Madhyamakāvatāra of Candrakīrti.

It is well known in contemporary Madhyamaka studies that the seventh century Indian philosopher Candrakīrti rejects the foundationalist Abhidharma epistemology. The question that is still open to debate is: Does Candrakīrti offer any alternative Madhyamaka epistemology? One possible way of addressing this question is to find out what Candrakīrti says about the nature of buddha’s epistemic processes. We know that Candrakīrti has made some puzzling remarks on that score. On the one hand, he claims buddha is the pramāṇabhūta-puruṣa (person of (...) epistemic and moral authority), sarvākārajñatājñānaṃ (omniscient, wise), pratyakṣalakṣaṇam (exclusively perceptual in characteristic) [Candrakīrti (MABh VI.214)], and claims that there are clearly four pramāṇas—epistemic warrants—direct perception (pratyakṣa), inference (anumāna), testimony (āgama) and analogy (upamāna) [Candrakīrti (Pp I.3), cf. MacDonald 2015, pp. 287–288]. On the other hand, somewhat paradoxically, Candrakīrti claims that buddhahood is an embodiment of a complete cessation of “mind and mental processes” [Candrakīrti (MABh XI.1, 155a; MAB XI.17d)] Now how are we to make sense of these two seemingly contradictory statements? Do these statements reflect any deeper conflicts within Candrakīrti’s system or is there a coherent way to interpret these statements? The Tibetan Prāsaṅgika interpreters of Candrakīrti’s Madhyamaka largely agree that there is no internal contradiction in Candrakīrti’s system, and agree there is a way to make coherent sense of these statements. Nevertheless, the Tibetans exegetes bring to the table two radically conflicting proposals to approach Candrakīrti’s Mādhyamaka; both claiming to successfully address the apparent tension arising from Candrakīrti’s statements. One proposal is made by Tsongkhapa Losang Dakpa (Tsong kha pa bLo bzang grags pa, 1357–1419), who maintains the tension can be plausibly resolved by demonstrating that Candrakīrti’s unique non-foundationalist epistemological program renders him an epistemological coherentist. In contrast Taktsang Lotsawa Sherap Rinchen (sTag tshang Lo tsā ba Shes rab rin chen, 1405–1477) argues that according to Candrakīrti buddha is a global agnostic, on the ground of the nonexistence of mind and mental processes for those who have attained fully awakening. Taktsang instead proposes the no-mind thesis as a more plausible way to resolve the tension in Candrakīrti’s philosophy, categorically refusing to attribute to buddha any cognitive processes and epistemic warrants. This paper is an analysis of Taktsang’s no-mind thesis—the claim that buddhas utterly lack any knowledge of the world because they do not have epistemic processes and warrants to perceive the world—in what follows a rational reconstruction of his arguments is developed in order to evaluate his thesis. We shall then assess the implications of accepting Taktsang’s no-mind thesis. (shrink)

Philosophy of Tsong-kha-pa Blo-bzang-grags-pa's Lam rim chen mo.

I november 2020 stod statsminister Mette Frederiksen på en gård i Jylland og kneb en tåre foran den forsamlede presse. Hun havde netop besøgt to generationer af minkfarmere, far og søn, hvis levebrød hun selv lige havde besluttet at slå ned. Var det kynisme eller reelle følelser, der var på spil? Tog statsministeren personligt ansvar for sin egen, svære beslutning, eller var hun en hykler? I denne videnskabeligt funderede debatbog sætter Silas F. Harrebye vores allesammens hykleri under lup. Han skelner (...) mellem forskellige former for hykleri og undersøger, hvad det gør ved demokratiet, at vi ofte er mere optagede af at anklage end at forstå hinanden. Bogen viser, hvorfor vi har brug for flere nuancer i debatten, hvis der skal være plads til politiske visioner og personlig udvikling. Bogen indeholder dybdegående interviews med 8 kendte politikere og meningsdannere som selv har været igennem deciderede shitstorms og anklager om hykleri: Lars Løkke Rasmussen, Pelle Dragsted, Carolina Magdalene Maier, Morten Messerschmidt, Tim Whyte, Rasmus Willig, Anders Gadegaard og Lea Korsgaard. De bliver alle udfordret til at reflektere over både eget og andres hykleri. Derudover præsenterer bogen resultaterne fra en omfattende befolkningsundersøgelse lavet i forbindelse med bogen. Ved hjælp af overraskende teoretiske vinkler og fortolkninger formulerer Silas F. Harrebye et forsvar for hykleriet, som han mener er uundgåeligt og ligefrem kan være politisk produktivt. Som han skriver:?hellere hyklerisk idealist end konsekvent kyniker.? Bogen er skrevet til borgere og fagfolk, der interesserer sig for demokrati, politik og samfund. Den rummer en masse inspiration til at reflektere over de svære valg i livet og blive det, forfatteren kalder?den gode hykler?. Bogen kan oplagt bruges som supplerende litteratur på universiteter og højskoler inden for fx samfundsfag, filosofi og medievidenskab. (shrink)

"For at kunne leve og virke og for at kunne planlægge vort eget liv på længere sigt, må vi tage stilling til livets tre hovedproblemer: Hvad kan vi vide? Hvad tør vi håbe? Og hvad skal vi gøre? Det er netop disse problemer, de store filosoffer har tænkt igennem langt mere dybtgående og grundigt, end man sædvanligvis har mulighed for at gøre det." I en vis forstand er vi alle sammen filosoffer, for vi har alle et bestemt livssyn, om (...) vi er klar over det eller ej. Professor i filosofi Svend Erik Stybes bog beskriver ikke blot forskellige livssyn, som er opstået gennem filosofihistorien i løbet af de sidste mange århundreder. Han giver også en definition af begrebet livssyn, som de fleste vil kunne relatere til og få til at give mening i forhold til deres eget liv. Bogen "De store tænkere og vort livssyn" fra 1963 henvender sig til enhver, der har interesse for livets store og små spørgsmål og forskellige filosoffer og idéhistorikeres tilgang dertil. Svend Erik Stybe (1919-1995) var en dansk idéhistoriker og forfatter, der udgav et væld af bøger om både dansk og europæisk filosofi- og idéhistorie gennem de sidste mange hundrede år. Han skrev blandt andet bøger til brug i undervisning i idéhistorie på gymnasiet og universitetet, opslagsværker om filosofi og idéhistorie samt bøger om specifikke filosoffer som Jean-Jacques Rousseau, John Locke og Baruch de Spinoza. Svend Erik Stybe blev udnævnt til professor i filosofi ved Københavns Universitet i 1970, hvor han forblev frem til sin pension i 1989. (shrink)

The eleventh-century Indian Buddhist master Ratnākaraśānti presents a unique Yogācāra interpretation of tantric _maṇḍala_ visualisation in the _*Guhyasamājamaṇḍalavidhiṭīkā_. In this text, he employs the neither-one-nor-many argument to assert that the qualities of the mind represented by the deities in the _maṇḍala_ are neither the same nor different from the mind itself. He also provides five scenarios of meditation to explain the necessity of practising both the perfection method (_pāramitānaya_) and the mantra method (_mantranaya_) together in Mahāyāna. Ratnākaraśānti’s explanation exerts a (...) significant influence on the works of later Buddhist masters in India and Tibet, with parts of it being reused in the _*Śrīherukopadeśanāmasvādhiṣṭhānakrama_ by Śūnyasamādhivajra (c. the eleventh century), the eighteenth chapter of the _Āmnāyamañjarī_ by Abhayākaragupta (from the late eleventh to the twelfth century) and the tantric compendium _sNgags rim chen mo_ by the Tibetan master Tsong kha pa Blo bzang grags pa (1357–1419). This paper explores how Ratnākaraśānti’s explanation has been reused and modified in these subsequent works. While Śūnyasamādhivajra faithfully reproduced Ratnākaraśānti’s Yogācāra explanation, Abhayākaragupta modified it to align with his Madhyamaka view. Abhayākaragupta in turn influenced Tsong kha pa, who accepted Abhayākaragupta’s Madhyamaka modification in his works. This paper also engages with current scholarly discussions on textual reuse and the underlying reasons behind it. While Śūnyasamādhivajra and Abhayākaragupta assimilated Ratnākaraśānti’s explanation without acknowledgement, Tsong kha pa quoted the text by name and acknowledged Abhayākaragupta’s reuse of Ratnākaraśānti’s explanation. This paper concludes by discussing the factors that determine whether the reused text is acknowledged or not, and the possible reasons behind textual reuse. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Like an Elephant Pricked by a Thorn:Buddhist Meditation Instructions as a Door to Deep ListeningWilla B. MillerThe phrase “deep listening” has been circulating in recent years in the contexts of contemplative education, psychotherapy, pastoral care, and the arts. This article is a reflection on deep listening from a Buddhist perspective, as it might support the ongoing development of career educators, although this reflection might apply equally well to ministers (...) and (in the Buddhist world) dharma teachers. My motivation to contribute to this discourse of listening is spurred by the belief that the effectiveness of educators, ministers, and dharma teachers might be enhanced by training in the art of listening. These career professionals share a key aspect of their role in common: They get up in front of groups of people to teach or preach. In this performative role, it is possible for teachers (or preachers) to become so accustomed to being the source of information that a dynamic is created, inside and outside the classroom or pulpit, in which discourse is weighted primarily in one direction. This dynamic, I would argue, prevents optimal learning and stunts the feedback loop necessary for pedagogical health, both for students and for their educators.Listening, as a valued pedagogical discipline on the part of the teacher, has the potential to rebalance this dynamic. To educate effectively, we need to come to know the hearts and minds of those we educating, not as a theoretical group but as individuals. It takes time, effort, patience, and a dose of curiosity to listen attentively to students, to get to know them. But this effort is worth it. Only once we begin to listen to the voice of their interests, passions, and history can we begin to understand or assess their needs. Every human being is in formation. Every human being is completely unique. Listening, with curiosity and attention, is a window into the formation of the human being in his or her uniqueness. To the degree that we become familiar with the unique in our students is the degree to which we can effectively meet them where they are.There are as many definitions of deep listening as there are theorists. On a panel on the topic of deep listening at the 2013 American Academy of Religions meeting, Duane Bidwell of the Claremont School of Theology aptly noted that deep listening is [End Page 15] “an undertheorized category.” It is not a term that has been claimed by only one field or person, but it has become popular in some religious circles and psychotherapeutic circles as a term that implies that listening can dive below the surface contents of a narrative. Two years ago, in a chapter of an anthology titled The Arts of Contemplative Care, I proposed that Buddhist practices of self-cultivation may provide models that can be adapted for applications of deep listening in a context of spiritual care.1 In that chapter, I noted that Patrul Rinpoche’s three points of “how not to listen” found in The Words of My Perfect Teacher (Kun bzang bla med zhal lung)2 can help us reflect on the difference between poor and effective listening techniques in the context of spiritual care. In this article, taking a similar approach but with different material, I will explore how instructions on meditation culled from the Tibetan Buddhist tradition can be adapted to develop a discipline of deep listening for educators. In exploring this topic, I will also propose a definition of deep listening to act as support for the discipline itself. Specifically, I draw on religious instructions found in a Tibetan genre called “māhamudrā meditation instructions” (phyag chen sgom khrid), from within the Kagyu (‘brug pa bka’ brgyud) school of Tibetan Buddhism, to construct a definition of deep listening for use in educational contexts.The term “deep” (zab mo) often appears in Tibetan religious exegesis as an adjective modifying the word “dharma” (teaching). There, we find the term “deep teaching” (chos zab mo) juxtaposed with the term “vast teaching” (chos rgya che ba) in Tibetan commentaries. To say that a teaching is deep (zab mo) in the Buddhist context is to indicate that it... (shrink)

Explanation of the philosophical position (siddhānta) of the Vaibhāṣika, Sautrāntika, Yogācārya, and Mādhyamika schools of Buddhism.

Collected works predominantly on Buddhist doctrines and philosophy.

Collection of writings on Buddhist logic.

Selected works predominantly on critical study of different doctrinal and philosophical principles of Buddhism; includes history of Buddhism in India and its development in Tibet.

On Buddhist doctrinal and philosophical interpretation of Sakyapa tradition.

Translation and commentaries to the famous Mongolian Buddhist philosophy work written by Zanabazar.

Collection of Kagyudpa scholar's texts on Buddhist logics.

Critical study on the life and works of Chos rgyal Khri-srong-lde-btsan, the 38th king of Tibet with special reference to Nyaya (tshad ma) text Bka' yang dag paʼi tshad ma.

Elementary Buddhist logic and dialectical studies.

Collection of Buddhist canonical texts translated from Sanskrit into Tibetan.

On Bon studies and communal harmony in Bon religion.

Elementary Buddhist logic and dialectical studies.

On Buddhist logic and dialectical studies.

An analytical study on Samye debate held in 792-794 A.D. between the Indian monastic tradition headed by Pandit Kamalashila and the Chinese tradition of Ch'an (Zen) by Hoshang Buddhist monk for which form of Buddhism should prevail in Tibet.

On world religions and different religious philosophical traditions.

本书不仅介绍了藏传因明的产生发展,而且也介绍了作为藏族文化重要组成部分的藏传因明的理论意义,以便能探讨藏传因明的深层内涵,挖掘其理论价值。.

Study on Buddhist dialectical debates and proper understanding of its method.

Critical study on philosophical positions (sidhānta) of the Vaibhāṣika, Sautrāntika, Yogācārya, and Mādhyamika schools of Buddhism with Hinduism.