Is Ratnākaraśānti a gZhan stong pa?

The doctrinal position of Ratnākara?ānti (ca. 11th century) is a source of great controversy among modern scholars. As diversified as the modern understanding of Ratnākara?ānti’s doctrinal position is the traditional ways in which the gZhan stong view is defined in Tibet. This paper aims to (1) argue, with special attention paid on his presentation of the three natures, that Ratnākara?ānti defines his own doctrine as Rang bzhin gsum gyi dbu ma / *Trisvabhāva- mādhyamika in his “Core Trilogy”: the Prajñāpāramitopade?a, the Madhyamakāla?kāropade?a, and the Madhyamakāla?kārav?ttimadhyamapratipatsiddhi, (2) demonstrate, by comparing Ratnākara?ānti’s view with that of the orthodox Jo nang authors represented by Dol po pa Shes rab rgyal mtshan (1292–1361) and Tāranātha (1575–1634), that Ratnākara?ānti is arguably a gZhan stong pa in its strictest sense, and (3) problematize Brunnhölzl (Prajñāpāramitā, Indian “gzhan stong pas”, and the beginning of Tibetan gzhan stong, Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde Heft 74, 2011) and Sponberg’s (Bukkyō bunka kenkyūjo kiyō 21:97–119, 1982) classification of different accounts of the three natures in Indian, Tibetan and Chinese sources.     

Ratnākaraśānti’s Theory of Cognition with False Mental Images (*alīkākāravāda) and the Neither-One-Nor-Many Argument

The paper aims to clarify Ratnākara?ānti?s epistemological theory that mental images in a cognition are false (*alīkākāravāda) in comparison with ?āntarak?ita?s criticism of the Yogācāra position. Although Ratnākara?ānti frequently uses the neither-one-nor-many argument for explaining his Yogācāra position, the argument, unlike ?āntarak?ita?s original one, does not function for refuting the existence of awareness itself as the basis of mental images. This point is examined in the first two sections of this paper by analyzing Ratnākara?ānti?s proof of the selflessness of entities (dharmanairātmya) and his application of the neither-one-nor-many argument for demonstrating the falsehood of mental images. On the other hand, the last section investigates into his defense of the alīkākāravāda against ?āntarak?ita?s severe criticism of it. Here, too, we can find his tactical usage of the neither-one-nor-many argument, or more precisely, one of its variants: the neither-identical-nor-different argument. Through the above procedure, we can see how Yogācāra philosophy survived in the late period of Indian Buddhism by blending the Madhyamaka opponent?s argument with its own thought.     

Padmaśrī’s Nāgarasarvasva and the World of Medieval Kāmaśāstra

This essay introduces a special issue on the history of kāmaśāstra in medieval India. It briefly reviews the secondary scholarship on the subject from the publication of the first translations of the genre at the end of the nineteenth century. It highlights the relatively unexplored history of later kāmaśāstra, and stresses the need for contexualized and detailed studies of the many kāmaśāstra treatises produced in the second millennium CE. The introduction, and the essays that follow, also argue for an expanded interpretive framework for the genre, moving beyond ‘sex’ and ‘sexuality,’ to a more widely defined notion of a ‘kāma world’, in which sensual pleasure is understood as being deeply enmeshed with aesthetic, ethical and cosmopolitan cultures.     

Navya-nyāya in the Late Vijayanagara Period: Appaya Dīkṣita’s Revision of Gaṅgeśa’s īśvarānumāna

Journal of Indian Philosophy - In his celebrated treatise of Navya-nyāya, the Tattvacintāma?i, Ga?ge?a offers a detailed formulation of the inference of God’s...     

An Early Tibetan Commentary on Atiśa’s Satyadvayāvatāra

Dīpa?kara?rījñāna (982–1054 c.e.), more commonly known under his honorific title of Ati?a, is a renowned figure in Tibetan Buddhist cultural memory. He is famous for coming to Tibet and revitalizing Buddhism there during the early eleventh century. Of the many works that Ati?a composed, translated, and brought to Tibet one of the most well-known was his “Entry to the Two Realities” (Satyadvayāvatāra). Recent scholarship has provided translations and Tibetan editions of this work, including Lindtner’s English translation (1981) and Ejima’s Japanese translation (1983). However, previously there was no known Indian or Tibetan commentary to this work. This article identifies for the first time a brief commentary to the Satyadvayāvatāra and discusses its content and purport in relation to early Madhyamaka philosophy in Tibet, and provides an annotated translation of the work. This early Tibetan commentary on the two realities (satyadvaya) provides important insight into how late eleventh century or early twelfth centuries Tibetan followers of Ati?a understood the tenets of Buddhist philosophy, the nature of valid cognition (tshad ma), and the importance of spiritual authority. The early Tibetan commentary to Ati?a’s Satyadvayāvatāra provides direct textual evidence of the beginnings of scholasticism in Tibet and offers an early perspective on the formative developments in the intellectual history of Tibetan Madhyamaka.     

An Early Bka’-gdams-pa Madhyamaka Work Attributed to Atiśa Dīpaṃkaraśrījñāna

Although Ati?a is famous for his journey to Tibet and his teaching there, his teachings of Madhyamaka are not extensively commented upon in the works of known and extant indigenous Tibetan scholars. Ati?a’s Madhyamaka thought, if even discussed, is minimally acknowledged in recent modern scholarly overviews or sourcebooks on Indian Buddhist thought. The following annotated translation provides a late eleventh century Indo-Tibetan Madhyamaka teaching on the two realities (satyadvaya) attributed to Ati?a Dīpa?kara?rījñāna (982–1054 c.e.) entitled A General Explanation of, and Framework for Understanding, the Two Realities (bden gnyis spyi bshad dang/ bden gnyis ’jog tshul). The text furnishes an exposition of the Middle Way (madhyamaka) thought of Nāgārjuna based on an exegesis of conventional reality and ultimate reality within the framework of Mahāyāna path structures found in texts attributed to Maitreyanātha. The General Explanation fills an important gap in the historical knowledge of Madhyamaka teachings in eleventh century India and Tibet. The text presents a Madhyamaka teaching brought to Tibet by Ati?a and provides previously unknown evidence for the type of pure Madhyamaka teachings that circulated among the communities of early followers of Ati?a. These teachings were disseminated before the rise of the early Bka’-gdams-pa monastery of Gsang-phu ne’u-thog and its debating traditions that, particularly beginning in the twelfth century, placed emphasis on the merger of Madhyamaka and Epistemology (pramā?a).     

Shared Typologies of Kāmaśāstra,Alaṅkāraśāstra and Literary Criticism

This paper brings kāmaśāstra into conversation with poetics (alaṅkāraśāstra) and modes of literary criticism associated with Sanskrit literature (kāvya). It shows how historical intersections between kāvya, kāmaśāstra, and alaṅkāraśāstra have produced insightful cross-domain typologies to understand the nature and value of canonical works of Sanskrit literature. In addition to exploring kāmaśāstra typologies broadly as conceptual models and analytical categories useful in literary-critical contexts, this paper takes up a specific formulation from the kāmaśāstra (the padminī-citriṇī-śaṅkhinī-hastinī type-casting of females) used by a twentieth century literary critic to frame the relationships between canonical poets of Sanskrit literature.     

The Evidence for Somānanda’s Pantheism

It is well known that Utpaladeva’s (c. 925–975) articulation of the Pratyabhijñā deviates in style and substance from that of his teacher, Somānanda (fl. c. 900–950), and that the former’s ī?varapratyabhijñākārikās (along with two auto-commentaries) come to be regarded as the definitive formulation of the school’s philosophy almost from the moment they were first composed. In this essay, I argue that while the spirit and general philosophical contours of Somānanda’s ?ivad???i serve as the basis for all subsequent writings in the history of the Pratyabhijñā, Somānanda nevertheless articulates a philosophical monism that is both pantheistic and absent in its essentials from Utpaladeva’s oeuvre. This pantheism, I further suggest, stands in contrast to Utpaladeva’s panentheistic monism, which while compatible with Somānanda’s philosophical vision is nevertheless articulated in different terms: Somānanda emphasizes the functioning of ?iva’s power(s), while Utpaladeva articulates a monism based on the identification of paired opposites. In doing so, this essay identifies Somānanda’s unique contributions to the history of the Pratyabhijñā.     

Prāsaṅgika Epistemology: A Reply to Stag tsang’s Charge Against Tsongkhapa’s Uses of Pramāṇa in Candrakīrti’s Philosophy

Stag tsang, amongst others, has argued that any use of mundane pramā?a—authoritative cognition—is incompatible with the Prāsa?gika system. His criticism of Tsongkhapa’s interpretation of Candrakīrti’s Madhyamaka which insists on the uses of pramā?a (tha snyad pa’i tshad ma)—authoritative cognition—within the Prāsa?gika philosophical context is that it is contradictory and untenable. This paper is my defence of Tsongkhapa’s approach to pramā?a in the Prāsa?gika philosophy. By showing that Tsongkhapa consistently adopts a non-foundationalist approach in his interpretation of the Prāsa?gika’s epistemology, and by showing that he emphatically denies any place for the foundationalist epistemology of Dignāga and Dharmakīrti in the Prāsa?gika system, I will argue that Tsongkhapa’s epistemology emerges from Stag tsang’s criticisms unscathed.     

Puruṣavāda: A Pre-Śaṅkara Monistic Philosophy as Critiqued by Mallavādin

The Advaita literature prior to the time of Gau?apāda and ?a?kara is scarce. Relying on the citations of proponents and their opponents, the picture we glean of this early monism differs in many aspects from that of ?a?kara. While Bhavya’s criticism of this monistic thought has received scholarly attention, the chapter Puru?avāda in Dvāda?āranayacakra (DNC) has rarely been studied. Broadly, this conversation will help ground classical Advaita in light of the contemporary discourse on naturalism. In particular, this examination will help contextualize the early Advaita that lacks clear imprint of Mahayana Buddhism. The doctrine of Puru?a, central to this paper, sidelines the role of avidyā or ignorance, and provides a realistic picture of the world. I have relied on the commentary V?tti upon the Vākyapadīya as has been substantially cited in DNC in order to advance the arguments. As a consequence, the examination on Puru?a also paves the path for advancing arguments on linguistic monism.     

Nāgārjuna’s Negation

Journal of Indian Philosophy - The logical analysis of Nāgārjuna’s (c. 200 CE) catu?ko?i (tetralemma or four-corners) has remained a heated topic for logicians in...     

Śālikanātha’s Criticism of Dharmakīrti’s svasaṃvedana Theory

The aim of this paper is to clarify how Śālikanātha’s epistemology can be distinguished from that of Dharmakīrti, especially in terms of their respective views on cognitive form (ākāra). It has been pointed out that Śālikanātha’s tripuṭī theory and svayaṃprakāśa theory are very close to Dharmakīrti’s epistemology. However, it remains questionable if Śālikanātha, who belongs to the Prābhākara branch of the Mīmāṃsā and is therefore a nirākāravādin, can subscribe to notions that Dharmakīrti developed on the basis of sākāravāda. The present paper concludes that Śālikanātha agrees with Dharmakīrti in assuming that a single cognition consists of three parts; unlike Dharmakīrti, however, Śālikanātha puts emphasis on the difference between these parts, especially between the cognition and its form, on the ground that the cognitive form belongs to the external thing, and not to the cognition (nirākāravāda). In Dharmakīrti’s epistemology, the cognitive form belongs to cognition (sākāravāda); in the ultimate level, there remains no difference between the three parts.     

The Typology of Jāti-s Indicated by Di?nāga and Development of Di?nāga’s Thought

The exhaustive explications on j??ti-s (sophisticated ripostes) and their seemingly chaotic arrangement in early Indian philosophical texts arouses an expectation for a systematic taxonomy or typology. Such taxonomy would enormously increase the heuristic value of the list of j??ti-s. The present article aims to reveal some interpretational problems relevant to the understanding of the j??ti-s?? historical development, as well as the theoretical implications of their typology. Focusing historically on the early texts of debate manuals of Ny??ya and Buddhist circles, this article will excavate and explicate the vague and the obvious attempts to establish a typology of j??ti-s. Given that Di?n??ga was the philosopher who shifted the history of Indian philosophy into the era of macro theory by integrating ontology and epistemology into a general system, the minimal changes of the order of the j??ti-s in the list given in the Pram???asamuccaya, in contrast to the one found in the Ny??yamukha, will be interpreted as a paradigm shift. The rearrangement of the j??ti list in the Pram???asamuccaya represents the paradigm shift from the debate (v??da) manual to the epistemological (pram???a) treatise, confirming Frauwallner??s ideas regarding the development of Di?n??ga??s thought.     

Interpretation of some crucial problems in śamkara's Adhyāsa-Bhāsya

This article was presented as a research paper at the Rajasthan Sanskrit Conference, 4th Session, held in Jaipur, March 1977. I am thankful also to the Conference for allowing me to publish it elsewhere.     

Capacity as Philosophy: A Review of Richard Lippke’s, The Ethics of Plea Bargaining

Plea bargaining is a response to capacity overload in the criminal justice system. It both preserves and belies the right to trial, making possible its glorious display but only by denying it in most cases. While plea bargaining has been documented and analysed copiously in historical, sociological and legal terms, its ethical status as an institutional practice are hazy. Richard Lippke offers an account of plea bargaining that draws on the normative debates over responsibility, culpability and desert, in aid of a holistic proposal for a morally defensible system of pre-trial adjudication. In proposing an ethical system of plea bargaining, and working through the normative challenges to this, two bigger questions become visible. These are: what are the implications of developing, in essence, an ethics of efficiency, and, how should the criminal justice system be held to account for the inequalities (and iniquities) that exist before and outside it? In this review essay, I show how these questions are constructed in the book and make some attempt at analysing them, thus engaging with the more urgent and general issue of the complicated relationship of the ideal to the real when it comes to penal practice.     

Kumārila’s Buddhist

The pūrvapakṣa of the Śūnyavāda chapter of Kumārila’s Ślokavārttika (vv. 10-63) is the longest continuous statement of a Buddhist position in that work. Philosophically, this section is of considerable interest in that the arguments developed for the thesis that the form (ākāra) in cognition belongs to the cognition, not to an external object, are cleverly constructed. Historically, it is of interest in that it represents a stage of thinking about the two-fold nature of cognition and the provenance of the ākāra that is clearly more advanced than Dignāga but not quite as sophisticated as Dharmakīrti. In particular, although one may see an anticipation of Dharmakīrti’s famous sahopalambhaniyama argument in this text, it is not yet fully spelled out.