Dear colleagues:
The CASS Center for Sanskrit Studies and the Institute
of Philosophy is
pleased to invite Dr. Orna Almogi, University of Hamburg, to
deliver one
lecture on Wednesday, October 9th, 2013. Please be so kind as to
forward
this announcement to any students or colleagues who you feel may
be
interested in joining us. Please see the details below.
Thank
you!
Sincerely,
HE Huanhuan
******
Wednesday,
October 9th, 2013
9:30 am to 11:00 am
Conference Room 940,
Institute of Philosophy, Chinese Academy of Social
Sciences No.5
Jianguomennei Dajie, Dongcheng District, Beijing, China.
Language:
English
LECTURE : The Māyopamādvayavāda–Sarvadharmāpratiṣṭhānavāda
Distinction¾A Survey of
Eleventh-Century Indian
Sources
ABSTRACT:
Both ways of subclassifying Madhyamaka¾that
is, the division into
Sautrāntika-Madhyamaka and Yogācāra-Madhyamaka
prevalent during the early
propagation of Buddhism in Tibet and the division
into
Svātantrika-Madhyamaka and Prāsaṅgika-Madhyamaka introduced during
the
later propagation period¾have been attempts made by Tibetan scholars
to
systematically define and differentiate the various strands of
Madhyamaka
found in Indian sources. However, although these two ways of
subclassifying
Madhyamaka are based on in one way or another correct
observations by
Tibetan scholars, they do not seem to have existed as such in
India. In
fact the only clear distinction between two branches of Madhyamaka
found in
Indian sources seems to be the division into Māyopamādvayavāda
and
Sarvadharmāpratiṣṭhānavāda, that is, into ” (henceforth
Māyopamavāda)
and “those
who maintain that all phenomena have no
substratum whatsoever” (henceforth
Apratiṣṭhānavāda).
As already noted
by various scholars, this division can be traced to
several Indian sources,
including the *Tattvaratnāvalī* of Advayavajra
(11th cent.), the
*Paramārtha-bodhicittabhāvanākrama* ascribed to a
certain
Aśvaghoṣa/Śūra, and Candraharipāda’s (11th cent.) *Ratnamālā*. One
may add
here Jñānavajra’s *Tattvamārgadarśana*, several other works by
Advayavajra,
the *Guruparamparakramopadeśa* by the latter’s disciple
Vajrapāṇi (11th
cent.), and several works ascribed to Atiśa. Most of these
sources can be
dated with certainty to the eleventh century, and it could
well be that
this is also when this division came into existence, and that
too, probably
in circles of scholars belonging to the Madhyamaka–Vajrayāna
synthesis.
We now have sufficient evidence that this division was also
prevalent in
Tibet in the 11th century, and probably also in the 12th
century. In fact
several prominent Tibetan scholars can be identified as
Apratiṣṭhānavādin.
At the same time, however, we also know that the
Māyopamavāda–
Apratiṣṭhānavāda distinction has been vehemently criticized and
even
entirely rejected by numerous Tibetan scholars and that finally it
faded
out, while the Svātantrika–Prāsaṅgika distinction has in course of
time
become the dominant Madhyamaka subclassification in Tibet.
The
nature of the Māyopamavāda–Apratiṣṭhānavāda distinction is still very
much
unclear and further studies would be required in order to
thoroughly
understand it. Thus in my talk I would merely address some of the
main
problems or ambiguities connected with this subdivision and briefly
discuss
the controversy surrounding it.
******
ALL
WELCOME
Please note that this event is free and open to the public, and
no
registration is required.
For directions to the venue, please visit
the website:
http://philosophy.cass.cn
For further information,
please contact HE Huanhuan at:
pkuhhh@gmail.com
HE Huanhuan, PhD,
Lecturer,
Center for Sanskrit Studies
Institute of Philosophy
Chinese Academy of
Social Sciences
No.5 Jianguomennei Dajie, Beijing, China
Email: pkuhhh@gmail.com
Tel:
+86 (0) 10-8519-5526
