H-Net Notifications
New items have been posted in H-Buddhism.
Table of Contents
- Re: QUERY> Looking for HATTORI (1962) article
- Re: Query about the three wheels of doctrine
- Re: Query about the three wheels of doctrine
- QUERY> Did Buddhists stake something at wining debates?
- Re: Query about the three wheels of doctrine
Re: QUERY> Looking for HATTORI (1962) article
by Akira Saito
Dear Prof. Paul Hacket,Let me know your email address so that I can send you a scanned copy of Hattori's article you wanted to obtain by an attached email.
Best regards,
Akira Saito (asaito@l.u-tokyo.ac.jp)
Re: Query about the three wheels of doctrine
by Yaroslav Komarovski
Dear John,
While this does not
refer to exclusively tantric texts, here is how at least two thinkers tried to
fit Tantra into the categories the dharmacakras, etc. Kongtrül Lodrö Tayé in
his Shes bya kun khyab discusses two types of dharmacakras—common and
uncommon—and then divides the former into the three dharmacakras and the latter
into different tantric teachings of Kriyā, Caryā, etc. (mi rigs dpe skrun
khang, 1982, stod cha, 359ff.). While on the surface it looks like he does not
include Tantra into the three dharmacakras, this impression might be somewhat
superficial (after all, he also discusses Vajrayāna separately from Mahāyāna,
but this does not entail that for him the former is not included into the
latter). Anyhow, Shakya Chokden, on the other hand, clearly treats Tantra as a
subdivision of the third dharamākra. He talks about the final (i.e., the third)
pronouncements in terms of Pāramitāyāna and Mantrayāna (see my Radiant
Emptiness, 105) and also divides the last dharmacakra into Pāramitā and
Mantra, with the former further divided into Sūtras and Abhidharma (239).
As a side note, it
is interesting to mention that while for Tibetan thinkers (Bsam gtan mig
sgon, etc., aside) the question was usually not which teachings—sūtric or
tantric—where higher, but rather how high the tantric teachings were (whether
they should be included into the third dharmacakra or treated separately as the
fourth dharmacakra, etc.), Japanese thinkers disagreed on whether Tantra as
such (still as a part of Mahāyāna) should be elevated above all sūtric
teachings (as Kūkai did) or be incorporated within the framework of the Lotus
Sūtra teachings as interpreted in Tendai (according to Saichō). Hence the two
different takes (Tōmitsu vs. Taimitsu) followed by Shingon and Tendai
traditions ( see J. Stone, Original Enlightenment and the Transformation of
Medieval Japanese Buddhism, 20-21).
Re: Query about the three wheels of doctrine
by Christian Wedemeyer
While I agree with the general trend of these remarks (i.e., Vajrayāna was
not considered a "third wheel," at least in the Saṃdhinirmocana
sense). However, there are reasons to think that some may have had some ideas
trending along these lines. For instance, the Ninth Chapter of Āryadeva's Caryāmelāpakapradīpa
(when he takes up the edgy notion of sensual practices) reads:“First of all, the Lord, in the condition of a bodhisattva in his last existence, having surveyed the continent [on which he was to be born] and so on, having descended from residence [in] Tuṣita [Heaven]...having manifested himself in a form free of passion, undertook the realization of the Four Noble Truths and the passion-free practices for those of inferior ambition (hīnādhimuktikānāṃ). Further, for those who adhere to the Mahāyāna, [He] undertook the realization of objective selflessness [such as that] of the eight consciousnesses, {the bodies,} etc., and [undertook] the practices of the stages and perfections, and so on. Further, emanating in the form of a universal monarch for those who aspire to the profound [Adamantine Way, He] undertook the realization of the nonduality of the two realities and the practices of the objects of passion." (adapted from Wedemeyer 2007, pp. 281–282)
This is not too far afield from the idea of the Buddha's teaching career being divisible into three phases of realism, anti-realism, and a combination of the two, but Āryadeva does not explicitly identify these as "turnings of the wheel."
QUERY> Did Buddhists stake something at wining debates?
by Bertram G. Liyanage
Dear colleagues,
recently, a Vedantic student asked me whether Buddhists also had a ‘tradition’ of staking something on winning public debates. He has plenty of references to Hindu, Jaina and Buddhist masters who debated for some wagers. But, as he has found, Buddhists have each time agreed on the conditions of opponents, not imposing conditions from their position. I answered him, adding that Buddhists could not act in this way, as it violates fundamental Buddhist values. My response, nevertheless, was purely based on my hypothesis. I’m not a historian and I have never studied this area. Therefore, now I am in doubt as to whether Buddhists had such ‘tradition’ of demanding for a bet at debates or not. In addition, do we find some isolated incidents germane to some Buddhist masters? I would be grateful if you could steer me towards a couple of readings in this regard.
recently, a Vedantic student asked me whether Buddhists also had a ‘tradition’ of staking something on winning public debates. He has plenty of references to Hindu, Jaina and Buddhist masters who debated for some wagers. But, as he has found, Buddhists have each time agreed on the conditions of opponents, not imposing conditions from their position. I answered him, adding that Buddhists could not act in this way, as it violates fundamental Buddhist values. My response, nevertheless, was purely based on my hypothesis. I’m not a historian and I have never studied this area. Therefore, now I am in doubt as to whether Buddhists had such ‘tradition’ of demanding for a bet at debates or not. In addition, do we find some isolated incidents germane to some Buddhist masters? I would be grateful if you could steer me towards a couple of readings in this regard.
Thanks,
Bertram G. Liyanage
Visiting Instructor
Post-Graduate Institute of Pali and Buddhist Studies
University of Kelaniya, Sri Lanka
Visiting Instructor
Post-Graduate Institute of Pali and Buddhist Studies
University of Kelaniya, Sri Lanka
Re: Query about the three wheels of doctrine
by Pamela D. Winfield
For a more modern take on this issue: The doctrine of the three wheel bodies
(sanrinjin) figures prominently in Shinnyo-en (the Garden of Truth), which is a
modern Japanese lay reform movement of Shingon esoteric Buddhism. According to
Shinnyo-en, the three main images of Sakyamuni Buddha, Kannon (Avalokitesvara)
and Fudo myoo (Acala vidyaraja) embody the three wheel bodies of buddhahood.
"...the doctrine of Dainichi’s three wheel bodies (sanrinjin) basically
categorizes the Buddha’s modes of teaching (lit. “turning of the wheel” of the
dharma) into three main body-types. A Buddha’s Truth body (lit. self-nature
wheel body jishōrinjin) teaches simply by manifesting the truth or “thusness”
of reality. Bodhisattvas like Kannon reincarnate as Law bodies (lit. true
dharma wheel body shōbōrinjin) to expound the dharma through speech and other
compassionate methods.Fierce wisdom kings like Fudō appear as Teaching bodies
(lit. teaching edict wheel body kyōryōrinjin) to teach and dispel stubborn
delusions by any expedient means necessary. These three pedagogical and
soteriological aspects of Dainichi are ultimately empty of fixed essence,
however, for like white light refracting through a prism into three distinct
colors, they are effectively indistinct from universal Buddhahood itself."Pamela D. Winfield (2019) Shinnyo-En and the Formulation of a New Esoteric Iconography, Material Religion, 15:1, 27-53, DOI: 10.1080/17432200.2019.1568756
Contact the Help Desk: help@mail.h-net.org.
Manage notification settings by visiting My Profile > Notifications on the Commons.
