Chinul (1158–1210)

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert E. Buswell
Keyword(s):  
Buddhist Philosophy ◽  
Buddhist Tradition ◽  
Korean Buddhism ◽  
The Mind

Chinul was the founder of the Korean Chogye school of Buddhism. He sought to reconcile the bifurcation between Kyo (doctrinal) thought and Sôn (Zen) practice that rent the Korean Buddhist tradition of his time, by showing the symbiotic connection between Buddhist philosophy and meditation. He also advocated a distinctive program of soteriology that became emblematic of Korean Buddhism from that time forward: an initial sudden awakening to the nature of the mind followed by gradual cultivation of that awakening until full enlightenment was achieved.

scholarly journals The Significance of “mushin”: The Essential Mind of Zen Buddhist Philosophy for Humans in a Contemporary World

Asian Studies ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 97-112 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hisaki HASHI
Keyword(s):  
Philosophy Of Mind ◽  
Creative Thinking ◽  
Human Life ◽  
Buddhist Philosophy ◽  
Digital Networks ◽  
Human Origin ◽  
Dynamic Approach ◽  
Contemporary World ◽  
The Mind ◽  
Zen Buddhist

In our time of an information highway, digital networks are linked around the clock. Among various data many people are unconsciously depending on IT and digital medias with their body––but without any mind. The human origin, its creative thinking and acting, transmitting one idea to another for reforming and developing something new has been quite forgotten. Against this omnipresent phenomenon the Zen Buddhist Philosophy of Mind shows a dynamic approach to re-create and re-construct a human life, accompanied by the unique concept of the absolute one, “mu” (無), mu-shin (無心), the mind of mu presents a dynamic unity in its flexible activity.

Buddhist philosophy, Japanese

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
John C. Maraldo
Keyword(s):  
Political Institutions ◽  
Written Language ◽  
Buddhist Philosophy ◽  
Japanese Culture ◽  
Life And Death ◽  
Cultural Complex ◽  
Buddhist Tradition ◽  
Japanese Buddhism ◽  
Confucian Philosophy ◽  
To Come

Buddhism transformed Japanese culture and in turn was transformed in Japan. Mahāyāna Buddhist thought entered Japan from the East Asian continent as part of a cultural complex that included written language, political institutions, formal iconography and Confucian literature. From its introduction in the sixth century through to the sixteenth century, Japanese Buddhism developed largely by incorporating Chinese Buddhism, accommodating indigenous beliefs and reconciling intersectarian disputes. During the isolationist Tokugawa Period (1600–1868), neo-Confucian philosophy and Dutch science challenged the virtual hegemony of Buddhist ways of thinking, but served more often as alternative and sometimes complementary models than as incompatible paradigms. Only since the reopening of Japan in 1868 has Japanese Buddhist thought seriously attempted to come to terms with early Indian Buddhism, Western thought and Christianity. Through the centuries, Buddhism gave the Japanese people a way to make sense of life and death, to explain the world and to seek liberation from suffering. When it engaged in theorizing, it did so in pursuit of religious fulfilment rather than of knowledge for its own sake. As an extension of its practical bent, Japanese Buddhist thought often tended to collapse differences between Buddhism and other forms of Japanese religiosity, between this phenomenal world and any absolute realm, and between the means and end of enlightenment. These tendencies are not Japanese in origin, but they extended further in Japan than in other Buddhist countries and partially define the character of Japanese Buddhist philosophy. In fact, the identity of ‘Japanese Buddhist philosophy’ blends with almost everything with which we would contrast it. As a development and modification of Chinese traditions, there is no one thing that is uniquely Japanese about it; as a Buddhist tradition, it is characteristically syncretistic, often assimilating Shintō and Confucian philosophy in both its doctrines and practices. Rituals, social practices, political institutions and artistic or literary expressions are as essential as philosophical ideas to Japanese Buddhism. Disputes about ideas often arose but were seldom settled by force of logical argument. One reason for this is that language was used not predominately in the service of logic but for the direct expression and actualization of reality. Disputants appealed to the authority of Buddhist sūtras because these scriptures were thought to manifest a direct understanding of reality. Further, as reality was thought to be all-inclusive, the better position in the dispute would be that which was more comprehensive rather than that which was more consistent but exclusive. Politics and practical consequences did play a role in the settling of disputes, but the ideal of harmony or conformity often prevailed. The development of Japanese Buddhist philosophy can thus be seen as the unfolding of major themes rather than a series of philosophical positions in dispute. These themes include the role of language in expressing truth; the non-dual nature of absolute and relative, universal and particular; the actualization of liberation in this world, life or body; the equality of beings; and the transcendent non-duality of good and evil.

Sa skya Paṇḍita (1182–1251)

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Georges B.J. Dreyfus
Keyword(s):  
Buddhist Philosophy ◽  
Main Obstacle ◽  
Crucial Element ◽  
Types Of Knowledge ◽  
Buddhist Tradition ◽  
Summum Bonum ◽  
Philosophical Importance ◽  
Sa Skya Paṇḍita ◽  
Individual Objects ◽  
Sa Skya

The philosophical importance of Sa skya Paṇḍita (Sagya Paṇḍita) lies in his clarification of the tradition of logic and epistemology established by Dharmakīrti. He actively promoted the study of Dharmakīrti’s thought in Tibet as a propaedeutic to the study of other systems of Buddhist philosophy as well as to a Buddhist account of knowledge; knowledge is a crucial element in the Buddhist tradition, for ignorance is considered the main obstacle to liberation, the summum bonum of the tradition. Like Dharmakīrti, Sa skya Paṇḍita held that the only two types of knowledge are perception and inference. Perception presents us with real individual objects, while inference enables us to consider these individuals in a conceptual way, in terms of universals; however, it is a mistake to regard these universals as real.

Is Compassion Innate? Spiritual and Eastern Perspectives

2020 ◽  
pp. 45-62
Author(s):  
Agnes M.F. Wong
Keyword(s):  
Training Programs ◽  
Golden Rule ◽  
Loving Kindness ◽  
Buddhist Tradition ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Spiritual Perspectives ◽  
Treat All ◽  
The Mind ◽  
Mind Training

In this chapter, the author begins with an overview of compassion from different spiritual perspectives and develops an appreciation that although each tradition expresses it differently, compassion can be summed up aptly by the Golden Rule: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” The author shows that the principle of compassion lies at the heart of all religious, ethical, and spiritual traditions, calling us always to treat all others as we wish to be treated ourselves. The chapter then dives deeper into the Eastern perspectives on compassion, with special attention given to the Buddhist view because many contemporary secular compassion training programs borrow the mind-training tools that originate from Buddhism. The author reviews the four immeasurables—loving-kindness, compassion, sympathetic joy, and equanimity—that are commonly practised together in the Buddhist tradition. Last, the author reviews the three different types of compassion—referential, insight-based, and nonreferential—in the Buddhist context.

Illuminating the Mind

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan Stoltz
Keyword(s):  
Previous Exposure ◽  
Western Tradition ◽  
Perceptual Knowledge ◽  
Buddhist Epistemology ◽  
Testimonial Knowledge ◽  
Buddhist Tradition ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Mind ◽  
Philosophical Writings ◽  
Contemporary Epistemology

This book provides readers with an introduction to epistemology within the Buddhist intellectual tradition. It is designed to be accessible to those whose primary background is in the “Western” tradition of philosophy and who have little or no previous exposure to Buddhist philosophical writings. The book examines many of the most important topics in the field of epistemology, topics that are central both to contemporary discussions of epistemology and to the classical Buddhist tradition of epistemology in India and Tibet. Among the topics discussed are Buddhist accounts of the nature of knowledge episodes, the defining conditions of perceptual knowledge and of inferential knowledge, the status of testimonial knowledge, and skeptical criticisms of the entire project of epistemology. The book seeks to put the field of Buddhist epistemology in conversation with contemporary debates in philosophy. It shows that many of the arguments and debates occurring within classical Buddhist epistemological treatises coincide with the arguments and disagreements found in contemporary epistemology. The book shows, for example, how Buddhist epistemologists developed an anti-luck epistemology—one that is linked to a sensitivity requirement for knowledge. Likewise, the book explores the question of how the study of Buddhist epistemology can be of relevance to contemporary debates about the value of contributions from experimental epistemology, and to broader debates concerning the use of philosophical intuitions about knowledge.

Buddhist Philosophy as Philosophy

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Siderits
Keyword(s):  
Buddhist Philosophy ◽  
Philosophical Tradition ◽  
Philosophical Inquiry ◽  
Early 21St Century ◽  
Buddhist Tradition ◽  
Potential Benefits ◽  
Academic Philosophy ◽  
Buddhist Teaching ◽  
Philosophical Texts ◽  
Current Resistance

Is Buddhist philosophy properly thought of as philosophy? The work of Buddhist thinkers such as Vasubandhu, Nāgārjuna, and Dharmakīrti is widely recognized as deploying the same sorts of tools to investigate the same sorts of topics as what one finds in the practices of academic philosophers in the early 21st century. Still there is resistance to incorporating Buddhist philosophical texts into the philosophy canon, and this both from “mainstream” academic philosophers and from Buddhologists (scholars of the Buddhist tradition). Current resistance can be traced to concerns over the soteriological context of Buddhist philosophizing. Those who wish to maintain the present Eurocentric focus of the philosophy canon suspect that the soteriological ends to which philosophical inquiry is put by Buddhists must compromise philosophy’s commitment to rationality and Buddhism’s commitment to its goal of salvation. Resistance from both sides thus presupposes that a spiritual practice necessarily involves commitments that are not rationally assessable. And this presupposition may be incompatible with the core Buddhist teaching of non-self. If this clears the way to including the Buddhist philosophical tradition in the canon, one must ask how this may affect the two parties to the project of fusion. A brief look at some recent missteps reveals that only if there is greater teamwork between philologically trained Buddhologists and scholars trained in (what currently counts as) “mainstream” academic philosophy can there be real progress. But the potential benefits—for both sides—may well justify the effort.

HAPPINESS FROM A BUDDHIST PERSPECTIVE

2014 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-13 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dalai Lama
Keyword(s):  
Great Benefit ◽  
Dalai Lama ◽  
Buddhist Tradition ◽  
Concern For Others ◽  
Special Instruction ◽  
The Mind ◽  
Mind Training

AbstractHappiness is an essential goal of all people. Because happiness is so fundamentally part of our being, the question of how to attain it is of great importance. Buddhism has a long and well-developed philosophical and practical tradition with the goal of helping humans to attain happiness and end suffering. In this article, His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama draws on the wisdom of the Buddhist tradition to explain how one can achieve happiness by transforming the mind. In particular, His Holiness explains how, in the Buddhist tradition, there is a special instruction called Mind Training, which focuses on cultivating concern for others and turning adversity to advantage that can be of great benefit to people seeking to end suffering and cultivate happiness.

scholarly journals What's in a Concept? Conceptualizing the Nonconceptual in Buddhist Philosophy and Cognitive Science

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Evan Thompson
Keyword(s):  
Cognitive Science ◽  
Philosophy Of Mind ◽  
Concept Formation ◽  
Full Range ◽  
Buddhist Philosophy ◽  
Comprehensive Treatment ◽  
Contemporary Philosophy ◽  
Philosophical Perspective ◽  
The World ◽  
The Mind

A recurrent problem in the philosophical debates over whether there is or can be nonconceptual experience or whether all experience is conceptually structured or mediated is the lack of a generally accepted account of what concepts are. Without a precise specification of what a concept is, the notion of nonconceptuality is equally ill defined. This problem cuts across contemporary philosophy and cognitive science as well as classical Indian philosophy, and it affects how we go about philosophically engaging Buddhism. Buddhist philosophers generally argue that our everyday experience of the world is conceptually constructed, whereas “nonconceptual cognition” (nirvikalpa jñāna) marks the limits of conceptuality. But what precisely do “conceptual” and “nonconceptual” mean? Consider that “concept” is routinely used to translate the Sanskrit term vikalpa; nirvikalpa is accordingly rendered as “nonconceptual.” But vikalpa has also been rendered as “imagination,” “discriminative construction,” “discursive thought,” and “discrimination.” Related terms, such as kalpanā (conceptualization/mental construction) and kalpanāpoḍha (devoid of conceptualization/mental construction), have also been rendered in various ways. Besides the question of how to translate these terms in any given Buddhist philosophical text, how should we relate them to current philosophical or cognitive scientific uses of the term “concept”? More generally, given that the relationship between the conceptual and the nonconceptual has been one of the central and recurring issues for the Buddhist philosophical tradition altogether, can Buddhist philosophy bring fresh insights to our contemporary debates about whether experience has nonconceptual content? And can contemporary philosophy and cognitive science help to illuminate or even resolve some older Buddhist philosophical controversies? A comprehensive treatment of these questions across the full range of Buddhist philosophy and contemporary philosophy of mind and cognitive science would be impossible. I restrict my focus to certain core ideas from Abhidharma, Dharmakīrti’s apoha theory, and Yogācāra, as refracted through current philosophical and cognitive science views of concepts. I argue for the following five general theses. First, cognitive science can help us to clarify Abhidharma issues about the relation between nonconceptual sense perception and conceptual cognition. Second, we can resolve these Abhidharma issues using a model of concept formation based on reading Dharmakīrti through cognitive science glasses. Third, this model of concept formation offers a new perspective on the contemporary conceptualist versus nonconceptualist debate. Fourth, Yogācāra offers a conception of nonconceptual experience absent from this debate. In many Yogācāra texts, awareness that is said to be free from the duality of “grasper” (grāhaka) and “grasped” (grāhya) is nonconceptual. None of the contemporary philosophical arguments for nonconceptualism is adequate or suitable for explicating this unique kind of nonconceptuality. Thus, Yogācāra is relevant to what has been called the problem of the “scope of the conceptual,” that is, how the conceptual/nonconceptual distinction should be drawn. For this reason, among others, Yogācāra has something to offer philosophy of mind. Moreover, using cognitive science, we may be able to render some of the Yogācāra ideas in a new way, while in turn recasting ideas from cognitive science. Fifth, in pursuing these aims, I hope to show the value of thinking about the mind from a cross-cultural philosophical perspective. Sixth, from an enactive cognitive science perspective informed by Buddhist philosophy, a concept is not a mental entity by which an independent subject grasps or represents independent objects, but rather one aspect of a complex dynamic process in which the mind and the world are interdependent and co-emergent poles.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document