Recensions
1. Biography of E.E. Obermiller (by E.N. Pishcheramov and E.N. Telkin)
This section details the life of Obermiller, a brilliant Russian scholar of Buddhism and Tibetan literature. Despite suffering from a progressive illness that left him paralyzed and bedridden, he produced an impressive body of scholarly work between 1927-1935, including 19 published works and 11 manuscripts prepared for publication. He became one of the foremost experts on Indo-Tibetan Buddhist literature, working under the renowned academician F.I. Shcherbatskoy. Obermiller made multiple difficult journeys to Buryatia to study Buddhist texts in monasteries, and was honored as a member of the Greater India Society before his premature death at age 34.
2. Introduction to the Bhavanakrama Manuscript
This research project aimed to elucidate the ideological structure of Indian Madhyamaka philosophy through Indian and Tibetan texts. The texts targeted for elucidation in this research are: Jñānagarbha's Satyadvayavibhaṅga (Distinguishing the Two Truths), Śāntarakṣita's Madhyamakālaṃkāra (Ornament of the Middle Way), Kamalaśīla's Madhyamakāloka (Illumination of the Middle Way), Bhāvanākrama (Stages of Meditation), and commentaries on Haribhadra's Abhisamayālaṃkārālokā.
Previously, I published A Study and Translation of the Madhyamakālaṃkāra (Daito Publishing, 1985), and within that, I prepared Tibetan texts of Śāntarakṣita's Madhyamakālaṃkāra and its autocommentary, and Kamalaśīla's Madhyamakālokavṛtti. Through this, it became possible for the first time to critically examine the philosophical issues contained in these works in their original form, and one step of the elucidation of the ideological structure of Indian Madhyamaka philosophy was achieved.
For this reason, in preparing the critical edition and Japanese translation of the Tibetan text this time, I have attempted to further advance the elucidation of the stages of thought in the Buddhist Yogācāra-Madhyamaka school, comparing it with Haribhadra's Abhisamayālaṃkārālokā and the Bhāvanākrama.
Regarding the fundamental stance of this book, in the Madhyamakālaṃkāra, which is considered to represent Śāntarakṣita's thought, while he extensively references other schools of thought and tries to synthesize them organizationally and systematically, his fundamental position is said to take the ideological standpoint of Nāgārjuna from the Middle Period. The correct understanding of Indian Madhyamaka philosophy and the issues concerning Indian Madhyamaka are not clear. However, Kamalaśīla's Bhāvanākrama is a highly practical work that puts such doctrinal theory into actual practice. And within its three sections, there is a discussion that distinguishes between "analytical meditation" and "stabilizing meditation" - problems of practice and theory. This places the practice [of meditation] at the center and attempts to unify Śāntarakṣita's ideological system as a whole. That is to say, through the composition of the Bhāvanākrama, it can be understood that the ideological system of "Indian Madhyamaka Philosophy" is clarified from the perspectives of theory and practice. (Ichigō, preface, i)ordinary reasoning processes (cintāmayī prajñā) but rather with a form of experiential knowing (bhāvanāmayī prajñā, vipaśyanā) that is conceptual in nature. It is in accordance with this conception that the actual translation of the texts has been undertaken.
The second chapter of the commentary examines the concept of insight (vipaśyanā) in light of the earlier findings. Here the text is analyzed for its explanations of its insight, understood in terms of the important technical term bhūtapratyavekṣā. Here an argument is made for translating this term in a particular manner consistent with the conception of meditation outlined in Chapter 1. The term is explored in light of key passages containing descriptions of the cultivation of wisdom as well as in light of other important technical terms appearing in the texts, notably dharmapravicaya, smṛti and manasikāra. Chapter 2 closes with a discussion of Kamalaśīla's ideas of śrāvaka insight meditation (vipaśyanā) and how it differs from that of the Mahāyāna. Most notable in this regard is the suggestion that Kamalaśīla may have regarded śrāvaka insight practices (vipaśyanā) as instances of śamatha meditation. In the third chapter the suggestion is made that such considerations could lead to the development of an important area of future research into the differences among diverse Indian Buddhist traditions. The concluding section of Chapter 3 contains a summary of the concrete findings of this analysis.Full translations
This research project aimed to elucidate the ideological structure of Indian Madhyamaka philosophy through Indian and Tibetan texts. The texts targeted for elucidation in this research are: Jñānagarbha's Satyadvayavibhaṅga (Distinguishing the Two Truths), Śāntarakṣita's Madhyamakālaṃkāra (Ornament of the Middle Way), Kamalaśīla's Madhyamakāloka (Illumination of the Middle Way), Bhāvanākrama (Stages of Meditation), and commentaries on Haribhadra's Abhisamayālaṃkārālokā.
Previously, I published A Study and Translation of the Madhyamakālaṃkāra (Daito Publishing, 1985), and within that, I prepared Tibetan texts of Śāntarakṣita's Madhyamakālaṃkāra and its autocommentary, and Kamalaśīla's Madhyamakālokavṛtti. Through this, it became possible for the first time to critically examine the philosophical issues contained in these works in their original form, and one step of the elucidation of the ideological structure of Indian Madhyamaka philosophy was achieved.
For this reason, in preparing the critical edition and Japanese translation of the Tibetan text this time, I have attempted to further advance the elucidation of the stages of thought in the Buddhist Yogācāra-Madhyamaka school, comparing it with Haribhadra's Abhisamayālaṃkārālokā and the Bhāvanākrama.
Regarding the fundamental stance of this book, in the Madhyamakālaṃkāra, which is considered to represent Śāntarakṣita's thought, while he extensively references other schools of thought and tries to synthesize them organizationally and systematically, his fundamental position is said to take the ideological standpoint of Nāgārjuna from the Middle Period. The correct understanding of Indian Madhyamaka philosophy and the issues concerning Indian Madhyamaka are not clear. However, Kamalaśīla's Bhāvanākrama is a highly practical work that puts such doctrinal theory into actual practice. And within its three sections, there is a discussion that distinguishes between "analytical meditation" and "stabilizing meditation" - problems of practice and theory. This places the practice [of meditation] at the center and attempts to unify Śāntarakṣita's ideological system as a whole. That is to say, through the composition of the Bhāvanākrama, it can be understood that the ideological system of "Indian Madhyamaka Philosophy" is clarified from the perspectives of theory and practice. (Ichigō, preface, i)ordinary reasoning processes (cintāmayī prajñā) but rather with a form of experiential knowing (bhāvanāmayī prajñā, vipaśyanā) that is conceptual in nature. It is in accordance with this conception that the actual translation of the texts has been undertaken.
The second chapter of the commentary examines the concept of insight (vipaśyanā) in light of the earlier findings. Here the text is analyzed for its explanations of its insight, understood in terms of the important technical term bhūtapratyavekṣā. Here an argument is made for translating this term in a particular manner consistent with the conception of meditation outlined in Chapter 1. The term is explored in light of key passages containing descriptions of the cultivation of wisdom as well as in light of other important technical terms appearing in the texts, notably dharmapravicaya, smṛti and manasikāra. Chapter 2 closes with a discussion of Kamalaśīla's ideas of śrāvaka insight meditation (vipaśyanā) and how it differs from that of the Mahāyāna. Most notable in this regard is the suggestion that Kamalaśīla may have regarded śrāvaka insight practices (vipaśyanā) as instances of śamatha meditation. In the third chapter the suggestion is made that such considerations could lead to the development of an important area of future research into the differences among diverse Indian Buddhist traditions. The concluding section of Chapter 3 contains a summary of the concrete findings of this analysis.Commentaries
Partial translations
The reign of the King Ṭhi-sroṅ-deu-tsen (Khri-sroṅ-Idehu-btsan, VII century) represents a period of the greatest importance in the early history of Tibet in general and of the spread of Buddhism in that country in particular. The activity of the great Śāntirakṣita ("Ācārya Bodhisattva") and of Padma-sambhava. the selection of the first seven Buddhist monks of Tibetan origin (sad-mi mi bdun), the foundation of numerous sites of Buddhist learning in Tibet, and the intense literary activity of the Tibetan learned translators (lo-tsa-ba)—Pal-tseg (dPal-brtsegs) and others by whom a great number of Buddhist canonical and scientific works were rendered into Tibetan,—all this has been described by Bu-ston in his History of Buddhism and in other Tibetan historical works
There is, however, one subject relating to the spread of Buddhism in Ṭhi-sroṅ-deu-tsen's reign, to which the Tibetan historian devotes his special attention and on which he dwells in detail. This is the strife between two parties into which the Buddhists of Tibet were at that time split. One of these parties consisted of the pupils and followers of Ācārya Śāntirakṣita who professed that form of Mahāyāna Buddhism which was generally acknowledged in India and Nepal, viz. the teaching of the Path to Enlightenment through the practice of meditation connected with the dialectical analysis peculiar to the Mādhyamika school of the Buddhists and with the practice of the six Transcendental Virtues (pāramitā).
The leader of the other party was a Chinese teacher (hwa-śaṅ or ho-shang) known by the Sanskrit name Mahāyānadeva, who preached a doctrine of complete quietism and inactivity. According to him every kind of religious practice, the meditative exercises and all virtuous deeds as well were completely useless and even undesirable: the liberation from the bonds of phenomenal existence was to be attained merely through the complete cessation of every kind of thought and mental activity,—by abiding perpetually in a state analogous to sleep. Bu-ston[1] relates how this party grew very powerful and found numerous adherents among the Tibetans, how the followers of Śāntirakṣita suffered oppression from it, and how the king who was an adherent of Śāntirakṣita's system, invited Śāntirakṣita's pupil, the teacher Kamalaśīla in order to refute the incorrect teachings of the Chinese party. The dispute between Kamalaśīla and the Chinese Ho-shang in which the latter was defeated is described by Bu-ston[2] in detail. We read that the leading men of the two parties[3] assembled in the presence of the king, that the Ho-shang was the first to speak in favour of his theory of quietism and inactivity and was answered by Kamalaśīla who demonstrated all the absurdity of the theses maintained by the Ho-shang and showed that the teachings of such a kind were in conflict with the main principles of Buddhism and were conducive to the depreciation and rejection of the most essential features of the Buddhist Path to Enlightenment. We read further on how the chief adherents of Kamalaśīla[4] likewise refuted the theories of the Ho-shang, how the latter and his party acknowledged themselves vanquished and were expelled from Tibet by order of the king who prescribed to follow henceforth the Buddhist doctrines that were generally admitted,—the teaching of the six Virtues as regards religious practice and the Mādhvamika system of Nāgārjuna as regards the theory.[5]
Thus the influence of the Chinese Ho-shang’s teachings over the minds of the Tibetans suffered a complete defeat and with it perhaps some political influence of China.[6] This is certainly a most important event in the history of Tibetan Buddhism which has been duly appreciated by Bu-ston. It is therefore quite natural that we should be interested in finding out the sources of Bu-ston's historical record. But the text of Bu-ston's History which, as a rule, contains references to the works on the foundation of which it has been compiled, does not give us any information here. At the first glance the account of the controversy looks like the reproduction of an oral tradition and there is nothing that could make us conjecture the presence of a literary work upon which the record could have been founded- The following will show that it has now become possible to trace out this work, to compare with it the account given by Bu-ston and to ascertain its historical importance. (Obermiller, "A Sanskrit MS. from Tibet," 1–3)
Notes
- Cf. my Translation, Vol. II. p. 192
- Ibid: pp. 192, 193.
- Known by the Chinese names Tön-mün (sTon-mun, the party of the Ho-shong) and Tsen-min (rTsen-min, the adherents of Kamalaśīla).
- Śrīghoṣa (Tib. dpal-dbyaṅs) and Jñānendra (Tib, Ye-śes-dbaṅ-po).
- Henceforth the Mādhyamika has become the predominant school in Tibet.
- Kamalaśīla was subsequently murdered by the Ho-shang's adherents.
Similar title
Member of
(See also: "Bhāvanākrama." In The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism, 112-13. Princeton University Press, 2014. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt46n41q.27.)
- Bhāvanākrama. (T. Sgom rim). In Sanskrit, "Stages of Meditation," the title of three separate but related works by the late eighth century Indian master Kamalaśīla (RKTST 4228, RKTST 4229, and RKTST 4230). During the reign of the Tibetan king Khri srong lde btsan at the end of the eighth century, there were two Buddhist factions at court, a Chinese faction led by the Northern Chan (Bei zong) monk Heshang Moheyan (Mahāyāna) and an Indian faction of the recently deceased Śāntarakṣita, who with the king and Padmasambhava had founded the first Tibetan monastery at Bsam yas (Samye). According to traditional accounts, Śāntarakṣita foretold of dangers and left instructions in his will that his student Kamalaśīla should be summoned from India. A conflict seems to have developed between the Indian and Chinese partisans (and their allies in the Tibetan court) over the question of the nature of enlightenment, with the Indians holding that enlightenment takes place as the culmination of a gradual process of purification, the result of perfecting morality (śīla), concentration (samādhi), and wisdom (prajñā). The Chinese spoke against this view, holding that enlightenment was the intrinsic nature of the mind rather than the goal of a protracted path, such that one need simply to recognize the presence of this innate nature of enlightenment by entering a state of awareness beyond distinctions; all other practices were superfluous. According to both Chinese and Tibetan records, a debate was held between Kamalaśīla and Moheyan at Bsam yas, circa 797, with the king himself serving as judge. According to Tibetan reports (contradicted by the Chinese accounts), Kamalaśīla was declared the winner and Moheyan and his party banished from Tibet, with the king proclaiming that thereafter the Madhyamaka school of Indian Buddhist philosophy (to which Śāntarakṣita and Kamalaśīla belonged) would have pride of place in Tibet. According to Tibetan accounts, after the conclusion of the debate, the king requested that Kamalaśīla compose works that presented his view, and in response, Kamalaśīla composed the three Bhāvanākrama. There is considerable overlap among the three works. All three are germane to the issues raised in the debate, although whether all three were composed in Tibet is not established with certainty; only the third, and briefest of the three, directly considers, and refutes, the view of "no mental activity" (amanasikāra, cf. wunian), which is associated with Moheyan. The three texts set forth the process for the potential bodhisattva to cultivate bodhicitta and then develop śamatha and vipaśyanā and progress through the bodhisattva stages (bhūmi) to buddhahood. The cultivation of vipaśyanā requires the use of both scripture (āgama) and reasoning (yukti) to understand emptiness (śūnyatā); in the first Bhāvanākrama, Kamalaśīla sets forth the three forms of wisdom (prajñā): the wisdom derived from leaming (śrutamayīprajñā), the wisdom derived from reflection (cintāmayīprajñā), and the wisdom derived from cultivation (bhāvanāmayīprajñā), explaining that the last of these gradually destroys the afflictive obstructions (kleśāvaraṇa) and the obstructions to omniscience (jñeyāvaraṇa). The second Bhāvanākrama considers many of these same topics, stressing that the achievement of the fruition of buddhahood requires the necessary causes, in the form of the collection of merit (puṇyasaṃbhāra) and the collection of wisdom (jñānasaṇbhāra). Both the first and second works espouse the doctrine of mind only (cittamātra); it is on the basis of these and other statements that Tibetan doxographers classified Kamalaśīla as a Yogācāra-Svātantrika-Madhyamaka. The third and briefest of the Bhāvanākrama is devoted especially to the topics of śamatha and vipaśyanā, how each is cultivated, and how they are ultimately unified. Kamalaśīla argues that analysis (vicāra) into the lack of self (ātman) in both persons (pudgala) and phenomena (dharma) is required to arrive at a nonconceptual state of awareness. The three texts are widely cited in later Tibetan Buddhist literature, especially on the process for developing śamatha and vipaśyanā.
- 1) བསྒོམ་པའི་རིམ་པ། 1
- 2) བསྒོམ་པའི་རིམ་པ། 2
- 3) བསྒོམ་པའི་རིམ་པ། 3
Teachings
About the Text:
Stages of Meditation (Sanskrit. Bhāvanākrama; Tibetan. Gomrim Barpa) offers lucid instructions on cultivating a meditative mind. In great detail, it instructs practitioners on acquiring familiarity and developing expertise in two forms of meditation that will lessen suffering and ultimately lead to enlightenment. These two are śamatha, or calm abiding, and vipaśyanā, or stainless insight. Kamalaśīla clearly outlines why both methods are essential to the practitioner's development and why both must be grounded in compassion.Scholarship
The reign of the King Ṭhi-sroṅ-deu-tsen (Khri-sroṅ-Idehu-btsan, VII century) represents a period of the greatest importance in the early history of Tibet in general and of the spread of Buddhism in that country in particular. The activity of the great Śāntirakṣita ("Ācārya Bodhisattva") and of Padma-sambhava. the selection of the first seven Buddhist monks of Tibetan origin (sad-mi mi bdun), the foundation of numerous sites of Buddhist learning in Tibet, and the intense literary activity of the Tibetan learned translators (lo-tsa-ba)—Pal-tseg (dPal-brtsegs) and others by whom a great number of Buddhist canonical and scientific works were rendered into Tibetan,—all this has been described by Bu-ston in his History of Buddhism and in other Tibetan historical works
There is, however, one subject relating to the spread of Buddhism in Ṭhi-sroṅ-deu-tsen's reign, to which the Tibetan historian devotes his special attention and on which he dwells in detail. This is the strife between two parties into which the Buddhists of Tibet were at that time split. One of these parties consisted of the pupils and followers of Ācārya Śāntirakṣita who professed that form of Mahāyāna Buddhism which was generally acknowledged in India and Nepal, viz. the teaching of the Path to Enlightenment through the practice of meditation connected with the dialectical analysis peculiar to the Mādhyamika school of the Buddhists and with the practice of the six Transcendental Virtues (pāramitā).
The leader of the other party was a Chinese teacher (hwa-śaṅ or ho-shang) known by the Sanskrit name Mahāyānadeva, who preached a doctrine of complete quietism and inactivity. According to him every kind of religious practice, the meditative exercises and all virtuous deeds as well were completely useless and even undesirable: the liberation from the bonds of phenomenal existence was to be attained merely through the complete cessation of every kind of thought and mental activity,—by abiding perpetually in a state analogous to sleep. Bu-ston[1] relates how this party grew very powerful and found numerous adherents among the Tibetans, how the followers of Śāntirakṣita suffered oppression from it, and how the king who was an adherent of Śāntirakṣita's system, invited Śāntirakṣita's pupil, the teacher Kamalaśīla in order to refute the incorrect teachings of the Chinese party. The dispute between Kamalaśīla and the Chinese Ho-shang in which the latter was defeated is described by Bu-ston[2] in detail. We read that the leading men of the two parties[3] assembled in the presence of the king, that the Ho-shang was the first to speak in favour of his theory of quietism and inactivity and was answered by Kamalaśīla who demonstrated all the absurdity of the theses maintained by the Ho-shang and showed that the teachings of such a kind were in conflict with the main principles of Buddhism and were conducive to the depreciation and rejection of the most essential features of the Buddhist Path to Enlightenment. We read further on how the chief adherents of Kamalaśīla[4] likewise refuted the theories of the Ho-shang, how the latter and his party acknowledged themselves vanquished and were expelled from Tibet by order of the king who prescribed to follow henceforth the Buddhist doctrines that were generally admitted,—the teaching of the six Virtues as regards religious practice and the Mādhvamika system of Nāgārjuna as regards the theory.[5]
Thus the influence of the Chinese Ho-shang’s teachings over the minds of the Tibetans suffered a complete defeat and with it perhaps some political influence of China.[6] This is certainly a most important event in the history of Tibetan Buddhism which has been duly appreciated by Bu-ston. It is therefore quite natural that we should be interested in finding out the sources of Bu-ston's historical record. But the text of Bu-ston's History which, as a rule, contains references to the works on the foundation of which it has been compiled, does not give us any information here. At the first glance the account of the controversy looks like the reproduction of an oral tradition and there is nothing that could make us conjecture the presence of a literary work upon which the record could have been founded- The following will show that it has now become possible to trace out this work, to compare with it the account given by Bu-ston and to ascertain its historical importance. (Obermiller, "A Sanskrit MS. from Tibet," 1–3)
Notes
- Cf. my Translation, Vol. II. p. 192
- Ibid: pp. 192, 193.
- Known by the Chinese names Tön-mün (sTon-mun, the party of the Ho-shong) and Tsen-min (rTsen-min, the adherents of Kamalaśīla).
- Śrīghoṣa (Tib. dpal-dbyaṅs) and Jñānendra (Tib, Ye-śes-dbaṅ-po).
- Henceforth the Mādhyamika has become the predominant school in Tibet.
- Kamalaśīla was subsequently murdered by the Ho-shang's adherents.
This research project aimed to elucidate the ideological structure of Indian Madhyamaka philosophy through Indian and Tibetan texts. The texts targeted for elucidation in this research are: Jñānagarbha's Satyadvayavibhaṅga (Distinguishing the Two Truths), Śāntarakṣita's Madhyamakālaṃkāra (Ornament of the Middle Way), Kamalaśīla's Madhyamakāloka (Illumination of the Middle Way), Bhāvanākrama (Stages of Meditation), and commentaries on Haribhadra's Abhisamayālaṃkārālokā.
Previously, I published A Study and Translation of the Madhyamakālaṃkāra (Daito Publishing, 1985), and within that, I prepared Tibetan texts of Śāntarakṣita's Madhyamakālaṃkāra and its autocommentary, and Kamalaśīla's Madhyamakālokavṛtti. Through this, it became possible for the first time to critically examine the philosophical issues contained in these works in their original form, and one step of the elucidation of the ideological structure of Indian Madhyamaka philosophy was achieved.
For this reason, in preparing the critical edition and Japanese translation of the Tibetan text this time, I have attempted to further advance the elucidation of the stages of thought in the Buddhist Yogācāra-Madhyamaka school, comparing it with Haribhadra's Abhisamayālaṃkārālokā and the Bhāvanākrama.
Regarding the fundamental stance of this book, in the Madhyamakālaṃkāra, which is considered to represent Śāntarakṣita's thought, while he extensively references other schools of thought and tries to synthesize them organizationally and systematically, his fundamental position is said to take the ideological standpoint of Nāgārjuna from the Middle Period. The correct understanding of Indian Madhyamaka philosophy and the issues concerning Indian Madhyamaka are not clear. However, Kamalaśīla's Bhāvanākrama is a highly practical work that puts such doctrinal theory into actual practice. And within its three sections, there is a discussion that distinguishes between "analytical meditation" and "stabilizing meditation" - problems of practice and theory. This places the practice [of meditation] at the center and attempts to unify Śāntarakṣita's ideological system as a whole. That is to say, through the composition of the Bhāvanākrama, it can be understood that the ideological system of "Indian Madhyamaka Philosophy" is clarified from the perspectives of theory and practice. (Ichigō, preface, i)ordinary reasoning processes (cintāmayī prajñā) but rather with a form of experiential knowing (bhāvanāmayī prajñā, vipaśyanā) that is conceptual in nature. It is in accordance with this conception that the actual translation of the texts has been undertaken.
The second chapter of the commentary examines the concept of insight (vipaśyanā) in light of the earlier findings. Here the text is analyzed for its explanations of its insight, understood in terms of the important technical term bhūtapratyavekṣā. Here an argument is made for translating this term in a particular manner consistent with the conception of meditation outlined in Chapter 1. The term is explored in light of key passages containing descriptions of the cultivation of wisdom as well as in light of other important technical terms appearing in the texts, notably dharmapravicaya, smṛti and manasikāra. Chapter 2 closes with a discussion of Kamalaśīla's ideas of śrāvaka insight meditation (vipaśyanā) and how it differs from that of the Mahāyāna. Most notable in this regard is the suggestion that Kamalaśīla may have regarded śrāvaka insight practices (vipaśyanā) as instances of śamatha meditation. In the third chapter the suggestion is made that such considerations could lead to the development of an important area of future research into the differences among diverse Indian Buddhist traditions. The concluding section of Chapter 3 contains a summary of the concrete findings of this analysis.
