Property:Abstract
From Bodhicitta
This is a property of type Text.
Ś
No abstract given. Here are the first relevant paragraphs:
Śāntideva lived nearly three centuries after Buddhaghosa and in a very different philosophical context. As in the case of Buddhaghosa, much of what we know about his life is shrouded in legend. But it is clear that Śāntideva was a major exponent of the Madhyamaka school, which was one philosophical tradition within the larger movement of the Mahayana that had by his day become well established in north India. He studied and composed his work at Nālandā University, perhaps the largest university in the world at the time, and his work has proved highly influential in Tibetan Buddhism.<br> Several features of the Mahayana movement must be noted at the outset to
make sense of Śāntideva’s project. The Mahayana was not a school of Buddhism, but rather a series of interventions and innovations that shifted points of emphasis, orientation, and aspiration; these interventions can be traced historically to apocryphal scriptures (sutras), such as the Perfection of Wisdom sutras that emerged around the first century of the Common Era, and eventually developed into a copious literature of Mahayana texts that in some cases came to have devotional followings. (We should note that the linguistic world at this point is Sanskrit, as we shift away from the scriptural and commentarial corpus in Pali, the language of the Theravada, which was little used in India at this time.) The new scriptures did not entirely supplant the earlier canons among the adherents of Mahayana ideas, but they were given higher status, and the earlier bodies of material (and those who would limit textual authority to them) were sometimes cast in highly polemical terms. In addition, the work of the second
century CE philosopher Nāgārjuna on emptiness in this early period was also crucial for the philosophical development of the Mahayana in the forms it took thereafter, including the transmissions of Buddhism to China and the rest of East Asia, and, later, to Tibet.<br> The two most important innovations of the Mahayana involved the development of the bodhisattva ideal, especially its emphasis on universal compassion, and the foregrounding of philosophical ideas about emptiness. Both are central to Śāntideva’s thought. We can consider the bodhisattva ideal first. In "mainstream" Buddhism (what modern scholars call the non-Mahayana systems of Indian Buddhism, which can include the Theravada), the Buddha was held to be a moral exemplar and teacher of the path to liberation. His long journey to buddhahood that took innumerable previous lives to achieve is instructive, awe-inspiring, and highly valued, but was not generally considered something ordinary people could emulate (instead, practitioners seek to become ''arhats'', liberated persons who are not at the level of buddhas). During his previous lives practicing the perfections prerequisite for his discovering and teaching the Buddhist truths and path, he was called a "bodhisattva" (Pali, ''bodhisatta''), that is, a buddha-in-training. In a departure from these views, the early Mahayana scriptures begin to suggest that the Buddha's life, including his long path as a bodhisattva, could be followed more widely, and they came to promote this path for all practitioners.<br> What makes the bodhisattva path notable is that it was not concerned solely with liberation, or release from the suffering of rebirth, karma, and removing the toxic defilements, as is the ''arhat'' path of purification and soteriological freedom articulated by Buddhaghosa. All agree that what the Buddha achieved was not only this, but also the capacity to discover the truths in the first place, to teach them, and thus to save others.[14] The goal of a bodhisattva is to achieve the perfections that fostered the discovery of the truths and the practices that can release people from suffering in samsara (for Śāntideva there are six perfections to the Theravada's ten: generosity, morality, forbearance, vigor, meditation, and understanding). When becoming a buddha is the goal (rather than becoming 'just; an ''arhat'' free of samsara), then the perfections, and above all the compassion that fundamentally characterizes this higher goal, become the path. Further, the path becomes much longer: Although becoming an ''arhat'' is at least conceivable in one lifetime, the path of the bodhisattva, modeled on the Buddha's
countless past lives of striving for ethical and spiritual perfection, becomes
considerably protracted. As a Mahayana thinker, Śāntideva aims not at the path of purification to achieve individual liberation of an ''arhat'' (as in the case of Buddhaghosa), but at this much grander and exalted ideal of saving all beings. Thus, as we consider Śāntideva's ethical thought, we will be concerned with questions of altruism and universal compassion, and challenging issues of self-sacrifice and radically altruistic ethical ideals that are constitutive of this higher vision.<br> The second major innovation of the Mahayana is the development of emptiness teachings, as we have already begun to describe. As we have seen, emptiness was not unknown to the Theravada. Buddhaghosa uses emptiness as a practice to break down not only persons but also the phenomena that constitute them; it is a mode of contemplative and analytical practice, among others, for understanding
and liberation. But in the Perfection of Wisdom Sutras and in Nāgārjuna's philosophical work, emptiness becomes a fundamental philosophical stance, and Nāgārjuna initially (and Śāntideva six centuries later) deploys epistemological argumentation to establish an understanding of all phenomena as conditioned and conditioning and thus "empty" of inherent, self-contained, independent essences. Madhyamaka philosophers argued against north Indian Abhidharma traditions that they interpreted as positing an ontology of ultimate reality, and Śāntideva is building on a long history of formal metaphysical and epistemological reasoning to dismantle such metaphysical views. Traditional and modern scholars alike argue about whether the outcome of this philosophical work results in a position about ultimate reality – that all things are empty – or whether it, at the end of the day, dismantles all such positions including emptiness itself.<br> By the time of the mature Madhyamaka of the eighth century – Śāntideva’s moment – philosophical debate about metaphysical questions had become
highly advanced. Also robust was philosophical development in logic and epistemology as Buddhists of various stripes at Nālandā university debated with one another and non-Buddhist interlocutors; advances in what we would call Hindu philosophical systems were equally rigorous, and the debates between many different systems were critical to the sophistication of the entire classical Indian philosophical tradition. This situation contrasts quite sharply with Buddhaghosa, who was either innocent of these philosophical developments in India in his day or saw his project as an Analyst as fundamentally different in nature and in scope. (Heim, "Śāntideva and an Ethic of Radical Compassion," 36–38)
<h5>Notes</h5>
14. Actually, it was not really "in the first place": Buddhist teachings claim that there were innumerable buddhas before our Buddha who discovered and taught the truths, but that their dispensations had been forgotten and our Buddha rediscovered and taught them. His dispensation will also someday be lost and will be rediscovered by a future buddha.
No abstract given. Here are the first relevant paragraphs:
In chapters 2 and 7 of the ''Guide to Bodhisattva Practice'' (''Bodhicaryāvatāra'', hereafter ''Guide''), Śāntideva provides a series of provocative verses aimed at inciting fear to motivate taking refuge in the bodhisattvas, the "Conquerors" (2.48) and "mighty Protectors of the world" (2.48), and thereby achieve fearlessness. My aim in this chapter is to investigate the moral psychology involved in this transition. (Finnigan, introductory remarks, 221) +
No abstract given. Here are the first relevant paragraphs:
The main topic which I would like to discuss here is Śāntideva's position in the history of Mādhyamika philosophy, in the light of recent studies on his masterpiece, ''Bodhi'' (''sattva'')-''caryāvatāra'' especially on its earlier version, which was recently identified in the Tibetan manuscripts from Tun-huang.<br> Before proceeding it will not be out of place to acquaint with recent contributive studies on the ''Bodhi'' (''sattva'')-''caryāvatāra'' and commentaries thereon carried out by our contemporary scholars. Here I will confine myself to those books and articles which have been published after late 1970s, because information prior to this period can be had through studies made by Professors Pezzali (1968) and Ejima (1978). (Saito, para 1–2, 254) +
No abstract given. Here are the first relevant paragraphs:
The bodhisattva path, in the Mahāyāna tradition, has been elaborately described in a number of ways. Reference is usually made to the practice of the six (or ten) perfections (pāramitā) (see 4.4.3). Sometimes these are correlated to the schema of progression through ten bodhisattva stages (bhūmi), whereby one moves from the first, the "Joyous Stage," through to the last, the stage of Buddhahood known as the "Cloud of Dharma Stage." Before embarking on either of these courses, however, a bodhisattva must first develop the thought of enlightenment (bodhicitta) or, more precisely, the "mind fixed on enlightenment by means of a vow" (bodhipraṇidhicitta). This event marks the start of one's aspiration to Buddhahood, and it can be understood as the initial experience of embarking on the path, akin to the step taken by the Buddha Gautama, in his previous life long ago, under the past Buddha Dipaṃkara (see 1.7.1 ). What was legendary and biographical in the case of Gautama, however, became ritual and meditational in the Mahāyāna and extended to everyone. This is significant, for though the arousing of bodhicitta was theoretically something to be done once at the start of the bodhisattva path, in fact, ritually, it became something to be repeated often, the repetition serving to renew one's dedication.<br> There are several preliminary phases to the act of arousing the mind set on enlightenment. The following selection from the ''Bodhicaryāvatāra'' [''Entering the Path of Enlightenment''], by the eighth-century poet Śāntideva, describes them well. The ritual begins with praise and worship of the Buddhas (magnified by the visualization of tremendous offerings), followed by a number of steps: reaffirming refuge, confessing one's faults and sins, expressing thanks for the merits of others, supplicating the Buddhas for help, and making a declaration of altruism leading up to a more formal bodhisattva vow. (Strong, "Śāntideva on Developing the Thought of Awakening," 175-76)
No abstract given. Here are the first relevant paragraphs:
In today's world, violence has become a universal phenomenon and interhuman relationship has become exceedingly fragile. Traditional values have been eroded and the practice of non-virtues constitute one's personality traits in one's social and political life, whereas one's virtuous actions are considered one's weakness, foolishness, and laughing-stock. Even then, I find that we have not abandoned condemning non-virtuous actions and violence in general. At least victims of violence and saner people of the society consider violence as an evil.<br> With this background in my mind, I have tried to find roots and resolutions of violence. In this respect, I have picked out some of the ideas from Santideva's ''magnum opus'' the ''Bodhicaryāvatāra'' (with its ''Pañjikā'' by Prajñākara) and applied them in the present context. Śāntideva's primary aim in this text is to evoke ethical and religious ideals which are born of deep philosophical insights and to emphasize the importance of their application in our behaviour.<br> But before we say that violence is an evil, it is necessary to make distinction between good and evil. Originally, any state of affair or fact is value-neutral. It is our conation which pre-conditions good and evil. Only then we say that something is good and something is bad. In other words, in its pre-philosophic stage a thing is a bare fact, neither good nor bad. A thing is good because it is desirable and pursued, and a thing is bad because it is undesirable and shunned.
:The distinction between good and evil arises as a reflection of man's conative or appetitive nature, and solely as a reflection of this. If there existed no beings having desires, aims, and purposes, then nothing would be good and nothing evil; all things would be neutral with respect of their worth. (Taylor, p. 186). +
No abstract given. Here are the first relevant paragraphs:
The Bodhicaryāvatāra of Śāntideva (c. 650-700 A.D.) is peculiar and prescious among the rare Mādhyamika manuals for the religious practice. So much, it occupies the quite unique situation in the Mahāyāna Buddhist Vijñāna theory on account of its Vijñāna-pratśedha which was done from his Śūnyavādin standpoint. Characteristics of his Vijñāna conception concerning mainly with those of Pramāṇasamuccaya, Madhyamakāvatāra and Madhyamaka-hṛdaya-kārikā were made clear in detail by Dr. S. Yamaguchi's "Disputation between non-reality and reality" (Tokyo 1941, in Japanese). This can be said that the characteristics of Śāntideva's attitude towards Vijñāna theory was made clear mainly related with preceding works. Now, we are going to observe his relation with the later works, that is, in another word, to see the direction of his vijñāna attitude. (Kanaoka, introductory remarks, 34) +
Śāntideva's Bodhicaryāvatāra in Translation: A Century of Interpretation of a Sanskrit Mahāyāna Text +
"Śāntideva's ''Bodhicaryāvatāra'' is one of the most translated Buddhist texts."
Many translations of Śāntideva's ''Bodhicaryāvatāra'', a Sanskrit Mahāyāna Buddhist text of seventh/eighth-century India, have been published since 1892. Śāntideva's ''Bodhicaryāvatāra'' is one of the few Indian Mahāyāna Buddhist texts available in Sanskrit and it was influential in Tibetan Buddhist schools. This article explores how translation of the ''Bodhicaryāvatāra'' is no longer the preserve of scholars but has moved to being carried out by Buddhist practitioners influenced by Tibetan schools of Buddhism. It shows how translators' motives for translating the text have reflected changing attitudes to Buddhism and its texts. Śāntideva's ''Bodhicaryāvatāra'' has been translated as a source of information, a literary work, an inspirational work and, with the rise of Western interest in Tibetan Buddhism in the late twentieth century, as a vehicle for the transmission of Buddhist teachings. Nevertheless, further scholarly investigation of the Sanskrit text of the ''Bodhicaryāvatāra'' remains to be done. +
Śāntideva's Critique of 'I' or Self in the Early and Later Recensions of the Bodhi(sattva)caryāvatāra +
No abstract given. Here are the first relevant paragraphs:
Śāntideva's ''Bodhi(sattva)caryāvatāra'' provides an analytical criticism of 'I' or Self with twenty or twenty-one stanzas in its early and later recensions.[1] These stanzas are included in Chapter 8 entitled "Instruction of Wisdom" (Shes rab bstand pa) of the early recension and in Chapter 9 entitled "Perfection of Wisdom" (''Prajñāpāramitā'') of the later.[2] Santideva's criticism is centered on the reality of 'I' (''aham'') or Self (''ātman''). The purpose of this article is to offer a comparative analysis of Śāntideva's critique on 'I' or Self as found in the two recensions of the ''Bodhi(sattva)caryāvatāra''. (Saito, "Śāntideva's Critique," 35)
<h5>Notes</h5>
#See A. Saito, "Tonkō Shutsudo *Akṣayamati Saku Nyūbosatsugyōron to sono Shūhen" (''Bodhisattvacaryāvatāra'' as Found in the Tibetan Manuscripts from Dūn-huáng", ''Chibetto no Bukkyō to Shakai'' (''Buddhism and Society in Tibet''), Tokyo, 1986, pp. 79-109; ''do''., ''A Study of Akṣayamati (=Śāntideva)'s Bodhisattvacaryāvatāra as Found in the Tibetan Manuscripts from Tun-huang'', Research Report of the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C), Mie University, 1993.
#Ibid.; p.(33). +
No abstract given. Here are the first relevant paragraphs:
The insight and eloquence found in Śāntideva's ''Guide to Bodhisattva Practice'' (''Bodhicaryāvatāra'', herefater ''Guide'') have made the text an influential source of ethical guidance and inspiration to many generations of Buddhists. We today may be able to learn something about ethics from the text as well; but in order to do so successfully, we must understand how its normative concepts function and how they hang together. To many interpreters, engagement with the ethics of the ''Guide'' also means trying to classify the overall view of the text, or at least some particular aspects of its view, in terms familiar to Westerners who write about ethics today. Not all scholars agree about whether it is appropriate to attempt to use our modern categories to understand South Asian Buddhist views about how to live. But for those who wish to engage seriously and respectfully with the Buddhist tradition as philosophy, it would be very helpful if it were possible to ascertain where Śāntideva's ethical views might fit, if they fit at all, in the space of ethical theories that are defended today. (Goodman, preliminary remarks, 209) +
No abstract given. Here are the first relevant paragraphs:
Conceptions of what a good human life would be, and advice about how to live in better ways, are central concerns of the Buddhist tradition and appear in the works of most major Buddhist authors.[1] Yet of all the many and various Buddhist teachers whose writings have come down to us, only one has yet been shown to have engaged in sustained, general theoretical reflection about the nature and source of moral normativity. This is Śāntideva, a North Indian monk who is thought to have lived in the eighth century CE and to have practiced at Nālandā, one of the most important centers of Buddhist scholarship at the time.<br> Two major texts are reliably attributed to Śāntideva. The ''Bodhicaryāvatāra'', or ''Introduction to the Bodhisattva's Way of Life'' (henceforth ''BCA''), is a religious and philosophical poem of great rhetorical power. Its refined literary qualities and sophisticated argumentation have made it one of the most popular and widely read texts in Buddhism. The ''Śikṣā-samuccaya'', or ''Training Anthology'' (henceforth ''ŚS''), consists mostly of a large number of quotations from Buddhist ''sūtras'', with prose commentary and additional verses composed by Śāntideva. Though not as immensely influential as the ''BCA'', this text is well known and often cited by Tibetan authors such as Tsong kha pa. As scholars have typically devoted much more attention to the ''BCA'' than to the ''ŚS'', this essay, while considering both texts, will focus primarily on what we can learn from the ''ŚS'' about Śāntideva's understanding of ethical questions.<br> Both of these texts are primarily devoted to bringing about significant change in the reader: specifically, they seek to encourage an emotional transformation that will move practitioners away from the constantly changing reactive emotions (Skt. ''kleśa'') that are characteristic of cyclic existence (''saṃsāra'') and toward the stable, blissful, compassionate awareness that is characteristic of Buddhas. Evocative, poetic passages, appeals to scriptural authority, and compelling philosophical arguments are all intended to work together toward this goal. (Goodman, introduction, 327–28)
<h5>Notes</h5>
#Much of this essay is scheduled to be reprinted, in a somewhat different form, in the essay on "Philosophy in the Training Anthology" in my ''Training Anthology of Śāntideva: A Translation of the Śikṣā-samuccaya'' (Oxford University Press, New York, 2016) .
Summary <br>
The Introduction to the Practices of Awakening (Bodhicaryāvatāra; hereafter, BCA) is a short verse text presenting the training practices for developing the virtuous character of the bodhisattva, the Mahayana Buddhist exemplar who commits to remaining in samsara to save all beings from suffering. The text was written by the monk scholar Śāntideva, a Mahayana Buddhist of the Madhyamaka school who resided in India, at the monastic university of Nālandā c. 8th century CE. The text had significant influence in India and Tibet and continues to be an influential source for contemporary Buddhist practice. It interweaves ritual, meditation, and philosophical argumentation as mutually supportive aspects of bodhisattva practice. The text takes as its themes the development of bodhicitta, the wish to become a fully enlightened buddha, and the development of the perfections of virtue that constitute the bodhisattva’s character. Śāntideva presents four chapters dedicated to specific perfections: patience (chapter 6), effort (chapter 7), concentration (chapter 8), and wisdom (chapter 9). The text also emphasizes the development of compassion, introspection, and mindfulness. A significant feature of the text is its incorporation of philosophical argumentation into contemplations designed to develop virtuous character. Passages often function simultaneously as arguments meant to convince an interlocutor (or oneself) of their claims, as well as meditations to develop the virtue in question. This repeated use of reasoning as a means of developing virtue largely accounts for the text’s philosophically important status. This has resulted in the BCA becoming an important source for the developing academic field of Buddhist ethics. Two of Śāntideva’s arguments in particular have received considerable scholarly interest: his argument that accepting the tenet of dependent origination entails the irrationality of anger, which he gives in chapter 6; and his argument that accepting the nonexistence of the self rationally entails a commitment to altruism, which occurs in chapter 8. Śāntideva’s sequence of meditations on exchanging self and others, in which the bodhisattva imaginatively takes up the position of other persons as a way of developing compassion, has also generated great interest, both in the Tibetan tradition and in contemporary scholarship.
Śāntideva's life is shrouded in legend, as most of what we know about him comes from the various hagiographies written in the centuries after his time. But much can be understood about his life based on his religious and cultural environment and the education he received at the famed Buddhist university of Nālandā, in northern India. +
Since the very constitution of the Sangha in Buddhism, confession has been an important act to perform as the way of purification for attaining spiritual progress. In the ''Vinayapitaka'' we read that every fifteen days the monks have to accomplish the practice of public confession during the ceremony of the ''uposatha'', when the monks recite the list of articles that enumerate all the possible sins (''pratimoksa''), and obstacles to liberation. On this occasion the sinners have to admit their faults before the whole congregation, and receive a penance proportionate to the committed transgression. Such a penance can go as far as the expulsion of the guilty from the religious order. It is even recorded in the texts of Hinayāna that at times, besides the public confession as a fixed rule, a monk may feel the need for a private confession to one monk. a master, as a step in the discipline of perfection.<br> Śāntideva's statement about confession puts the accent on the importance of this last type of self-accusation as an urgent need of a person who has entered into the path towards the bodhi. In the presence of all the Buddhas and the Bodhisattvas he acknowledges his misdeeds with a sincere feeling of repentance and strong purpose of never committing them again. This matter is treated in the second chapter of the ''Bodhicaryāvatāra'' (w. 27–66), entitled simply "''pāpadeśana''", and in the ''Śikṣāsamuccaya'', particularly in the eighth chapter named "''pāpasódhana''". There sins are examined together with their causes. lgnorance (''avidyā''), wrong appreciation of the value of life, of persons, and of feelings, are the motivations of faults, as well as such causes as thirst (''tṛṣṇā'') and clinging (''upādāna''). The sequence of the confession, according to Śāntideva as well as in the tradition, is normally as follows. First of all, it has to be made after the confession of one's offenses against the three jewels (''triratna'') and after the ones perpetrated against every person who is superior by virtue of culture, age or relation. It has to come after the denunciation of all the contracted vices, and the consideration that all the sins have had origin in the violation of the word of the Buddha. Inevitably they produce sufferings, which means to remain in ''saṃsāra''. After having examined all the types of faults and their sad consequences, the sinners conclude their confession with the promise of avoiding evil for the future and of accomplishing good. (Pezzali, "Śāntideva's Statement about Confession," 134-35)
This excerpt from Fredrik Liland's master's thesis details the ''Bodhicaryāvatāra''<i>'</i>s history from its origins in India to its transmission in Nepal. It discusses the text's authorship, traditionally attributed to Śāntideva in seventh-century India, and explores various commentaries and abbreviated versions produced by Indian scholars. The study then focuses on Nepal, tracing the text's introduction around 800 CE, its significance during Atiśa Dīpaṃkaraśrījñāna's visit in 1040 CE, and its continued importance through the Malla Dynasty period and into modern times.
This comprehensive timeline proves valuable for scholars and students interested in the history and textual transmission of Śāntideva's works. It offers insights into how the ''Bodhicaryāvatāra'' was interpreted, commented upon, and preserved in India and Nepal. The examination of both Indian and Nepalese traditions deepens our understanding of the text's significance in various Buddhist communities. By highlighting the often-overlooked Newar Buddhist tradition, the article opens up new avenues for research and underscores the importance of studying lesser-known Buddhist lineages involved in preserving and interpreting important Buddhist texts. +
No abstract given. Here are the first relevant paragraphs:
Śantideva was born, in lndia about the VIIIth Century A.D. and became one of the greatest mystics of the Buddhist Religion. The historians of Buddhism inform us that he was of aristocratic birth — the son of the king Kalyāṇavarman of Saurāṣṭra — but following the example of Buddha Śākyamuni and in harmony with the suggestions of Mañjuśrī, he entered the monastery o( Nālanda and dedicated himself to the ascetic life. Legend naturally enriched the history of his passage on earth but it remains that he was a giant figure, a fervent devotee and a profound philosopher, and his popularity reached beyond the frontiers of lndia.<br> His authenticated works, the Bodhicaryāvatāra and the Śikṣāsamuccaya, give us a complete picture of his mind and soul. He was a very erudite and at the same time very fervent monk and he confounded his follow-monks with his knowledge and the beauty of his expositions. Each of his books is different in character, but the matter treated is the same and both reveal his religious anxiety to show to others the Path and to support his assertions with exegetical and philosophical demonstrations as well as with many quotations from the Scriptures.<br> As a protagonist of Mahāyāna, Śāntideva magnifies the sanctity of the Bodhisattva calling him the most generous of creatures because he endeavours to save others from every kind of suffering, and this of his own volition, without being asked. Thus his merits are immeasurable (B.C. I, 26; Ś.S. I, p. 5). Even to think badly of the Bodhisattva—which in itself is a sin deserving of Hell—can become, in the end, a means of acquiring merit both for the sinner and the saint, since such a thought provokes the compassion of the Bodhisattva, raising him to greater heights and thus blessing in turn the evil-doer who was the instrument of this grace.<br> It is the Thought of the Bodhi, which transforms an ordinary man into a Bodhisattva (B.C. I, 9–10). The theory of the Bodhicitta is fully developped by Śāntideva in both the Bodhicaryāvatāra and the Śikṣāsamuccaya. The Bodhicitta is the force with which to conquer the Passions; it is the means to overcome the saṃsāra (Ś.S. I, p. 6). It is a seed of joy, a remedy to all suffering (B.C. I, 26). It arises in him who has a concrete resolve to acquire it. And this resolve can occur in him in whom there "is the spring of great mercy (mahākaruṇā)". In fact, the Though of the Bodhi has two main aspects, immanent and transcendent. Compassion (karuṇā) is the immanent aspect of it. The Bodhicitta arises indeed in a person who is never guity of neglect towards any living being. The transcendent aspect is the void (śūnyatā) and can be likened to the potential state whereas in the immanent aspect is the tangible state, the manifestation and the operative moment (Abhisamayālaṁkārāloka of Haribhadra p. 29). (Pezzali, "Śāntideva, A Mystic of Buddhism," 398–99)
No abstract given. Here are the first relevant paragraphs:
In a previous work I argued that, in order to make sense of Śāntideva's morality, we would have to use a framework that combined virtue ethics with some features of consequentialism, which I called a "hybrid" form of virtue ethics.[1] In a recent article, Charles Goodman has argued for a similar position, concluding that Indian Mahāyāna thinkers such as Śāntideva and Asaṅga are best interpreted in terms of a form of perfectionist or character consequentialism, which holds that virtuous states are an aspect of the well-being that moral agents should promote.[2] These are terms for a kind of moral theory in which character is the prime concern, and the best traits of character are those which tend to lead to the best consequences.[3] In what follows, I aim to show why I think these forms of "virtue consequentialism" are a useful lens through which to view what we might call the "bodhisattva ethics"[4] of Indian Mahāyānists, particular those of Śāntideva. Since the publication of Damien Keown's influential ''The Nature of Buddhist Ethics'',[5] in which he argued that Aristotelian virtue ethics were the closest Western analogue to Buddhists ethics, there has been some consensus regarding the fact that the cultivation of virtues are centrally important in Buddhism,[6] so I will focus here on showing why Keown is wrong to reject a consequentialist reading of karma, at least where Śāntideva is concerned. I attend particularly to objections he raises in his article "Karma, Character and Consequentialism."[7] Overall, I wish to suggest that perfectionist consequentialism is helpful for understanding Śāntideva's moral reasoning because it can accommodate the inherent and consequentialist value of Buddhist virtues. I hope it is clear from what follows, though, that my principal aim is not to criticize Keown, but rather to use his views as a skillful means, if you will, for gaining greater insight into Śāntideva's moral thought. (Clayton, preliminary remarks, 15)
<h5>Notes</h5>
#See Barbra Clayton, ''Moral Theory in Śāntideva's Śikṣāsamuccaya'', Critical Studies in Buddhism (London: Routledge, 2006), 112-18. Consequentialism is a broad family of moral theories, all of which understand what is right in terms of what promotes the good, which in turn can be defined in various ways. The most famous form of consequentialism is act utilitarianism, which defines the good hedonistically in terms of pleasure and says that right actions are those that produce the most pleasure. For an overview of consequentialist theories, see David Brink, "Some Forms and Limits of Consequentialism," in ''The Oxford Handbook of Ethical Theory'', ed. David Copp, 380–423 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006).
#Charles Goodman. "Consequentialism, Agent-Neutrality, and Mahayana Ethics;' ''Philosophy East and West'' 58, no.1 (2008), 17-35.
#David Copp, "Introduction," in ''The Oxford Handbook of Ethical Theory'', ed. David Copp (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 20. The Western moral philosopher Thomas Hurka is associated with the term "perfectionist consequentialism." See Thomas Hurka, ''Virtue, Vice, and Value'' (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001).
#That is, the ethics associated with the bodhisattva path, as opposed to that concerned with the Pure Land tradition, for example. On the idea of there being many different types of Mahāyāna ethics, see David Chappell, "Are There Seventeen Mahāyāna Ethics?" ''Journal of Buddhist Ethics'' 3 (1996), 1-13.
#Damien Keown, ''The Nature of Buddhist Ethics'' (London: Macmillan, 1992).
#See, for example David E. Cooper and Simon P. James, ''Buddhism, Virtue and Environment'' (Aldershot, England: Ashgate, 2005); Thomas F. MacMillan, "Virtue-Based Ethics: A Comparison of Aristotelian-Thomistic and Buddhist Approaches," ''Religion East and West'' 2 (2002), 37-49; and James Whitehill, "Buddhism and the Virtues;' in ''Contemporary Buddhist Ethics'', ed. Damien Keown, 17-36 (Surrey, UK: Curzon, 2000).
#Damien Keown. "Karma, Character, and Consequentialism," ''Journal of Religious Ethics'' 24 (1996), 329-50.
No abstract given. Here are the first relevant paragraphs:
Śāntideva's ''Bodhicaryāvatāra''(in the following abbreviated BC) is one of the most important religious creations of humanity, harmonizing, in beautiful language 'of great lyrical inspiration', devotional fervour with straightforward reasoning and the grandeur of Madhyamaka thought. This description of the Bodhisattva's career, of his lofty aspirations to become altruism incarnate and help all sentient beings to attain to Buddhahood, has been reminding many westerners, thanks to the efforts of European scholars with whom the BC has been very popular for a long time, of the ''Imitation of Christ'' by Thomas a Kempis. Since 1892 there have appeared translations of the BC in English, French, German, and in Italian.<br> More recently in 1980, an extensive oral commentary to Śāntideva's "Guide to the Bodhisattva's Way of Life" (acc. to Tibetan tradition Śāntideva's work is entitled ''Bodhisattvacaryāvatāra'') by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso was published in England, letting us benefit from the long tradition of Tibetan exegesis being focussed for centuries on the ''Lam-rim chen-mo'' and on Śāntideva's work. (Cf. ''Meaningful to Behold''. By Geshe Kelsang Gyatso. Ulverston, Cumbria: Wisdom Publications, Manjushri Institute. 1980). The second complete German translation of the BC came out in 1981—''Śāntideva, Eintritt in das Leben zur Erleuchtung''. Transl. by E. Steinkellner. Dusseldorf, Cologne: E. Diederichs Verlag—and the first complete translation in Italian substantially is a republication of A. Pezzali's translation of, Śāntideva's principal work published in 1976 (Bologna: Egidi). G. Tucci's Italian translation of chapter I-VIII, however, had already been published in Turin in 1925.<br> Professor Pezzali is a well-known specialist of whom a monograph on the life and works of Śāntideva was brought out in 1968: ''Śāntideva, mystique bouddhiste des VIle et VIlle siècles'' (Florence: Vallecchi Editore). It is a great pleasure to record here the republication of her BC translation in a nicely produced paperback series. The book is divided into three parts dealing a) with Śāntideva's life (sources, dates, personality), b) with his works (BC, ''Śikṣāsamuccaya'', ''Sūtrasamuccaya''), and c) with his thought (Mahāyāna, Mahāyāna sūtras, Mādhyamikavāda, defence of Śūnyavāda, Śāntideva's mysticism) of part one. Part two contains the translation of the BC. In part three are found a translation of the introductory verses of the ''Śikṣāsamuccaya'' and a résumé of the whole work, followed by a bibliography.<br> On p. 33-34 A. Pezzali refers to the famous verses at BC V. 105-106 in which are mentioned a ''Sūtrasamuccaya'' "and the second work of the same title composed by Nāgārjuna" ("e la seconda opera dallo stesso titolo, composta da Nāgārjuna"—p. 112). As in her monograph on Śāntideva (p. 86), she remarks that Nāgārjuna has surely compiled a ''Sūtrasamuccaya'' (extant in Tibetan and Chinese) and that, as asserted by Tibetan historians, Śāntideva's authorship of a second ''Sūtrasamuccaya'' cannot with absolute certainly be excluded. In this connection it is perhaps not off the point to refer to J.W. de Jong's long article entitled "La Légende de Śāntideva" (in: ''Buddhist Studies''. By J.W. de Jong. Berkeley: Asian Humanities Press. 1979). In that article (p. 140) a list of Dpal-brtsegs is mentioned in which figures the ''Sūtrasamuccaya'' attributable to Nāgārjuna and a ''Mdo-sde sna- tshogs-kyi mdo btus-pa'' which has been reconstructed as ''Viśvasūtrasamuccaya''. Both these works consist of five sections. Though the ''Viśvasūtrasamuccaya'' is lost, the author says that the possibility of its being identical with that ''Sūtrasamuccaya'' attributed to Śāntideva cannot be gainsaid. (Pāsādika, "Review," 61-62) [https://www.jstor.org/stable/43300091 Read more here]
No abstract given. Here are the first relevant paragraphs:
''Śāntideva'', by Amalia Pezzali, presents us with quite an exhaustive account of the life and works of this great Indian Buddhist saint, at the same time providing the reader with a good general summary of his thought. Ms. Pezzali organizes the book into three sections of approximately equal length. The first, entitled "La vie" (The Life), presents the accounts of three major Tibetan historians as well as the only known Sanskrit version of Śāntideva's biography. Though most of the translations of historical and textual passages given in this work have previously appeared in Western languages, it is convenient to have the major biographical accounts (by Bu-ston, Tāranātha, Sum-pa mKhan-po and an anonymous Nepali manuscript) presented side by side in the original languages for easy reference. In addition to the translations, the author discusses the differences among the four accounts, and finally summarizes the data in tabular form. Yet for the tremendous work that was obviously done in editing and translating the biographical sources, one would have expected more discussion of a text-critical sort, especially with regard to redaction criticism. With the wealth of textual material examined, it seems logical to expect a substantial body of conclusions as regards the sources used by the above historians. Yet Ms. Pezzali concludes only that Tāranātha and Sum-pa must have used Bu-ston (p. 21), and that Sum-pa must also have had before him a copy of Tāranātha (p. 26). Given the dates of these scholars, the result can be hardly surprising. It seems to me that other conclusions are evident. For one, Tāranātha must have drawn on a source other than Bu-ston (viz. the gazelle episode, which is found in the former but not in the latter). Also, Sum-pa must have drawn on a source different from both Bu-ston and Taranatha (viz. his mention of Kaliṅga which is missing in the other two historians' accounts - p. 26). But statements of this sort are left implicit in Ms. Pezzali's analysis and never brought to light. I must, however, point out that the amount of data presented by the author does make it possible for the interested scholar to pursue such questions individually. The translations, I might add, are generally of a superior quality, reflecting Ms. Pezzali's obvious expertise in Tibetan and Sanskrit. (Cabezón, "Review," 115) [https://journals.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/index.php/jiabs/article/view/8513/2420 Read more here]
No abstract given. Here are the first relevant paragraphs:
The other chapters of this book address themselves primarily to the
''Bodhicaryāvatāra'' (the ''Guide'') of Śāntideva, with only occasional reference to his second major work, the ''Śikṣāsamuccaya'' or ''Training Anthology'' (the ''Anthology'').[1] The two works are quite different in various ways. The ''Guide'' is a unified and extended verse composition, which is, as far as we can tell, entirely the creation of its author, and as poetry it is crafted with a fair degree of skill and art.[2] The ''Anthology'', by contrast, is a much longer composite work, in which Śāntideva's own words, in both prose and verse, are combined with extensive citations from a wide variety of scriptural texts, over 110 in number. Written in an equally wide variety of registers, the passages cited also consist sometimes of prose, sometimes of verse, which is to be expected given the standard prosimetric style of the Mahāyāna sūtras to which Śāntideva gives pride of place; he quotes Mainstream Buddhist or Śrāvakayāna texts much less frequently, and even then not at great length.<br> The general style of the ''Anthology'' is consequently quite uneven, more prosaic and expository than artistic and evocative, although occasionally the verses that Śāntideva inserts, whether his own or taken from his canonical sources, rise to the heights of expressiveness achieved in the ''Guide''. The ''Guide'' and the ''Anthology'' are thus very different in form and style, but what about their purpose? In this chapter we will make an attempt to understand who Śāntideva was and what he was about, asking whether each of these two works has its own agenda or somehow contributes to one coherent and comprehensive project clearly initiated by a single person.[3] We will see in the end that the ''Guide'' and the ''Anthology'' do serve a common agenda, and that neither work can be fully understood independently of the other. (Harrison, introductory remarks, 27–28)
<h5>Notes</h5>
#The Sanskrit text of the ''Anthology'' as we know it has survived in a single manuscript now in the Cambridge University Library, which was first edited by Cecil Bendall, ''Çikshāsamuccaya: A Compendium of Buddhistic Teaching''. It has been translated twice into English, almost a century ago by Bendall himself in collaboration with W. H. D. Rouse, ''Śikshā-samuccaya'', and recently by Charles Goodman, ''The Training Anthology of Śāntideva''. Goodman's translation is superior to that of Bendall & Rouse, and we recommend its use. References to the ''Anthology'' will be in the form B52:G55, where B stands for Bendall's edition of the Sanskrit text, G for Goodman's English translation.
#This makes it challenging to translate. We will refer in this chapter to the English rendition by Kate Crosby and Andrew Skilton, Śāntideva, ''The Bodhicaryāvatāra'', which is enhanced by useful chapter introductions and notes. Also well worth looking at is the almost complete translation made by Luis Gómez, "How to Be a Bodhisattva."
#Modern scholarship generally follows the Tibetan tradition in accepting the attribution of the two works to Śāntideva, and I see no good reason to call this into question. For a useful survey (in French) of material relating to questions of ascription and to Śāntideva's life, see Pezzali, ''Śāntideva: mystique bouddhiste des Vlle et VIIIe siècles''. See also Saitō, "Facts or Fictions: Reconsidering Śāntideva's Names, Life, and Works," for a concise summary of the issues.
Śāntidevas Bodhicaryāvatāra: Das Weiterwirken des Werkes dargestellt anhand der Überlieferungsgeschichte des Textes und seiner Kommentare +
From the University of Hamburg Website regarding this publication:
Buddhism in Past and Present
From the winter term 1996/7 to the winter term 2005/6 the University of Hamburg conducted under changing academic leadership (Prof. Dr. Lambert Schmithausen, Prof. Dr. David Jackson, Prof. Dr. Eli Franco, Prof. Dr. Karin Preisendanz, Prof. Dr. Jan Sobisch, PD Dr. Klaus-Dieter Mathes) a non-curricular study program titled “Buddhism in Past and Present.” This program (lectures, group work, plenum discussions), initiated by the coordinator Prof. Dr. Klaus Glashoff for persons interested to study Buddhism after their academic education, was organised in collaboration with the Tibetan Centre in Hamburg, and temporary with the Buddhist Society Hamburg under the auspices of the Department for Continuing Academic Education (Arbeitsstelle für wissenschaftliche Weiterbildung), University of Hamburg, with the aim of acquainting participants with the rich historical, philosophical and practical aspects of Buddhism.<br> The lectures were delivered not only by teaching staff and other affiliated persons of the University of Hamburg but also by scholars from other German and European universities, and by representatives of various living Buddhist traditions as well.<br> The lectures covered a broad range of topics: the historical development of Buddhism from the beginning up to the teachings of Japanese Zen and various contemporary forms of Buddhism; Buddhist ethics; women in Buddhism; meditation; and violence and non-violence from a Buddhist perspective.<br> With the lecturers’ permission, we are here making transcripts of their lectures available. The lectures were meant for the participants of the study program and should not be considered publications in a strict sense. ([https://www.buddhismuskunde.uni-hamburg.de/en/publikationen/2-buddhismus-in-geschichte-und-gegenwart.html Source Accessed Feb 18, 2021]) +
