Bhāviveka - Revision history

Ieagle123: minor cleanup

2024-11-06T16:18:59Z

minor cleanup

>JJMC89 bot III: Moving :Category:Indian Buddhist scholars to :Category:Indian scholars of Buddhism per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 May 1#Buddhist scholars

2021-05-28T01:59:47Z

Moving Category:Indian Buddhist scholars to Category:Indian scholars of Buddhism per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 May 1#Buddhist scholars

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:29, 28 May 2021
Line 1:		Line 1:
	[[File:Maker unknown, Sino-Tibetan - Acarya Bhavaviveka Converts a Nonbeliever to Buddhism - Google Art Project.jpg\|thumb\|''[[Acharya\|Ācārya]] Bhāviveka Converts a Nonbeliever to Buddhism'', [[Gelug]] 18th-century [[Qing dynasty\|Qing]] painting in the [[Philadelphia Museum of Art]]<ref>{{cite web\|title=1959-156-1: Acarya Bhavaviveka Converts a Nonbeliever to Buddhism\|url=http://www.philamuseum.org/collections/permanent/57458.html\|website=Philadelphia Museum of Art: Acarya Bhavaviveka Converts a Nonbeliever to Buddhism\|accessdate=5 October 2014}}</ref>]]		[[File:Maker unknown, Sino-Tibetan - Acarya Bhavaviveka Converts a Nonbeliever to Buddhism - Google Art Project.jpg\|thumb\|''[[Acharya\|Ācārya]] Bhāviveka Converts a Nonbeliever to Buddhism'', [[Gelug]] 18th-century [[Qing dynasty\|Qing]] painting in the [[Philadelphia Museum of Art]]<ref>{{cite web\|title=1959-156-1: Acarya Bhavaviveka Converts a Nonbeliever to Buddhism\|url=http://www.philamuseum.org/collections/permanent/57458.html\|website=Philadelphia Museum of Art: Acarya Bhavaviveka Converts a Nonbeliever to Buddhism\|accessdate=5 October 2014}}</ref>]]
	'''Bhāviveka''', also called '''Bhavya''' or '''Bhāvaviveka''' (c. 500 – c. 578) was a sixth-century [[Madhyamaka]] Buddhist. In Tibetan Buddhism Bhāviveka is regarded as the founder of the [[Svatantrika\|Svātantrika]] tradition of the [[Madhyamaka\|Mādhyamaka]] school of [[Buddhism]], which is seen as antagonistic to [[Prasangika\|Prāsaṅgika]] Madhyamaka.
			'''Bhāviveka''', also called '''Bhavya''' or '''Bhāvaviveka''' ({{CJKV\|t=清辯\|p=Qīngbiàn}};<ref>[[Xuanzang]], [[Bianji]] (646). ''[[Great Tang Records on the Western Regions]]'', vol.10.</ref> {{bo\|w=slob dpon bha bya, skal ldan, legs ldan}}, c. 500 – c. 578) was a sixth-century [[Madhyamaka]] Buddhist. In Tibetan Buddhism Bhāviveka is regarded as the founder of the [[Svatantrika\|Svātantrika]] tradition of the [[Madhyamaka\|Mādhyamaka]] school of [[Buddhism]], which is seen as antagonistic to [[Prasangika\|Prāsaṅgika]] Madhyamaka.

	==Biography==		==Biography==
	The life details of Bhaviveka are unclear. He likely lived in early 6th century north India (c. 500-560 CE).<ref name="Eckel2008p24"/> This, states Malcolm Eckel, was a period of "unusual creativity and ferment in the history of Indian Buddhist philosophy", when the [[Mahayana]] Buddhism movement was emerging as a "vigorous and self-conscious intellectual force" while early Buddhist traditions from the eighteen (''Nikaya'') schools opposed this Mahayana movement.<ref name="Eckel2008p24">{{cite book\|author2=Bhāvaviveka\|author1=Malcolm David Eckel (Translator)\|title=Bhāviveka and his Buddhist opponents: chapters 4 and 5 of Bhāviveka's Madhyamakahṛdayakārikaḥ with Tarkajvāla commentary\|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Z1bYAAAAMAAJ\|year=2008 \|isbn=978-0674032743\| publisher= Harvard University Press\|pages=24–26}}</ref>		The life details of Bhaviveka are unclear. He likely lived in early 6th century north India (c. 500-560 CE).<ref name="Eckel2008p24"/> This, states Malcolm Eckel, was a period of "unusual creativity and ferment in the history of Indian Buddhist philosophy", when the [[Mahayana]] Buddhism movement was emerging as a "vigorous and self-conscious intellectual force" while early Buddhist traditions from the eighteen (''Nikaya'') schools opposed this Mahayana movement.<ref name="Eckel2008p24">{{cite book\|author2=Bhāvaviveka\|author1=Malcolm David Eckel (Translator)\|title=Bhāviveka and his Buddhist opponents: chapters 4 and 5 of Bhāviveka's Madhyamakahṛdayakārikaḥ with Tarkajvāla commentary\|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Z1bYAAAAMAAJ\|year=2008 \|isbn=978-0674032743\| publisher= Harvard University Press\|pages=24–26}}</ref>

	Bhaviveka is notable in the Indian tradition for his inclusivist comments. He equated the Buddha's [[Dharma body]] with the [[Upanishad]]ic concept of ultimate reality called [[Brahman]],<ref name=eckel7/> but this view does not imply that he was a Vedantist or that he viewed Buddhism and Vedanta to be the same.<ref name=eckel7>{{cite book\|author1=Bhāvaviveka\|author2=Malcolm David Eckel\|title=Bhāviveka and his Buddhist opponents: chapters 4 and 5 of Bhāviveka's Madhyamakahṛdayakārikaḥ with Tarkajvāla commentary\|url= https://books.google.com/books?id=Z1bYAAAAMAAJ\|year= 2008\|publisher= Harvard University Press\|pages=7–8}}</ref> In his writings he comments on early Vedanta, and also addresses Hinayana ([[Theravada]]) accusations that Mahayana Buddhists are "crypto-Vedantins".		Bhaviveka is notable in the Indian tradition for his inclusivist comments. He equated the Buddha's [[Dharma body]] with the [[Upanishad]]ic concept of ultimate reality called [[Brahman]],<ref name=eckel7/> but this view does not imply that he was a Vedantist or that he viewed Buddhism and Vedanta to be the same.<ref name=eckel7>{{cite book\|author1=Bhāvaviveka\|author2=Malcolm David Eckel\|title=Bhāviveka and his Buddhist opponents: chapters 4 and 5 of Bhāviveka's Madhyamakahṛdayakārikaḥ with Tarkajvāla commentary\|url= https://books.google.com/books?id=Z1bYAAAAMAAJ\|year= 2008\|publisher= Harvard University Press\|pages=7–8}}</ref> In his writings he comments on early Vedanta, and also addresses Hinayana ([[Theravada]]) accusations that Mahayana Buddhists are "crypto-Vedantins".{{Sfn\|Nicholson\|2010\|pp=152-153\|ps=, Quote: "a Hīnayāna interlocutor accuses the Mahāyāna Buddhist of being a crypto-Vedāntin, paralleling later Vedāntins who accuse the Advaita Vedānta of crypto-Buddhism."}}{{sfn\|King\|1995\|p=183}}

	==Svātantrika school==		==Svātantrika school==
			{{Main\|Svatantrika}}

	Bhāviveka is retrospectively considered by the Tibetan tradition to be the founder of the Svatantrika tradition within Buddhism.<ref>{{cite book\|author=S. K. Hookham\|title=The Buddha Within: Tathagatagarbha Doctrine According to the Shentong Interpretation of the Ratnagotravibhaga\|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=JqLa4xWot-YC&pg=PA354\|year=1991\|publisher=State University of New York Press\|isbn=978-0-7914-0357-0\|pages=354 note 76}}</ref><ref>{{cite book\|author=Jamgon Taye\|title=The Treasury of Knowledge: Book Six, Part Three: Frameworks Of Buddhist Philosophy\|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Ffp8_KZMYUEC&pg=PA42 \|year=2007\|publisher=Shambhala\|isbn=978-1-55939-883-1\|page=42}}</ref><ref>{{cite book\|author=Steven M. Emmanuel\|title=A Companion to Buddhist Philosophy \|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=P_lmCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA114\|year=2015\|publisher=John Wiley & Sons\|isbn=978-1-119-14466-3\|page=114}}</ref>		Bhāviveka is retrospectively considered by the Tibetan tradition to be the founder of the Svatantrika tradition within Buddhism.<ref>{{cite book\|author=S. K. Hookham\|title=The Buddha Within: Tathagatagarbha Doctrine According to the Shentong Interpretation of the Ratnagotravibhaga\|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=JqLa4xWot-YC&pg=PA354\|year=1991\|publisher=State University of New York Press\|isbn=978-0-7914-0357-0\|pages=354 note 76}}</ref><ref>{{cite book\|author=Jamgon Taye\|title=The Treasury of Knowledge: Book Six, Part Three: Frameworks Of Buddhist Philosophy\|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Ffp8_KZMYUEC&pg=PA42 \|year=2007\|publisher=Shambhala\|isbn=978-1-55939-883-1\|page=42}}</ref><ref>{{cite book\|author=Steven M. Emmanuel\|title=A Companion to Buddhist Philosophy \|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=P_lmCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA114\|year=2015\|publisher=John Wiley & Sons\|isbn=978-1-119-14466-3\|page=114}}</ref>

Line 17:		Line 20:
	In the ''Svātantrika'' tradition, reasoning is used to further explain that phenomena have no self-nature, and further arguments to establish that the true nature of all phenomena is emptiness. This school differs from the predominant ''Prasaṅgika'' tradition in that the latter refrains from making any assertions whatsoever about the true nature of phenomena.		In the ''Svātantrika'' tradition, reasoning is used to further explain that phenomena have no self-nature, and further arguments to establish that the true nature of all phenomena is emptiness. This school differs from the predominant ''Prasaṅgika'' tradition in that the latter refrains from making any assertions whatsoever about the true nature of phenomena.

	The [[Padmakara Translation Group]] (2005: p. 386) convey a respected philosophical legacy, a [[dialectic]]al [[:wikt:chicane\|chicane]] inaugurated by Bhāviveka		The [[Padmakara Translation Group]] (2005: p. 386) convey a respected philosophical legacy, a [[dialectic]]al [[:wikt:chicane\|chicane]] inaugurated by Bhāviveka:
	{{quote\|Bhavya holds that the consequential arguments of Buddhapalita are not on the same footing as those of Nagarjuna. In both cases, the consequences imply negations that could theoretically be formulated as positive (syllogistic) arguments. The difference between them is that, given what is known to be Nagarjuna's intention (the negation of all four positions of the tetralemma), his negations are to be understood as ←. But such a concession is not to be granted to the commentator, whose task is to render explicit to the fullest extent the obscurities of the commented text. If the commentator uses consequences (unaccompanied by any positive and clarificatory statement), the resulting negations cannot automatically be regarded as nonimplicative. On the contrary, they are implicative and therefore undesirable in the Madhyamaka context...It is worth noting that it is in Bhavya that the important distinction between implicative and nonimplicative negations first appears.<ref name="Middle Way p.386">[[Shantarakshita]] (author); [[Jamgon Ju Mipham Gyatso\|Mipham]] (commentator); [[Padmakara Translation Group]] (translators) (2005). ''The Adornment of the Middle Way: Shantarakshita's Madhyamakalankara with commentary by Jamgön Mipham.'' Boston, Massachusetts, USA: Shambhala Publications, Inc. (alk. paper), p.386</ref>}}		{{quote\|Bhavya holds that the consequential arguments of Buddhapalita are not on the same footing as those of Nagarjuna. In both cases, the consequences imply negations that could theoretically be formulated as positive (syllogistic) arguments. The difference between them is that, given what is known to be Nagarjuna's intention (the negation of all four positions of the tetralemma), his negations are to be understood as ←. But such a concession is not to be granted to the commentator, whose task is to render explicit to the fullest extent the obscurities of the commented text. If the commentator uses consequences (unaccompanied by any positive and clarificatory statement), the resulting negations cannot automatically be regarded as nonimplicative. On the contrary, they are implicative and therefore undesirable in the Madhyamaka context...It is worth noting that it is in Bhavya that the important distinction between implicative and nonimplicative negations first appears.<ref name="Middle Way p.386">[[Shantarakshita]] (author); [[Jamgon Ju Mipham Gyatso\|Mipham]] (commentator); [[Padmakara Translation Group]] (translators) (2005). ''The Adornment of the Middle Way: Shantarakshita's Madhyamakalankara with commentary by Jamgön Mipham.'' Boston, Massachusetts, USA: Shambhala Publications, Inc. {{ISBN\|1-59030-241-9}} (alk. paper), p.386</ref>}}

	In the above quotation, "tetralemma" should be understood to refer to the [[catuṣkoṭi]]. "Nonimplicative negation", may also be rendered as "existential negation". "Implicative negative" may also be rendered "predicative negation".<ref>Blumenthal, James (2009). 'Śāntarakṣita', ''The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy'' (Fall 2009 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), Source: [http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2009/entries/saantarak-sita/](accessed: Monday October 12, 2009)</ref>		In the above quotation, "tetralemma" should be understood to refer to the [[catuṣkoṭi]]. "Nonimplicative negation" ({{bo\|t=མེད་དགག\|w=med dgag}}, {{lang-sa\|niṣedha}}) may also be rendered as "existential negation". "Implicative negative" ({{bo\|t=མ་ཡིན་དགག\|w=ma yin dgag}}; {{lang-sa\|paryudāsa}}) may also be rendered "predicative negation".<ref>Blumenthal, James (2009). 'Śāntarakṣita', ''The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy'' (Fall 2009 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), Source: [http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2009/entries/saantarak-sita/](accessed: Monday October 12, 2009)</ref>

	==Panchen Lama lineage==		==Panchen Lama lineage==
	In the lineage of the [[Panchen Lama]]s of [[Tibet]] there were four Indian and three Tibetan [[mindstream]] [[tulku]] of [[Amitābha]] before [[Khedrup Gelek Pelzang, 1st Panchen Lama]]. The lineage starts with [[Subhuti]], one of the original disciples of [[Gautama Buddha]]. Bhāviveka is considered to be the third Indian [[tulku]] in this line.<ref>Stein, R. A. ''Tibetan Civilization'', (1972) p. 84. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California.</ref>		In the lineage of the [[Panchen Lama]]s of [[Tibet]] there were four Indian and three Tibetan [[mindstream]] [[tulku]] of [[Amitābha]] before [[Khedrup Gelek Pelzang, 1st Panchen Lama]]. The lineage starts with [[Subhuti]], one of the original disciples of [[Gautama Buddha]]. Bhāviveka is considered to be the third Indian [[tulku]] in this line.<ref>Stein, R. A. ''Tibetan Civilization'', (1972) p. 84. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California. {{ISBN\|0-8047-0806-1}} (cloth); {{ISBN\|0-8047-0901-7}}.</ref>

	==Works==		==Works==
			[[Image:Legdan.jpg\|thumb\|200px\|Bhavaviveka]]
	===''Madhyamakahṛdaya-karika'' and its autocommentary, the ''Tarkajvala''===		===''Madhyamakahṛdaya-karika'' and its autocommentary, the ''Tarkajvala''===
	Bhavya wrote an independent work on the Madhyamaka entitled the ''[[Madhyamakahrdaya-karika]]'' which Bhavya in turn wrote an autocommentary upon entitled the ''[[Tarkajvala]]'' (Blaze of Reasoning).<ref name="Hoornaert 2000">{{cite journal\|last=Hoornaert \|first=Paul \|title=An Annotated Translation of Madhyamakahrdayakarika/ Tarkajvala V.8-26 \|journal=Studies and essays. Behavioral sciences and philosophy \|date=2000 \|volume=20 \|pages=75–111 \|url=http://www3.nccu.edu.tw/~96154505/Mark_Siderits__Paul_Hoornaert_Madhyamakahrdaya_8-26.pdf \|url-status=dead \|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20140130141635/http://www3.nccu.edu.tw/~96154505/Mark_Siderits__Paul_Hoornaert_Madhyamakahrdaya_8-26.pdf \|archivedate=January 30, 2014 }}</ref>		Bhavya wrote an independent work on the Madhyamaka entitled the ''[[Madhyamakahrdaya-karika]]'' which Bhavya in turn wrote an autocommentary upon entitled the ''[[Tarkajvala]]'' (Blaze of Reasoning).<ref name="Hoornaert 2000">{{cite journal\|last=Hoornaert \|first=Paul \|title=An Annotated Translation of Madhyamakahrdayakarika/ Tarkajvala V.8-26 \|journal=Studies and essays. Behavioral sciences and philosophy \|date=2000 \|volume=20 \|pages=75–111 \|url=http://www3.nccu.edu.tw/~96154505/Mark_Siderits__Paul_Hoornaert_Madhyamakahrdaya_8-26.pdf \|url-status=dead \|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20140130141635/http://www3.nccu.edu.tw/~96154505/Mark_Siderits__Paul_Hoornaert_Madhyamakahrdaya_8-26.pdf \|archivedate=January 30, 2014 }}</ref>
Line 34:		Line 38:
	The ''Prajñāpradīpa'' (Wylie: shes rab sgron ma; or shes rab sgron me) is Bhāviveka's commentary upon [[Nagarjuna]]'s ''[[Mūlamadhyamakakārikā]]''.<ref name="Ames, William L. 1993 p.210" /> The Sanskrit is no longer extant (except for a few embedded quotations in the ''Prasannapadā'',<ref>Ames, William L. (1993). "Bhāvaviveka's ''Prajñāpradīpa'' ~ A Translation of Chapter One: 'Examinations of Causal Conditions' (''Pratyaya'')". ''Journal of Indian Philosophy'', 1993, vol.21. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, p.211</ref> [[Candrakīrti]]'s commentary of the ''Mūlamadhyamakakārikā'' and critique of the ''Prajñāpradīpa'') but according to Ames (1993: p. 211) is available in both an excellent Tibetan translation, rendered by [[Jñānagarbha]] and ''Cog ro Klu'i rgyal mtshan'' (Wylie) in the early 9th century. Ames (1993: p. 211) also conveyed that the Chinese translation is poor, where the inference of inferiority was drawn from the work of Kajiyama (1963: p. 39).<ref>Kajiyama, Yuichi (1963). 'Bhāvaviveka's ''Prajñāpradīpaḥ'' (1. Kapitel)(Fortsetzung)'. ''Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Süd- und Ostasiens'', vol.7: pp.37-62.</ref> The Sanskrit name has been reconstructed as either ''Prajñāpradīpa'' or ''Janāndeepa'' (where ''Janāndeepa'' may or may not be a [[Prakrit]] corruption or a poor inverse-translation, for example).		The ''Prajñāpradīpa'' (Wylie: shes rab sgron ma; or shes rab sgron me) is Bhāviveka's commentary upon [[Nagarjuna]]'s ''[[Mūlamadhyamakakārikā]]''.<ref name="Ames, William L. 1993 p.210" /> The Sanskrit is no longer extant (except for a few embedded quotations in the ''Prasannapadā'',<ref>Ames, William L. (1993). "Bhāvaviveka's ''Prajñāpradīpa'' ~ A Translation of Chapter One: 'Examinations of Causal Conditions' (''Pratyaya'')". ''Journal of Indian Philosophy'', 1993, vol.21. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, p.211</ref> [[Candrakīrti]]'s commentary of the ''Mūlamadhyamakakārikā'' and critique of the ''Prajñāpradīpa'') but according to Ames (1993: p. 211) is available in both an excellent Tibetan translation, rendered by [[Jñānagarbha]] and ''Cog ro Klu'i rgyal mtshan'' (Wylie) in the early 9th century. Ames (1993: p. 211) also conveyed that the Chinese translation is poor, where the inference of inferiority was drawn from the work of Kajiyama (1963: p. 39).<ref>Kajiyama, Yuichi (1963). 'Bhāvaviveka's ''Prajñāpradīpaḥ'' (1. Kapitel)(Fortsetzung)'. ''Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Süd- und Ostasiens'', vol.7: pp.37-62.</ref> The Sanskrit name has been reconstructed as either ''Prajñāpradīpa'' or ''Janāndeepa'' (where ''Janāndeepa'' may or may not be a [[Prakrit]] corruption or a poor inverse-translation, for example).

	According to Ames (1993: p. 210), Bhāviveka was one of the first [[Buddhist logic]]ians to employ the "formal syllogism" of [[Indian logic]] in expounding the Mādhyamaka which he employed to considerable effect in his commentary to [[Nagarjuna\|Nāgārjuna]]'s ''[[Mūlamadhyamakakārikā]]'', entitled the ''Prajñāpradīpa''.<ref name="Ames, William L. 1993 p.210">Ames, William L. (1993). "Bhāvaviveka's ''Prajñāpradīpa'' ~ A Translation of Chapter One: 'Examinations of Causal Conditions' (''Pratyaya'')". ''Journal of Indian Philosophy'', 1993, vol.21. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, p.210</ref>		According to Ames (1993: p. 210), Bhāviveka was one of the first [[Buddhist logic]]ians to employ the "formal syllogism" ({{bo\|w=sbyor ba'i tshig}}, {{lang-sa\|prayogavākya}}) of [[Indian logic]] in expounding the Mādhyamaka which he employed to considerable effect in his commentary to [[Nagarjuna\|Nāgārjuna]]'s ''[[Mūlamadhyamakakārikā]]'', entitled the ''Prajñāpradīpa''.<ref name="Ames, William L. 1993 p.210">Ames, William L. (1993). "Bhāvaviveka's ''Prajñāpradīpa'' ~ A Translation of Chapter One: 'Examinations of Causal Conditions' (''Pratyaya'')". ''Journal of Indian Philosophy'', 1993, vol.21. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, p.210</ref>

	===''Wisdom Lamp'' (''Prajñāpradīpa'')===		===''Wisdom Lamp'' (''Prajñāpradīpa'')===
Line 54:		Line 58:
	==External links==		==External links==
	* [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/madhyamaka/ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Madhyamaka]		* [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/madhyamaka/ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Madhyamaka]
	{{~~Source\|I\|E~~}}
			{{Buddhism topics}}

			{{Authority control}}

	{{DEFAULTSORT:Bhaviveka}}		{{DEFAULTSORT:Bhaviveka}}
	[[Category:500 births]]		[[Category:500 births]]
	[[Category:578 deaths]]		[[Category:578 deaths]]
	[[Category:Indian ~~Buddhist~~ scholars]]		[[Category:Indian scholars of Buddhism]]
	[[Category:Indian philosophers]]		[[Category:Indian philosophers]]
	[[Category:Indian Buddhist monks]]		[[Category:Indian Buddhist monks]]

WikiDwarf: /* External links */ Add {{Source}} tag

2021-04-10T09:27:06Z

External links: Add {{Source}} tag

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:57, 10 April 2021
Line 54:		Line 54:
	==External links==		==External links==
	* [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/madhyamaka/ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Madhyamaka]		* [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/madhyamaka/ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Madhyamaka]
			{{Source\|I\|E}}
	{{DEFAULTSORT:Bhaviveka}}		{{DEFAULTSORT:Bhaviveka}}
	[[Category:500 births]]		[[Category:500 births]]

Kannadaguy: /* Role of reasoning */

2020-08-25T14:03:47Z

Role of reasoning

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:33, 25 August 2020
Line 17:		Line 17:
	In the ''Svātantrika'' tradition, reasoning is used to further explain that phenomena have no self-nature, and further arguments to establish that the true nature of all phenomena is emptiness. This school differs from the predominant ''Prasaṅgika'' tradition in that the latter refrains from making any assertions whatsoever about the true nature of phenomena.		In the ''Svātantrika'' tradition, reasoning is used to further explain that phenomena have no self-nature, and further arguments to establish that the true nature of all phenomena is emptiness. This school differs from the predominant ''Prasaṅgika'' tradition in that the latter refrains from making any assertions whatsoever about the true nature of phenomena.

	The [[Padmakara Translation Group]] (2005: p. 386) convey a respected philosophical legacy, a [[dialectic]]al [[:wikt:chicane\|chicane]] inaugurated by Bhāviveka:		The [[Padmakara Translation Group]] (2005: p. 386) convey a respected philosophical legacy, a [[dialectic]]al [[:wikt:chicane\|chicane]] inaugurated by Bhāviveka
	{{quote\|Bhavya holds that the consequential arguments of Buddhapalita are not on the same footing as those of Nagarjuna. In both cases, the consequences imply negations that could theoretically be formulated as positive (syllogistic) arguments. The difference between them is that, given what is known to be Nagarjuna's intention (the negation of all four positions of the tetralemma), his negations are to be understood as ←. But such a concession is not to be granted to the commentator, whose task is to render explicit to the fullest extent the obscurities of the commented text. If the commentator uses consequences (unaccompanied by any positive and clarificatory statement), the resulting negations cannot automatically be regarded as nonimplicative. On the contrary, they are implicative and therefore undesirable in the Madhyamaka context...It is worth noting that it is in Bhavya that the important distinction between implicative and nonimplicative negations first appears.<ref name="Middle Way p.386">[[Shantarakshita]] (author); [[Jamgon Ju Mipham Gyatso\|Mipham]] (commentator); [[Padmakara Translation Group]] (translators) (2005). ''The Adornment of the Middle Way: Shantarakshita's Madhyamakalankara with commentary by Jamgön Mipham.'' Boston, Massachusetts, USA: Shambhala Publications, Inc. (alk. paper), p.386</ref>}}		{{quote\|Bhavya holds that the consequential arguments of Buddhapalita are not on the same footing as those of Nagarjuna. In both cases, the consequences imply negations that could theoretically be formulated as positive (syllogistic) arguments. The difference between them is that, given what is known to be Nagarjuna's intention (the negation of all four positions of the tetralemma), his negations are to be understood as ←. But such a concession is not to be granted to the commentator, whose task is to render explicit to the fullest extent the obscurities of the commented text. If the commentator uses consequences (unaccompanied by any positive and clarificatory statement), the resulting negations cannot automatically be regarded as nonimplicative. On the contrary, they are implicative and therefore undesirable in the Madhyamaka context...It is worth noting that it is in Bhavya that the important distinction between implicative and nonimplicative negations first appears.<ref name="Middle Way p.386">[[Shantarakshita]] (author); [[Jamgon Ju Mipham Gyatso\|Mipham]] (commentator); [[Padmakara Translation Group]] (translators) (2005). ''The Adornment of the Middle Way: Shantarakshita's Madhyamakalankara with commentary by Jamgön Mipham.'' Boston, Massachusetts, USA: Shambhala Publications, Inc. (alk. paper), p.386</ref>}}

WikiDwarf: add image from commons-wiki

2020-08-25T06:29:28Z

add image from commons-wiki

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:59, 25 August 2020
Line 1:		Line 1:
			[[File:Maker unknown, Sino-Tibetan - Acarya Bhavaviveka Converts a Nonbeliever to Buddhism - Google Art Project.jpg\|thumb\|''[[Acharya\|Ācārya]] Bhāviveka Converts a Nonbeliever to Buddhism'', [[Gelug]] 18th-century [[Qing dynasty\|Qing]] painting in the [[Philadelphia Museum of Art]]<ref>{{cite web\|title=1959-156-1: Acarya Bhavaviveka Converts a Nonbeliever to Buddhism\|url=http://www.philamuseum.org/collections/permanent/57458.html\|website=Philadelphia Museum of Art: Acarya Bhavaviveka Converts a Nonbeliever to Buddhism\|accessdate=5 October 2014}}</ref>]]
	'''Bhāviveka''', also called '''Bhavya''' or '''Bhāvaviveka''' (c. 500 – c. 578) was a sixth-century [[Madhyamaka]] Buddhist. In Tibetan Buddhism Bhāviveka is regarded as the founder of the [[Svatantrika\|Svātantrika]] tradition of the [[Madhyamaka\|Mādhyamaka]] school of [[Buddhism]], which is seen as antagonistic to [[Prasangika\|Prāsaṅgika]] Madhyamaka.		'''Bhāviveka''', also called '''Bhavya''' or '''Bhāvaviveka''' (c. 500 – c. 578) was a sixth-century [[Madhyamaka]] Buddhist. In Tibetan Buddhism Bhāviveka is regarded as the founder of the [[Svatantrika\|Svātantrika]] tradition of the [[Madhyamaka\|Mādhyamaka]] school of [[Buddhism]], which is seen as antagonistic to [[Prasangika\|Prāsaṅgika]] Madhyamaka.

WikiDwarf: Mirror of the Wikipedia page

2020-08-23T13:29:01Z

Mirror of the Wikipedia page

New page

'''Bhāviveka''', also called '''Bhavya''' or '''Bhāvaviveka''' (c. 500 – c. 578) was a sixth-century [[Madhyamaka]] Buddhist. In Tibetan Buddhism Bhāviveka is regarded as the founder of the [[Svatantrika|Svātantrika]] tradition of the [[Madhyamaka|Mādhyamaka]] school of [[Buddhism]], which is seen as antagonistic to [[Prasangika|Prāsaṅgika]] Madhyamaka.

==Biography==
The life details of Bhaviveka are unclear. He likely lived in early 6th century north India (c. 500-560 CE).<ref name="Eckel2008p24"/> This, states Malcolm Eckel, was a period of "unusual creativity and ferment in the history of Indian Buddhist philosophy", when the [[Mahayana]] Buddhism movement was emerging as a "vigorous and self-conscious intellectual force" while early Buddhist traditions from the eighteen (''Nikaya'') schools opposed this Mahayana movement.<ref name="Eckel2008p24">{{cite book|author2=Bhāvaviveka|author1=Malcolm David Eckel (Translator)|title=Bhāviveka and his Buddhist opponents: chapters 4 and 5 of Bhāviveka's Madhyamakahṛdayakārikaḥ with Tarkajvāla commentary|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Z1bYAAAAMAAJ|year=2008 |isbn=978-0674032743| publisher= Harvard University Press|pages=24–26}}</ref>

Bhaviveka is notable in the Indian tradition for his inclusivist comments. He equated the Buddha's [[Dharma body]] with the [[Upanishad]]ic concept of ultimate reality called [[Brahman]],<ref name=eckel7/> but this view does not imply that he was a Vedantist or that he viewed Buddhism and Vedanta to be the same.<ref name=eckel7>{{cite book|author1=Bhāvaviveka|author2=Malcolm David Eckel|title=Bhāviveka and his Buddhist opponents: chapters 4 and 5 of Bhāviveka's Madhyamakahṛdayakārikaḥ with Tarkajvāla commentary|url= https://books.google.com/books?id=Z1bYAAAAMAAJ|year= 2008|publisher= Harvard University Press|pages=7–8}}</ref> In his writings he comments on early Vedanta, and also addresses Hinayana ([[Theravada]]) accusations that Mahayana Buddhists are "crypto-Vedantins".

==Svātantrika school==
Bhāviveka is retrospectively considered by the Tibetan tradition to be the founder of the Svatantrika tradition within Buddhism.<ref>{{cite book|author=S. K. Hookham|title=The Buddha Within: Tathagatagarbha Doctrine According to the Shentong Interpretation of the Ratnagotravibhaga|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=JqLa4xWot-YC&pg=PA354|year=1991|publisher=State University of New York Press|isbn=978-0-7914-0357-0|pages=354 note 76}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|author=Jamgon Taye|title=The Treasury of Knowledge: Book Six, Part Three: Frameworks Of Buddhist Philosophy|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Ffp8_KZMYUEC&pg=PA42 |year=2007|publisher=Shambhala|isbn=978-1-55939-883-1|page=42}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|author=Steven M. Emmanuel|title=A Companion to Buddhist Philosophy |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=P_lmCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA114|year=2015|publisher=John Wiley & Sons|isbn=978-1-119-14466-3|page=114}}</ref>

Tibetan [[Doxography|doxographers]] divided the ''Madhyamaka'' philosophy of ''[[Nāgārjuna]]'' into ''[[Svātantrika]]'' (''svatantra'': autonomous) and ''[[Prāsaṅgika]]'' (''prasaṅga'': consequence). This manner of division has been retroactively applied in Tibetan monasteries, and commonly found in modern secondary literature on Madhyamaka.<ref name=dreyfus2003/> However, according to Dreyfus and McClintock, such a classification is problematic and was not used in India, where instead the ''"Svatantrika and Prasangika"'' schools were camped together then contrasted with ''"Santaraksita and Kamalasila"''(''Yogacara'') schools of Madhyamaka Buddhism.<ref name=dreyfus2003>Dreyfus, Georges B.J. & Sara L. McClintock (eds). ''The Svātantrika-Prāsaṅgika Distinction: What Difference Does a Difference Make?'' Wisdom Publications, 2003, pages 1-3</ref> The former accepted "external objects exist", while the latter camp accepted "external objects do not exist".<ref name=dreyfus2003/> The Svatantrika versus Prasangika sub-schools may have been an 11th–12th century innovation of the Tibetan translator ''"[[Patsab Nyima Drakpa]]"'' while he was translating a Sanskrit text by Candrakirti into Tibetan.<ref name=dreyfus2003/>

According to Emmanuel this distinction has been discussed with the ''Prasangika'' school of ''Buddhapalita'' (470–550 CE) and ''Candrakirti''(600–650 CE), and by 11th–century Buddhist scholars.<ref>{{cite book|author=Steven M. Emmanuel|title=A Companion to Buddhist Philosophy|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=P_lmCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA342|year=2015|publisher=John Wiley & Sons|isbn=978-1-119-14466-3|pages=342–343}}</ref>

===Role of reasoning===
In the ''Svātantrika'' tradition, reasoning is used to further explain that phenomena have no self-nature, and further arguments to establish that the true nature of all phenomena is emptiness. This school differs from the predominant ''Prasaṅgika'' tradition in that the latter refrains from making any assertions whatsoever about the true nature of phenomena.

The [[Padmakara Translation Group]] (2005: p. 386) convey a respected philosophical legacy, a [[dialectic]]al [[:wikt:chicane|chicane]] inaugurated by Bhāviveka:
{{quote|Bhavya holds that the consequential arguments of Buddhapalita are not on the same footing as those of Nagarjuna. In both cases, the consequences imply negations that could theoretically be formulated as positive (syllogistic) arguments. The difference between them is that, given what is known to be Nagarjuna's intention (the negation of all four positions of the tetralemma), his negations are to be understood as ←. But such a concession is not to be granted to the commentator, whose task is to render explicit to the fullest extent the obscurities of the commented text. If the commentator uses consequences (unaccompanied by any positive and clarificatory statement), the resulting negations cannot automatically be regarded as nonimplicative. On the contrary, they are implicative and therefore undesirable in the Madhyamaka context...It is worth noting that it is in Bhavya that the important distinction between implicative and nonimplicative negations first appears.<ref name="Middle Way p.386">[[Shantarakshita]] (author); [[Jamgon Ju Mipham Gyatso|Mipham]] (commentator); [[Padmakara Translation Group]] (translators) (2005). ''The Adornment of the Middle Way: Shantarakshita's Madhyamakalankara with commentary by Jamgön Mipham.'' Boston, Massachusetts, USA: Shambhala Publications, Inc. (alk. paper), p.386</ref>}}

In the above quotation, "tetralemma" should be understood to refer to the [[catuṣkoṭi]]. "Nonimplicative negation", may also be rendered as "existential negation". "Implicative negative" may also be rendered "predicative negation".<ref>Blumenthal, James (2009). 'Śāntarakṣita', ''The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy'' (Fall 2009 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), Source: [http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2009/entries/saantarak-sita/](accessed: Monday October 12, 2009)</ref>

==Panchen Lama lineage==
In the lineage of the [[Panchen Lama]]s of [[Tibet]] there were four Indian and three Tibetan [[mindstream]] [[tulku]] of [[Amitābha]] before [[Khedrup Gelek Pelzang, 1st Panchen Lama]]. The lineage starts with [[Subhuti]], one of the original disciples of [[Gautama Buddha]]. Bhāviveka is considered to be the third Indian [[tulku]] in this line.<ref>Stein, R. A. ''Tibetan Civilization'', (1972) p. 84. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California.</ref>

==Works==
===''Madhyamakahṛdaya-karika'' and its autocommentary, the ''Tarkajvala''===
Bhavya wrote an independent work on the Madhyamaka entitled the ''[[Madhyamakahrdaya-karika]]'' which Bhavya in turn wrote an autocommentary upon entitled the ''[[Tarkajvala]]'' (Blaze of Reasoning).<ref name="Hoornaert 2000">{{cite journal|last=Hoornaert |first=Paul |title=An Annotated Translation of Madhyamakahrdayakarika/ Tarkajvala V.8-26 |journal=Studies and essays. Behavioral sciences and philosophy |date=2000 |volume=20 |pages=75–111 |url=http://www3.nccu.edu.tw/~96154505/Mark_Siderits__Paul_Hoornaert_Madhyamakahrdaya_8-26.pdf |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20140130141635/http://www3.nccu.edu.tw/~96154505/Mark_Siderits__Paul_Hoornaert_Madhyamakahrdaya_8-26.pdf |archivedate=January 30, 2014 }}</ref>

His text ''Madhyamakahrdayakārikā'' and his commentary ''Tarkajvālā'' therein, states [[Malcolm David Eckel|Malcolm Eckel]], provide a "unique and authoritative account of the intellectual differences that stirred the Buddhist community in this creative period".<ref name=Eckel>{{cite book|author2=Bhāvaviveka|author1=Malcolm David Eckel (Translator)|title=Bhāviveka and his Buddhist opponents: chapters 4 and 5 of Bhāviveka's Madhyamakahṛdayakārikaḥ with Tarkajvāla commentary|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Z1bYAAAAMAAJ|year=2008| publisher=Harvard University Press| isbn=978-0674032743| page=Cover}}, [http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674032743 Quote]: "Bhāviveka (ca. 500–560 CE) lived at a time of unusual creativity and ferment in the history of Indian Buddhist philosophy. The Mahayana movement was emerging as a vigorous and self-conscious intellectual force, while the earlier traditions of the eighteen “schools” (nikaya) resisted the authority of the Mahayana and continued to elaborate the fundamental concepts of Buddhist thought. Bhāviveka’s “Verses on the Heart of the Middle Way” (Madhyamakahrdayakārikā) with their commentary, known as “The Flame of Reason” (Tarkajvālā), give a unique and authoritative account of the intellectual differences that stirred the Buddhist community in this creative period."</ref>

===''Prajñāpradīpa'' (or ''Janāndeepa'')===
The ''Prajñāpradīpa'' (Wylie: shes rab sgron ma; or shes rab sgron me) is Bhāviveka's commentary upon [[Nagarjuna]]'s ''[[Mūlamadhyamakakārikā]]''.<ref name="Ames, William L. 1993 p.210" /> The Sanskrit is no longer extant (except for a few embedded quotations in the ''Prasannapadā'',<ref>Ames, William L. (1993). "Bhāvaviveka's ''Prajñāpradīpa'' ~ A Translation of Chapter One: 'Examinations of Causal Conditions' (''Pratyaya'')". ''Journal of Indian Philosophy'', 1993, vol.21. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, p.211</ref> [[Candrakīrti]]'s commentary of the ''Mūlamadhyamakakārikā'' and critique of the ''Prajñāpradīpa'') but according to Ames (1993: p. 211) is available in both an excellent Tibetan translation, rendered by [[Jñānagarbha]] and ''Cog ro Klu'i rgyal mtshan'' (Wylie) in the early 9th century. Ames (1993: p. 211) also conveyed that the Chinese translation is poor, where the inference of inferiority was drawn from the work of Kajiyama (1963: p. 39).<ref>Kajiyama, Yuichi (1963). 'Bhāvaviveka's ''Prajñāpradīpaḥ'' (1. Kapitel)(Fortsetzung)'. ''Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Süd- und Ostasiens'', vol.7: pp.37-62.</ref> The Sanskrit name has been reconstructed as either ''Prajñāpradīpa'' or ''Janāndeepa'' (where ''Janāndeepa'' may or may not be a [[Prakrit]] corruption or a poor inverse-translation, for example).

According to Ames (1993: p. 210), Bhāviveka was one of the first [[Buddhist logic]]ians to employ the "formal syllogism" of [[Indian logic]] in expounding the Mādhyamaka which he employed to considerable effect in his commentary to [[Nagarjuna|Nāgārjuna]]'s ''[[Mūlamadhyamakakārikā]]'', entitled the ''Prajñāpradīpa''.<ref name="Ames, William L. 1993 p.210">Ames, William L. (1993). "Bhāvaviveka's ''Prajñāpradīpa'' ~ A Translation of Chapter One: 'Examinations of Causal Conditions' (''Pratyaya'')". ''Journal of Indian Philosophy'', 1993, vol.21. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, p.210</ref>

===''Wisdom Lamp'' (''Prajñāpradīpa'')===
After the death of [[Buddhapālita]] (470–550), Bhāviveka refuted his views by writing a commentary on the ''Root Wisdom'' called ''Wisdom Lamp'' (''Prajñāpradīpa'') relying on Nāgārjuna's teachings. This text laid the foundations for the Svātantrika school.<ref>''"Indian Buddhist Pandits" from "The Jewel Garland of Buddhist History"''. Translated from the Tibetan by Lobsang N. Tsonawa, (1985) Library of Tibetan Works and Archives, Dharamsala, India, p. 15.</ref>

== See also ==
* [[Buddhapālita]]

==References==
{{Reflist|2}}

==Further reading==
*Eckel, Malcolm D. (1992). ''To See the Buddha.'' Princeton: Princeton University Press.
*Eckel, Malcolm D. (2008). ''Bhavaviveka and his Buddhist Opponents.'' Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
* Georges B.J. Dreyfus & L. Sara McClintock (2015), ''Svatantrika-Prasangika Distinction: What Difference Does a Difference Make?'', Simon and Schuster
* {{Citation|last=King|first=Richard|year=1995|title=Early Advaita Vedānta and Buddhism: The Mahāyāna Context of the Gauḍapādīya-kārikā|publisher=SUNY Press}}
* {{Citation|last=Nicholson|first=Andrew J.|year=2010|title=[[Unifying Hinduism: Philosophy and Identity in Indian Intellectual History]]|publisher=Columbia University Press}}

==External links==
* [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/madhyamaka/ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Madhyamaka]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Bhaviveka}}
[[Category:500 births]]
[[Category:578 deaths]]
[[Category:Indian Buddhist scholars]]
[[Category:Indian philosophers]]
[[Category:Indian Buddhist monks]]
[[Category:6th-century Buddhist monks]]
[[Category:Madhyamaka scholars]]
[[Category:Panchen Lamas|Panchen Lama]]