There in only ‘Philosophy:’ The case of Testimony

Thoughts on the Early Indian Yogācāra Understanding of Āgama- Pramāṇa


Abstract


The Buddhist approach to testimony (āptavāda, āptāgama) as a valid means of cognition (pramāṇa) is far from univocal and involves an intricate and often also ambivalent attitude toward scriptural authority.  The paper focuses on several early Yogācāra Buddhist thinkers who accepted testimony as a reliable epistemic warrant, and offers an account of the sophisticated and highly reflective manner in which they approached the issue of scriptural meaning and authority. For this purpose, the paper first outlines the theoretical framework for considering scripture presented by the early Yogācāra philosopher Vasubandhu’s Vyākhyāyukti, focusing especially on his discussion of the criteria for canonicity and its implications for a system of hermeneutics based on the uncovering of authorial intent. The paper then examines in turn the way in which this framework and its internal tensions were worked out in the writings of Sthiramati (circa 6th century CE) and especially in his Madhyāntavibhāga-bhāṣya-ṭīkā, focusing on his definition of “treatise” (śāstra) and his implied understanding of textual authority.

Keywords

Yogācāra; Buddhism; Vasubandhu; Sthiramati; Vyākhyāyukti; hermeneutics; testimony; epistemology; canon; scripture

Full Text:

PDF


DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.13135/1825-263X/2255

References


Cabezón, Jose Ignacio. 1992. “Vasubandhu's Vyākhyāyukti on the Authenticity of the Mahāyāna Sūtras.” In Texts in Context: Traditional Hermeneutics in South Asia, edited by Jeffrey R. Timm, 221-243. Albany: State University of New York Press.

D’Amato, Mario. 2012. Distinguishing the Middle from the Extremes: A Study and Annotated Translation of the Madhyāntavibhāga, Along with Its Commentary, the Madhyāntavibhāga-Bhāṣya. New York: American Institute of Buddhist Studies.

Davidson, Ronald M. 1990. “An Introduction to the Standards of Scriptual Authority in Indian Buddhism.” In Chinese Buddhist Apocrypha, edited by Jr. Robert E. Buswell, 291-326. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.

Dutt, Nalinaksha. 1978. Boddhisattvabhūmiḥ. Patna: K.P. Jayaswal Research Institute. 1st ed. 1966.

Garfield, Jay, and Jonathan Gold. 2011. “On the Reality of the Mind in Yogācāra: A Constructive Debate on Vasubandhu’s Trisvabhāvanirdeśa.”

http://religion.princeton.edu/events/2011/aarpanel/AAR_Conference_Panel_2011.html.

Hayes, Richard P. 1984. “The Question of Doctrinalism in the Buddhist Epistemologists.” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 52.4: 645-70.

Honda, Megumu and Johannes Rahder. 1968. Annotated Translation of the Dasabhumika-Sutra. New Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture.

kachru, sonam. 2014. “Text, Language, Mind(S):A Footnote on Sthiramati’s Definition of Textual Instruction (Śāstra) as a Mental Phenomenon (Vijñapti).” Unpublished paper.

Kochumuttom, Thomas A. 1982. A Buddhist Doctrine of Experience: A New Translation and Interpretation of the Works of Vasubandhu, the Yogācārin. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.

Lamotte, Etienne. 1988. 2The Assessment of Textual Interpretation in Buddhism.” In Buddhist Hermeneutics, edited by Donald Lopez Jr., 11–27. Honolulu: Kuroda Institute.

Lee, Jong-Cheol. 2001. The Tibetan Text of the Vyakhyayukti of Vasubandhu: Critically Edited from the Cone, Derge, Narthang and Peking Editions, Bibliotheca Indologica Et Buddhologica. Tokyo: Sankibo Press.

Lopez, Donald S. 1988. “On the Interpretation of the Mahayana Sutras.” In Buddhist Hermeneutics, edited by Donald S. Lopez, 47-70. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

Lugli, Ligeia. 2010. “Meaning without Words: The Contrast between Artha and Ruta in the Mahāyāna Sūtras.” Buddhist Studies Review 27.2: 139-76.

Nance, Richard F. 2004. “Models of Teaching and the Teaching of Models: Contextualizing Indian Buddhist Commentary.” PhD diss., University of Chicago.

Nance, Richard F. 2012. Speaking for Buddhas: Scriptural Commentary in Indian Buddhism. New York: Columbia University Press.

Sponberg, Alan. 1982. “The Trisvabhāva Doctrine in India and China: A Study of Three Exegetical Models.” Bukkyō Bunka Kenkyū-jo Kiyō 21: 97–119.

Stanley, Richard. 1988. “A Study of the Madhyāntavibhāga-Bhāṣya-Ṭikā.” PhD diss., Australian National University.

Tatia, Nathmal. 1976. Abhidharmasamuccayabhāṣyam. Patna: K.P. Jayaswal Research Institute.

Tillemans, Tom J. F. 1999. Scripture, Logic, Language: Essays on Dharmakirti and His Tibetan Successors, Studies in Indian and Tibetan Buddhism. Boston, Mass.: Wisdom Publications.

Tzohar, Roy. 2013. “Vasubandhu.” Oxford Bibliographies in Buddhism, edited by Richard Payne. New York: Oxford University Press. http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/obo/page/buddhism.

Tzohar, Roy. 2017. “Does Early Yogācāra Have a Theory of Meaning? Sthiramati’s Arguments on Metaphor in the Triṃśikā-Bhāṣya.” Journal of Indian Philosophy 45.1: 99-120.

Tzohar, Roy. forthcoming. Meaning in the World and in Texts: A Buddhist Theory of Metaphor. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.

Verhagen, Peter C. 2005. “Studies in Indo-Tibetan Buddhist Hermeneutics (4): The Vyākhyāyukti by Vasubandhu.” Journal Asiatique 293.2: 559-602.

Wayman, Alex. 1999. A Millenium of Buddhist Logic. 1. Buddhist Tradition Series. Dehli [u.a.]: Motilal Banarsidass.

Yamaguchi, Susumu and Sylvain Lévi. 1934. Madhyantavibhagatika: Exposition Systématique Du Yogacaravijñaptivada. Nagoya: Librairie Hajinkaku.


Article Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Metrics powered by PLOS ALM

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


ISSN: 1825-263X

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.