Table Of Content

i Tibetan Buddhist Philosophy of Mind and Nature ii iii Tibetan Buddhist Philosophy of Mind and Nature DOUGLAS S. DUCKWORTH 1 iv 1 Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and certain other countries. Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America. © Oxford University Press 2019 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by license, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reproduction rights organization. Inquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above. You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer. Library of Congress Cataloging- in- Publication Data Names: Duckworth, Douglas S., 1971– author. Title: Tibetan Buddhist philosophy of mind and nature / by Douglas S. Duckworth. Description: New York, NY : Oxford University Press, [2019] | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2018010436 | ISBN 9780190883959 (hardcover : alk. paper) | ISBN 9780190883973 (epub) | ISBN 9780190883980 (online resource) Subjects: LCSH: Buddhist philosophy. | Buddhism—China—Tibet Autonomous Region—Doctrines. | Madhyamika (Buddhism) Classification: LCC B162.D83 2019 | DDC 181/.043923—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2018010436 1 3 5 7 9 8 6 4 2 Printed by Sheridan Books, Inc., United States of America v For my dear mother and mothers everywhere vi ix Acknowledgments Those who have contributed to this book are too numerous to enu- merate. Yet I would like to acknowledge some of them here. A big thanks goes to the late Aku Rapkyé, Chökyi Nyima Rinpoché, Drupön Thinley Ningpo, Jeffrey Hopkins, Khenpo Sherap Dorjé, Khenpo Tsültrim Dargyé, Thrangu Rinpoché, and Tulku Nyima Gyeltsen for teaching me about topics in this book and more. Also, feedback on drafts of this book were invalu- able, including the input of Marcus Bingenheimer, José Cabezón, George Cardona, David Carpenter, Ryan Conlon, Catherine Dalton, Thomas Doctor, Georges Dreyfus, Jay Garfield, Jeffrey Hopkins, Gerd Klintschar, Karin Meyers, Gail Stenstad, Rolf Truhitte, and Philippe Turenne. I wish to thank them all. Paul Hackett’s Buddhist Canon’s Research Database has also been a wonderful resource for my work. Elizabeth Callahan and Marcus Perman also assisted me in locating Tibetan texts. Research for this book was enabled by a Humanities and Arts Research Program Grant, as well as a College of Liberal Arts Research Award, both from Temple University. x 1 Introduction This book is a thematic survey of Tibetan Buddhist thought. It provides a theoretic framework to introduce a wide range of intersecting ideas. With many informed studies and translations of Tibetan traditions now available in English, I feel that the time is right to survey the intellectual terrain of Tibetan Buddhist thought with a wide- angle lens. What follows is my attempt to provide this lens and to map the terrain both descriptively and creatively. I do not base my framework around particular schools or sectarian traditions, but attempt to focus on issues and themes that struc- ture the philosophical conversations within and among the schools. While doing so, I draw freely from European and American philosophical traditions to engage with and elaborate upon Buddhist thought and practice in Tibet. A central theme of Tibetan philosophy I draw out is the intertwining of mind, language, and world. Understanding Buddhism in India is fundamental to understanding Buddhism in Tibet. Tibetan Buddhists played an essential role in preserving Indian Buddhist culture, not only by carrying on the traditions of study and practice from India into the present, long after their demise in India, but also by preserving Indian Buddhist texts in translation. Most Buddhist texts of the mature era of Indian Buddhist literature (fifth to eleventh centuries) are no longer extant in any language other than in Tibetan translation. Buddhist texts and traditions entered the Tibetan plateau from India from the eighth to eleventh centuries, just before living Buddhist traditions died out on the Indian subcontinent under the weight of Muslim incursions. After the eleventh century, Buddhist monastic institutions in India were left in rubbles, and Buddhist popular traditions came to be as- similated into Hindu traditions. Tibetan Buddhist Philosophy of Mind and Nature. Douglas S. Duckworth, Oxford University Press (2019). © Douglas S. Duckworth. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190883959.003.0001 2 2 TibeTan buddhisT PhilosoPhy of Mind and naTure Given the importance of the Indian subcontinent for Tibetan Buddhism, I begin with a fair amount of discussion of Indian sources. The first chapter begins by looking to Nāgārjuna, an influential second- century Indian Buddhist thinker, and his articulation of emptiness and interrela- tion. Emptiness is the ultimate truth in Mahāyāna Buddhism: the truth which, when known, sets you free. I highlight how the ultimate truth in Mahāyāna Buddhism comes to be interpreted along two main lines: as in- dicative of an inconceivable reality or as an absence of intrinsic nature. The former interpretation characterizes what comes to be known as “Mind- Only” in Tibet (or Yogācāra), while the latter characterizes Madhyamaka, “the Middle Way.” These two traditions represent competing interpretations of the ultimate truth and the Perfection of Wisdom (prajñāpāramitā) Sūtras. Further, Tibetans hold Mind-O nly and Madhyamaka to represent two main schools of interpretation elucidated within the two “great chariot traditions” (shing rta chen po) of Mahāyāna Buddhism. While Tibetans use these terms to characterize distinct strands of interpretation of the meaning of the Buddha’s message, we should keep in mind that these terms do not refer to individual schools or bounded canons of texts. Also, what Tibetans refer to by the terms “Middle Way” and “Mind- Only” can be quite different, with usages that are highly charged within specific contexts of sectarian traditions and preferred interpretations of one’s own school. In order to dislodge these terms from a single tradition’s interpretive claims, for the purposes of this book I will use them differ- ently. In my usage, “Mind-O nly” highlights a particular phenomenolog- ical style of interpretation and orientation to contemplative practice. I use Madhyamaka, “the Middle Way,” to highlight a critical orientation and deconstructive ontology. These terms, and the “schools” associated with them, are highly contested and polysemic, yet I appropriate them as a heu- ristic and to convey an intimate relationship between two intertwined trajectories of interpretation. I feel that the problems I create by continuing to use these terms, with the distinctive meanings I have assigned them, are less severe than the problems of avoiding them altogether or narrowly constraining them to definitions tied into a single sectarian tradition’s interpretation. With the interplay of these two trajectories I attempt to sustain a ten- sion between two contrasting readings of Buddhist thought, as both are viable and widely attested interpretations of Mahāyāna Buddhist literature and practice. One reading is commonly found in the works of aca- demic philosophers attuned to ontological analyses and the Madhyamaka