Extract :
Author’s Preface
According to 1-ching’s report from India (A.D. 691), Mahayana Buddhism was divided into two schools, the Madhyamika and the Yogacara. The Madhyamaka (middle) philosophy, founded on Nagarjuna’s (A.D. second to third century) philosophy of absolute negation (shünyata), is really a remarkable and probably one of the greatest achievements in the history of Buddhism. It is my contention, however, that it was brought to completion by the Yogacara, especially through the works of Asanga and Vasubandhu (A.D. fifth century). They complemented the shunyata philosophy with various positive theories such as the theory of consciousness-only, the three-nature theory, the theory of Buddha’s body, and so on. The Yogacara theories are said to be “positive” because by accepting the negative idea of shunyata as a whole, the Yogäcara established the positive affirmative aspect of shünyata (abhăvasya bhăvah). During the later centuries, Indian Buddhism (as well as Tibetan Buddhism) focused its attention on only the Mădhyamika school as the main stream of Buddhism while it overlooked the Yogacara as an independent school. In spite of that, ideas and terminologies created by the Yogacara school continued to influence the development of Buddhism in India (also in Tibet) for a long time, and it can be said further that, without the effort and achievement of the Yogacara, which complemented the Mădhyamika, Mahayăna Buddhism would not have reached its present perfection.
My study has been focused on these two schools for more than forty years. Some of the papers found in this collection were written very early in my career and consequently show certain inadequacies; however, as they contain important aspects of the development of my thought, they have been included here. The paper “Logic of Convertibility,” for instance, explains the fundamental idea of “convertibility” that has been and still continues to be of great concern to me. The papers written later presuppose, more or less, this idea of convertibility and it is foundational to the ideas discussed there.
In more recent years, I discuss the two notions of “ascent and descent,” and show how they apply to our interpretation of the various teachings found in Buddhism. The two notions have appeared, although only vaguely, in earlier papers from time to time, but it is only in recent days that it became evident that the two notions of ascent and descent were convenient ways for gaining a proper understanding of the various doctrinal meanings. In fact, it can be said that Mahayana thought is characterized as such when they are present, even though they are opposites and indicate contrary directions. That is, when these two notions are found within a certain Buddhist system, the criterion for discerning whether that system is Mahayana or not is established.
The Mădhyamika, more than the Yogacara, seems to have been studied rather widely by western scholars. This is probably owing to the fact that shunyata is in sharp contrast to Western ontological ideas. However, Yogacara thought is no less important than Mădhyamika ideas, and consequently, the readers will find that more attention has been paid to the Yogacara in this book.
My study has been philological rather than philosophical. By the term philological, I do not mean to imply a purely linguistic investigation, but rather, I refer to the process of interpreting a text as faithful as possible. This means that I have interpreted the purport of those treatises through the acarya’s own words, and thus, I avoided the danger of being too speculative.
Many kalyanamitras helped me in preparing these papers by either translating them or improving my English. My hearty thanks go to, among others, the Reverend Yoshiaki Fujitani, Professor Norman Waddell, Professor John Keenan, Ms. Michele Martin, et al. My special gratitude is due to Professor Leslie S. Kawamura for his tireless effort in translating and editing this book. If these papers are helpful to my readers concerning their understanding of Buddhism, I shall be satisfied. |
