 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dependent Arising and Mutual Identity in Fazang's Huayan Thought |
|
|
|
| Author |
Jones, Nicholaos (著)
|
|---|
| Source |
2023華嚴專宗國際學術研討會論文集上冊
|
|---|
| Date | 2023.10 |
|---|
| Pages | 173 - 205 |
|---|
| Publisher | 財團法人臺北市華嚴蓮社 |
|---|
| Publisher Url |
https://www.huayen.org.tw/index.aspx
|
|---|
| Location | 臺北市, 臺灣 [Taipei shih, Taiwan] |
|---|
| Content type | 會議論文=Proceeding Article |
|---|
| Language | 英文=English |
|---|
| Note | The author is the professor of the University of Alabama in Huntsville. |
|---|
| Keyword | dependent arising=緣起; Fazang=法藏; Indra's Net=因陀羅網; mutual identity=相即; Nāgārjuna=龍樹 |
|---|
| Abstract | The teaching of dependent arising (緣起) is that when one conditioned thing (行) arises in dependence upon
another, the one does not exist without the other. The meaning of this teaching is a matter of scholarly debate. Some scholars interpret the teaching as meaning that each conditioned thing arises in dependence upon some but not all other conditioned things. Other scholars interpret the teaching as meaning that each conditioned thing arises in dependence upon all other conditioned things.
This paper has three goals. The first goal is to explain how Huayan Buddhism (華嚴佛教) supports the interpretation that each conditioned thing arises in dependence upon all other conditioned things. This explanation has two parts. The first part explains the meaning of mutual identity (相即) in Huayan writings by the Chinese monk Fazang (法藏, 643-712). The second part of the explanation derives an interpretation of dependent arising from Fazang's doctrine of mutual identity.
The second goal of this paper is to explain an objection to Fazang’s interpretation of dependent arising. The objection derives from Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (中論) by the Indian monk Nāgārjuna (龍樹, circa 150-250). Nāgārjuna’s objection is nothing with selfnature (自性) arises in dependence upon another. A slight modification of Nāgārjuna’s objection demonstrates that interdependence is inconsistent with mutual identity.
The third goal of this paper is to refute the objection to Fazang’s doctrine of mutual identity. The refutation has four parts. The first part distinguishes two meanings for one thing being prior to another. The second part explains why only one of these meanings applies to dependent arising. The third part uses this meaning to identify the error in the objection to Fazang's doctrine of mutual identity. The fourth part provides textual confirmation from Fazang’s writings.
The paper concludes by discussing what the refutation of the objection shows about Indra's Net (因陀羅網) as a metaphor for dependent arising. The discussion has four parts. The first part gives a reason for discussing the metaphor of Indra's Net. The second part examines a popular interpretation of the metaphor of Indra's Net. The third part examines Fazang's interpretation of the metaphor of Indra's Net. The fourth part argues that Fazang's
interpretation is superior to the popular interpretation. |
|---|
| Table of contents | 1. Interpreting Dependent Arising 174
2. Mutual Identity in Huayan 179
2.1. Technical Terminology 179
2.2. The Meaning of Identity 182
2.3. From Mutual Identity to Unlimited Dependent Arising 183
3. Mutual Identity and Interdependence 184
3.1. Nāgārjuna’s Analysis of Interdependence 184
3.2. An Objection to Mutual Identity 185
4. Priority and Dependent Arising 186
4.1. Two Meanings of Priority 187
4.2. Priority in the Teaching of Dependent Arising 188
4.3. The Error in the Objection to Mutual Identity 191
4.4 Textual Confirmation for Fazang’s Interpretation 192
5. Indra’s Net as a Metaphor for Dependent Arising 195
5.1. Indra's Net 195
5.2. Popular Interpretation 198
5.3. Fazang's Interpretation 198
5.4. Evaluating Interpretations 200
Abbreviations 202
References 202
|
|---|
| Hits | 275 |
|---|
| Created date | 2024.01.11 |
|---|
| Modified date | 2024.01.16 |
|---|
 |
Best viewed with Chrome, Firefox, Safari(Mac) but not supported IE
|
