Prakrit work with Hindi commentary and translation on Jaina monastic life and discipline.

Contributed research papers presented at National Seminar jointly organized by Somanth Sanskrit University, Veraval and Sanskrit Sahitya Akadami at Gandhinagar on February 21-22, 2022.

Not being satisfied with the interpretation offered by Sankara and his followers, or some other teachers the author has attempted in the following pages to present to the readers his own interpretation of the work as he has understood it. But in no way does he claim that his interpretation is the interpretation, i.e., the interpretation intended by Gaudapada himself. In the present volume the author has given a new edition of the text of the Agamasastra based on a number (...) of MSS and different editions, followed by an English translation. After this comes his annotation. At the end there are Appendixes including the text and English translation of the Mandukya Upanisad, VAriants of the MSS used for the edition of the text of the Agamasastra, and different indexes. (shrink)

In the discussions concerning the date of Dharmakīrti, Jaina sources have never been seriously taken into account. They may, however, provide a valuable insight because Dharmakīrti both criticised and was criticised by Jaina thinkers. Two Jaina authors, Samantabhadra and Pūjyapāda Devanandin, may prove crucial in determining the actual dates of Dharmakīrti. The paper argues that Dharmakīrti directly influenced Samantabhadra in a number of ways, which sets the terminus ante quem for Dharmakīrti, and his traditional chronology has to be (...) reconsidered in the light of new findings. The paper suggests new dates for all the three authors. (shrink)

Treatise on the findamentals of Jaina philosophy and ethics.

Rebecca J. Manring offers a hagiographical treatment of Advaita Acarya, a fifteenth century leader in a new devotional school of Vaisnavism. She uses the Bengali material as a case study of how to read and understand hagiographical literature.

Prajñaparamita-Hrdaya-Sutra - Das Sutra vom Herzen der Vollkommen Weisheit - The Heart Sutra. Ed. Acarya Jen Wen. Zero Verlag, Rheinberg 1982. 80pp. DM 19.80.

Soul and it's functional mechanism in jainism Elucidation by school kind kund.

Collection of five works of a Sanskrit author, on Jain philosophy.

On the life and contribution of Samantabhadrasvāmī to Jaina philosophy and epistemology.

The Indian philosopher Acarya Nagarjuna (c. 150-250 CE) was the founder of the Madhyamaka (Middle Path) school of Mahayana Buddhism and arguably the most influential Buddhist thinker after Buddha himself. Indeed, in the Tibetan and East Asian traditions, Nagarjuna is often referred to as the "second Buddha." This book presents a survey of the whole of Nagarjuna's philosophy based on his key philosophical writings. His primary contribution to Buddhist thought lies in the further development of the concept of sunyata or (...) "emptiness." For Nagarjuna, all phenomena are without any svabhava, literally "own-nature" or "self-nature," and thus without any underlying substance. Particular emphasis is put on discussing Nagarjuna's thinking as philosophy. The present discussion shows how his thoughts on metaphysics, epistemology, the self, language, and truth present a unified theory of reality with considerable systematic appeal. The book offers a systematic account of Nagarjuna's philosophical position. It reads Nagarjuna in his own philosophical context, but also shows that the issues of Indian and Tibetan Buddhist philosophy have at least family resemblances to issues in European philosophy. (shrink)

Rāmānuja (ācārya), the eleventh century South Indian philosopher, is the chief proponent of Vishishtādvaita, which is one of the three main forms of the Orthodox Hindu philosophical school, Vedānta. As the prime philosopher of the Vishishtādvaita tradition, Rāmānuja is one of the Indian philosophical tradition’s most important and influential figures. He was the first Indian philosopher to provide a systematic theistic interpretation of the philosophy of the Vedas, and is famous for arguing for the epistemic and soteriological significance of (...) bhakti, or devotion to a personal God. Unlike many of his contemporaries, Rāmānuja defended the reality of a plurality of individual persons, qualities, values and objects while affirming the substantial unity of all. On some accounts, Rāmānuja’s influence on popular Hindu practice is so vast that his system forms the basis for popular Hindu philosophy. His two main philosophical writings (the Shrī Bhāshya and Vedārthasangraha) are amongst the best examples of rigorous and energetic argumentation in any philosophical tradition, and they are masterpieces of Indian scholastic philosophy. (shrink)

Exegsis of Samantabhadra's Āptamīmāṃsā, treatise on Jaina logic.

Rāmānuja is known as a theistic ācārya who interpreted Brahmasūtras in Viśiṣṭādvaita point of view. He propounded his philosophy by refuting Kevāldvaita system of Śaṅkara. He criticized the existence and knowledge of indeterminate objects and refuted the concept of Nirviśeṣa Brahman. Therefore, Brahman for him is Saviśeṣa. The name Viśiṣṭādvaita itself signifies that it is Qualified Monism. Brahman is qualified by matter and soul. Matter and soul though real are completely dependent on Brahman for their existence. Hegel is a (...) German Philosopher who propounded Absolute Idealism. Hegel solved the problem of reality from a synthetic and positive point of view. Predecessors of Hegel were reflecting on Reality with one sided abstractions. Absolute is ultimately real for him. Hegel’s Absolute is not devoid of all objects and qualities. Absolute is inclusive of all the categories and all things of the world. Absolute is not abstract like Śaṅkara’s Brahman but it goes very much closer to Ramanuja’s Saviśeṣa Brahman. Thus, both these philosopher though differ in some principles which are very peculiar to them, they definitely meet at on one point of ‘Concrete Monism’. Logical method adopted by them to reach towards their goal is also strikingly similar. The aim of this paper is to analyse the concept of monism according to Rāmānuja and Hegel with philosophical point of view. Comparative study of both will throw light on some striking similarities as well as some differences of these great philosophers. (shrink)

Machine generated contents note: 1 A Plea for a New History of Philosophy in India -- 2 Towards a Field Theory of Indian Philosophy: -- Suggestions for a New Way of Looking at Indian Philosophy -- II -- 3 Indian Philosophy in the First Millennium A.D.: -- Fact and Fiction -- 4 Where are the Vedas in the First Millennium AD.? -- 5 Vedinta in the First Millennium A.D.: The Case Study -- of a Retrospective Illusion Imposed by th Historiography (...) -- of Indian Philosophy -- III -- 6 Prltftyasamutpada-Does it Say Anything New? -- 7 ilow Anekantika is Anekanta? Some Reflections on the -- Jain Theory of Anekfntavada -- IV -- 8 MTmamsa before JaiminT: Some Problems in the -- Interpretation of Rule in the Indian Tradition -- 9 The MTmamsaka versus Yajfiika: Some Further Problem in -- the Interpretation of Sruti in the Indian Tradition -- 10 Syena yaga: The Achilles Heel of Sruti in Indian Tradition -- 11 Is the Doctrine of Arthavada Compatible with the -- Idea of Srut? -- V -- 12 The Myth of the Prasthana TrayF -- 13 Is "Tattvam asi" The Same Type of Identity Statement as -- "The Morning Star is the Evening Star"? -- 14 Can the Analysis of Adhyasa ever Lead to an -- Advaitic Conclusion? -- 15 Was Acarya Samkara Responsible for the Disappearance -- of Buddhist Philosophy from India? -- VI -- 16 Is Nyaya Realist or Idealist? -- 17 Can Navya Nyaya Analysis Make a Distinction -- between Sense and Reference? -- VII -- 18 Did the GopTs Really Love Krsna?: Some Reflections -- on Bhakti as a Purusartha in the Indian Tradition -- 19 The Vamasrama Syndrome of Indian Sociology -- 20 'Shock-proof, 'Evidence-proof, 'Argument-proof -- World of Sampradayika Scholarship of Indian Philosophy -- 21 Nyaya; Realist or Idealist: Is the Debate Ended, the -- Argument Completed? -- Appendix. (shrink)

Pt. 1. The lives and teachings of the three Ācāryas and Narayana Guru -- pt. 2. Ideas of the three Ācāryas unitively revisualised.

Dharmakīrti's critique of Jaina philosophy is examined under three categories: epistemology, ontology, and ethics. It is shown that the target of this critique was Samantabhadra, who, like Dharmakīrti, was also a native of southern India.

One of the interpretive devices that Ch'eng-kuan (澄 觀) is famous for having employed to distill the essence of the vast Mahāvaipulya Buddhāvataṃsaka Sūtra (Tafang-kuang fo-hua-yen ching 《大方廣佛華嚴經》 was a series of variations on the contemplative theme (kuan-men 觀門) of the complete interfusion (yüan-jung 圓融) of the scripture's three chief protagonists (san-sheng 三聖) ── the Buddha Vairocana (Pi-lu-che-na 毘盧遮那) and the bodhisattvas Mañjuśrī (Wen-shu-shih-li 文殊師利) and Samantabhadra (P'u-hsien 普賢). By aligning these three powerful sacred persons with a number of (...) philosophical categories that he believed to be central to the sūtra ── categories like "cause" (yin 因 ), "fruition" (kuo 果 ), "faith" (hsin 信 ), "understanding" (chieh 解), "insight" (chih 智), "practice" (hsing 行), "principle" (li 理), etc. ── he provided a focal point at which the rich and vivid meditative and liturgical lives of Hua-yen devotees could be made to converge with their philosophical reflections. -/- Although Ch'eng-kuan invoked this device in several of his writings, his most concerted development of it is a short essay entitled San-sheng yüan-jung kuan-men, which appears to have been written relatively late in his long career. Like many important Hua-yen texts, this essay seems to have been lost in China not long after its author's death. However, it was preserved in Korea and Japan and from the latter country was reintroduced to China in the last years of nineteenth century. Neither in China nor in the West has it yet been adequately studied. -/- The core of the present article is a critical edition of the Chinese text of the essay based on a careful comparison of all available versions and presented together with a copiously annotated English translation. The edition translation are preceded by a brief interpretive introduction and followed by an appendix in which are given: a detailed discussion of the work's textual history, detailed accounts of its various editions, and descriptions of its several surviving paraphrases and commentaries. (shrink)

Investigation into the True Teaching by Jens W. Borgland is a translation of the 10th century Jain philosophical Sanskrit text Satyasasanapariksa, composed by Vidyanandin. The text, which is incomplete, presents and refutes 12 Indian philosophical systems, the most important of which are Sautrantika and Yogacara Buddhism, Advaita Vedanta, Nyaya-Vaisesika, Samkhya, Mimamsa and Carvaka. Criticizing these from the standpoint of the Jain anekantavada (theory of manysidedness), Vidyanandin aims to establish the superior status of Jain philosophy. In addition to providing an English (...) translation of this text from the Sanskrit, with explanatory notes, the study places it in the context of Jain philosophy and investigates the arguments Vidyanandin employs in his refutations of his rivals. The doctrines Vidyanandin ascribes to his rivals are also examined and compared to presentations of their doctrines in secondary literature on Indian philosophy and in some cases to how these doctrines are presented in the original literature of the schools in question. Some issues are highlighted as requiring further research. Furthermore, the investigation shows considerable influence from Vidyanandin's predecessors Samantabhadra and Akalanka on Vidyanandin's argumentation. The clearest example of this influence is shown on comparing the sections of the Satyasasanapariksa in which Vidyanandin quotes the Aptamimamsa of Samantabhadra (ca 600 CE) with Akalanka's (ca 770 CE) commentary to these verses in his Astasati. (shrink)

This paper explores the coexistence of more apologetic and of more systematic considerations in the _Āpta-mīmāṁsā_ (ĀMī), _Investigation on authority_, of the Jain author Samantabhadra (530–590). First, this treatise offers a relevant case study to investigate the transition from a conception in which the reliability criterion of an authoritative discourse is the authoritative character of its utterer, to a conception in which the criteria of validity and soundness of the discourse itself are foremost. Second, Samantabhadra is one of (...) the first authors to undertake to logically prove the omniscience of the Jain teachers. And third, he links these questions to the celebrated Jain epistemological theory of non-one-sidedness. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:The Crisis of AuthorityBuddhist History for Buddhist PractitionersRita M. GrossAs a Buddhist scholar-practitioner who is also a feminist, I have multiple loyalties. The potential for conflict between different standards could be great, and I have often been asked whether my fundamental loyalty is to Buddhist standards and Buddhist teachers, to the values of feminism, or to standards of academic scholarship. This is a question I always refuse to answer (...) because I myself do not experience any irreconcilable conflicts among these loyalties. Nor is this lack of conflict due to my keeping these three interests separate in my thinking or my work. Clearly, I have been more than explicit in the way that I have brought feminist concerns into my writings on Buddhism, my work as a Buddhist dharma teacher, and other issues I have taken up as an academic scholar. Though most scholars would be much less familiar with how I teach when I function as a Buddhist teacher at a meditation center, I am well known in those circles as someone who brings nonsectarian, feminist, and academic perspectives to Buddhists teachings. Finally, I was “out” as a Buddhist practitioner in academia long before the current younger generation of Buddhist studies scholars who do not hide their Buddhist identities came to the fore. I was also explicit about the fact that I was using Buddhist ideas as tools with which to think about various contemporary issues long before the new movement to regard Buddhist critical and constructive thought as academically respectable emerged.The fact that it seemed natural to me to combine these various concerns in my work does not mean that others approved of these unorthodox combinations. I suspect that in worldly terms, I could have been far more successful had I not insisted on blending these concerns in my work. Certainly in my generation, feminists did not do well in the academy, as is witnessed by the fact that almost none of those pioneering feminists ever secured a prestigious position from which they could influence the next generation of scholars. Nor is there a place in the academy for Buddhist critical and constructive thinkers; neither theological schools nor departments of Buddhist studies want to hire us. I have also faced frequent marginalization in the Buddhist world, both for being an academic and for being a feminist—though what success I have in [End Page 59] that world is also due to the unique perspectives I bring to Buddhist teaching as an academic and a feminist. Finally, as one of the very few Buddhists among the feminist theologians, I have frequently been extremely frustrated by an establishment that is far more conventional, Western, and Christian than it thinks it is.In this paper, I have been asked to focus on issues of authority in Buddhism, and I will focus specifically on issues and experiences related to working within Buddhist systems as a Buddhist thinker and teacher. This paper will consist almost entirely of an “insider’s” perspective on Buddhism and authority, rather than a paper looking at Buddhism from the outside, though this insider is a scholar-practitioner, not a practitioner who gets all her information about Buddhism only from Buddhist sources and Buddhist teachers. Needless to say, as a Buddhist critical-constructive thinker who has taken on several nontraditional issues, I have my own tales of brushes with Buddhist authority. One of the themes I wish to follow in this paper is a discussion of how I have managed to say what I want to say, even when it contradicts traditional Buddhist understandings, while also managing to do a great deal of dharma teaching and attain status as a relatively senior teacher in two Tibetan Buddhist organizations in North America. In fact, very few Westerners who practice in a Tibetan lineage have a higher title than the title “Lopon,” which is much better known to Westerners by its Sanskrit equivalent, ācārya. This title was given to me by Her Eminence Jetsun Khandro Rinpoche. (Westerners practicing other forms of Buddhism have far more teaching authority than is generally the case for Westerners practicing a Tibetan form of Buddhism.) Nor have I survived as a... (shrink)

_In his book_ The Yogasūtra of Patañjali: A New Introduction to the Buddhist Roots of the Yoga System_, Pradeep Gokhale reveals a new picture of the Yogasūtra. He shows us, verse after verse, Buddhist influences on this classical text, which is usually seen as rooted in the Sā__ṃ__khya tradition. Gokhale does not merely argue that Patañjali borrows from Buddhist sources; he substantiates his argument with numerous detailed examples, traveling back and forth between Patañjali and Buddhist thinkers such as Asa__ṅ__ga and (...) Vasubandhu. Gokhale further argues that Vyāsa, Patañjali’s most authoritative commentator, makes a __political move in his commentary by distancing Patañjali from the Buddhists and situating him on the “right side” of the philosophical map, namely the __ā__stika side, the side of the loyalists of the Veda. __The implications are __far-reaching. First, __Patañjali and Vyāsa cannot be one and the same person, as claimed by solid Yogasūtra scholars such as Philipp Maas. __Second, the Patañjali of the Yogasūtra cannot be identified with his namesake, the __author of the Mahābhā__ṣ__ya, “The Great Commentary” on some of the themes discussed by Pā__ṇ__ini, the forefather of Indian linguistics. Patañjali, the linguist, is dated to the 2nd or 3rd century BCE; Patañjali of the Yogasūtra would now have to be pushed forward to the 5th century CE as Gokhale implies. Like Daya Krishna before him, Gokhale highlights the contribution of Buddhist texts and thinkers, often undermined or marginalized in the narrative of the history of Indian philosophy, at least as __it is __sketched in India. In this respect, I briefly visit Daya Krishna’s essay “Was Ācārya Śa__ṅ__kara responsible for the disappearance of Buddhist Philosophy from India?” (1999). Finally, I mention Karen O’Brien-Kop’s research. Like Gokhale, she makes an attempt to join the dots between Pātañjala-yoga and the Buddhist Yogācāra._. (shrink)

Understanding Sankara brings together the essays of the late Richard De Smet, SJ (1916-1997) on the great Indian Advaitin. With the help of his discovery of a doctrine of laksana (analogy) in Sankara, De Smet challenges the traditional interpretation of the acarya as an illusionistic mayavadin. He also attempts a dialogue between Sankara's Advaita and Christianity, especially as represented by Thomas Aquinas. The present collection makes available this important contribution to Indology and opens it up to dialectic and dialogue.

His Divine Grace Śrīla A.C. Bhaktivedānta Swami Prabhupāda was a highly revered ācārya from the Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava tradition, an important Hindu lineage of Kṛṣṇa bhakti that historically can be traced back to the venerated saint Śrī Kṛṣṇa Caitanya Mahāprabhu in sixteenth-century Bengal. Among a variety of other groundbreaking achievements, Bhaktivedānta Swami is notable for being the founding Ācārya of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness in New York City in 1966. At a surprising rate, it quickly became a (...) large international movement and, therefore, is an interesting case study for theologies of religion in the contemporary, global era. (shrink)

I examine a link between forms of argument and aesthetics that occur in "premodem" Westem and non-Western texts so as to build toward a universal theory of knowledge while taking postmodern criticisms seriously. Such a method allows for dialogue across time and space. Specifically, I focus on John Bunyan's "Apology" for the Pilgrim s Progress, published in 1674, and the Tibetan logician Acarya Dignaga's fifth-century treatise Hetucakra. Their claims to tmth proceed through allegory and poetry. This examination does not settle (...) existing debates; it brings a prior question more sharply into focus: In this time of cosmopolitan promise, how should considerations of universalism proceed? (shrink)

Dravyasamgraha is one of the finest classical Jaina texts, composed by His Holiness Acarya Nemichandra (c. 10th century CE). It deals primarily with the Realities (tattvas) that contribute to world process. The conduct required for attaining the ultimate goal of liberation follows from the knowledge of these Realities. Both, the transcendental and the empirical points of view, have been considered while explaining the nature of substances, souls and non-souls. It will be of much use to scholars worldwide interested in pursuing (...) the study of Jaina epistemology. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Rita Gross's Contribution to Contemporary Western Tibetan BuddhismJudith Simmer-BrownI first met Rita Gross on 2 January 1978, on the day of my arrival to take a professor's post at Naropa University. She opened the front door of Reggie Ray's house, where she was a houseguest. Little did I know how long and active our friendship would be, and I'm delighted to contribute to this very special panel on her (...) work. During the decades since, she has been the only person in my life who has intersected academia, dharmic realms, feminism, and interreligious dialogue, the four most important areas of my life; still, I think it is in the area of her scholarly and personal contributions to Tibetan Buddhism that I can speak most directly.When I met Rita, she was new to Tibetan Buddhism and had faced many challenges in her religious and spiritual journey. When she was excommunicated from the German Lutheran Church at age twenty-one, it was because she asked too many questions and expressed too many opinions. She has never stopped. She briefly explored Judaism, and then became enamored in her feminist studies with the goddess traditions of India, also an interest of mine. She has been able to bring her critical mind, her devotional heart, her connection to practice, and her appreciation of community directly into her life as a Tibetan Buddhist, and I have had the privilege of being by her side during most of it.After Rita began her meditation practice in the mid-1970s, she became a student of the great Kagyu-Nyingma master Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche, who is also my teacher. She and I have done meditation and study retreats from a few days to three months in length, sharing ritual practice, teachings and discussions, and challenging lives together as members of a vibrant spiritual community around a charismatic teacher. Together we served as the senior members of the Task Force on Women and the Feminine Principle in the large, international Shambhala community. Eventually, she took on another teacher, the female tulku Ven. Khandro Rinpoche, whom I also dearly love, and she has become one of her senior dharma teachers, or lopons. All of this has occurred while I became a senior dharma teacher, an ācārya, of Shambhala, where we both began.In her time in these two lively Western Tibetan Buddhist communities, she has [End Page 69] Buddhist-Christian Studies 31 (2011) 69-74. © by University of Hawai'i Press. All rights reserved. served as an accomplished dharma teacher and at alternating times a scholar, activist, and critic, while committing to thousands of hours of service to the development of a genuinely Western dharma. While doing this, she has made many contributions equivalent to those of many dedicated dharma students. My comments address the unique contributions she has made as a feminist scholar, historian of religion, and theologian to this western dharmic world.Ironically, our areas of specialty have also intertwined. Early in the 1980s we began a book project with SUNY that was to be a feminist critique of Buddhism (hers) and a Buddhist critique of feminism (mine). After several years of conversation and discussion, Rita and I decided that our agendas were sufficiently different and our styles sufficiently independent to warrant separate books. As our books emerged (mine two babies later than hers), our friendship has continued its evolution.The Prophetic VoiceThe first of Rita's unique contributions to Tibetan Buddhism in the West revolve around what she has called her "prophetic voice," a notion that first appeared in her landmark book, Buddhism after Patriarchy, in 1993. Rita has consistently asserted that the prophetic voice is "the missing element" in Buddhism, leading Buddhists to a kind of double standard in which teachings concerning compassion coexist with Buddhism's traditional disregard for social and political inequities in society. She claims that "Buddhists have generally not been willing to engage in social action to see the realization of that ethic" in these social and political realms, and speculates that for the Buddhist, individual liberation has taken precedence over societal transformation. Instead, Buddhists have a long-standing history of acceptance of the... (shrink)