Based on the representative works of Nagarjuna, Buddhapalita, Bhavaviveka, Candrakirti, Santaraksita and Kamalasila ——the main members of Madhyamika of Indian Mahayana, and in terms of the explanation and analysis o...Based on the representative works of Nagarjuna, Buddhapalita, Bhavaviveka, Candrakirti, Santaraksita and Kamalasila ——the main members of Madhyamika of Indian Mahayana, and in terms of the explanation and analysis of the works of eminent monks of Tibetan Buddhism——Sa-skya-go-rab-vbyams-ba, tsong-kha-pa and so on, this paper tries to make the textual research on the process of development and the disintegration of Madhyamika of Indian Mahayana. Accordingly, the author points out that there emerged disintegration in Madhyamika of Indian Mahayana after Buddhapalita’s death. It ended during the period of Santaraksita and Kamalasita. Undoubtedly, the above-mentioned is the historical fact of the ideological development of Indian Mahayana. But the question is who unearths, sorts out, distinguishes and names the fact. The author believes that it was not the Buddhism scholars in India but the eminent monks of Tibetan Buddhism who did it. According to the historical fact of Madhyamika of Indian Mahayana, Tibetan scholars labeled the schools of thought as Svatantrika-Madhyamika, Svatantrika-Prasangika,Sautrantika-Svatantrika-Madhyamika,Yogacara-Svatantrika-Madhyamika and so on, and defined their models of academic research and topics in theory. The classification and definition done by Tibetan scholars is not declarative but creative work on theories of Indian Buddhism.展开更多
文摘Based on the representative works of Nagarjuna, Buddhapalita, Bhavaviveka, Candrakirti, Santaraksita and Kamalasila ——the main members of Madhyamika of Indian Mahayana, and in terms of the explanation and analysis of the works of eminent monks of Tibetan Buddhism——Sa-skya-go-rab-vbyams-ba, tsong-kha-pa and so on, this paper tries to make the textual research on the process of development and the disintegration of Madhyamika of Indian Mahayana. Accordingly, the author points out that there emerged disintegration in Madhyamika of Indian Mahayana after Buddhapalita’s death. It ended during the period of Santaraksita and Kamalasita. Undoubtedly, the above-mentioned is the historical fact of the ideological development of Indian Mahayana. But the question is who unearths, sorts out, distinguishes and names the fact. The author believes that it was not the Buddhism scholars in India but the eminent monks of Tibetan Buddhism who did it. According to the historical fact of Madhyamika of Indian Mahayana, Tibetan scholars labeled the schools of thought as Svatantrika-Madhyamika, Svatantrika-Prasangika,Sautrantika-Svatantrika-Madhyamika,Yogacara-Svatantrika-Madhyamika and so on, and defined their models of academic research and topics in theory. The classification and definition done by Tibetan scholars is not declarative but creative work on theories of Indian Buddhism.
