Best regards, Andrew Stewart
Begin forwarded message: > From: H-Net Staff via H-REVIEW <[email protected]> > Date: November 28, 2020 at 4:48:17 PM EST > To: [email protected] > Cc: H-Net Staff <[email protected]> > Subject: H-Net Review [H-Buddhism]: Garfield on Sheehy and Mathes, 'The > Other Emptiness: Rethinking the Zhentong Buddhist Discourse in Tibet' > Reply-To: [email protected] > > Michael R. Sheehy, Klaus-Dieter Mathes, eds. The Other Emptiness: > Rethinking the Zhentong Buddhist Discourse in Tibet. Albany State > University of New York Press, 2019. 448 pp. $100.00 (cloth), ISBN > 978-1-4384-7757-2. > > Reviewed by Jay L. Garfield (Smith College, Doris Silbert Professor > in the Humanities and Professor of Philosophy, Logic and Buddhist > Studies) > Published on H-Buddhism (November, 2020) > Commissioned by Jessica Zu > > There is a lot to like about this scholarly anthology, and there is > nothing like it on the market. I will begin by saying that it is a > must-read for anyone interested in the history of Tibetan philosophy > or in the debates within Madhyamaka regarding whether emptiness is to > be understood as intrinsic nature (_rang stong_) or extrinsic (_gzhan > stong_), and whether emptiness itself is empty, or instead is a > positive phenomenon--a buddha-nature, or a domain of reality empty > only of the conventional, but not of its own pure nature. Each of the > thirteen essays collected here--all by leading scholars of Tibetan > Madhyamaka--is a significant contribution to the scholarly literature > on this topic, and taken together, they are truly impressive. > > Nonetheless, _caveat lector_! The blurb on the back describes the > book as "highly accessible," and the publisher claims that it would > be a good "textbook for teaching graduate and undergraduate courses > on Buddhist philosophy." That claim is seriously misleading. This > collection is uniformly highly technical, and each essay presupposes > that the reader is already pretty deeply immersed in the world of > Tibetan Madhyamaka studies. It is most definitely not aimed at a > student audience, nor is it suitable for classroom use except in > advanced graduate seminars. For the specialist in Tibetan philosophy > or in Madhyamaka studies more generally, however, it is a gold mine > of historical information, textual references, and very insightful > discussion of the philosophical issues and debates regarding the > _rang stong/gzhan stong_ controversy in Tibet. > > Three features of this volume deserve mention as outstanding virtues. > The first is the uniformly impeccable scholarship and erudition of > the contributions. Each essay is meticulously documented, and each > sheds new light on important texts. The translations are precise, > accurate, and clear. The references are complete and helpful. The > philosophical and historical acumen brought to the analyses is > impressive. There are no weak links. > > Second, the doctrinal coverage is remarkable, and indeed, one might > say, complete. This is not an easy thing to have accomplished, and > both the editors and the contributors deserve credit. Although some > associate the _gzhan stong _position exclusively with the Jonang > tradition of Dolpopa Sherab Gyaltsen, _gezhan stong _analyses are > present in most of the Tibetan traditions, and have different flavors > depending on the scholastic lineages in which they are articulated. > The fact that this collection comprises essays on _gzhan stong _in > the Nyingma, Sakya, Kagyu, and _Ris med _traditions, with careful > attention to specific figures and texts in those traditions, makes it > especially valuable. The anthology as a whole, by attending to these > different manifestations of _gzhan stong _thought, demonstrates the > richness of the insights it encodes, as well as the variety of ways > in which it can be articulated. It is also safe to say that very few > readers, if any, will be familiar with each of the philosophers and > texts addressed in this collection. So, nearly every scholar of > Tibetan philosophy will have something to learn from it. > > Third, the historical sweep of the anthology is truly impressive. > After a very helpful synoptic essay by the co-editors, we find > attention first to the fourteenth-century pioneer of this doctrine, > Dolpopa, but then a historical progression takes us through the > heyday of Tibetan debate on this topic in the fifteenth-sixteenth > centuries, and on to the nineteenth-century _Ris med _(nonpartisan) > movement, and even into some twentieth-century Tibetan thought > through consideration of the work of Dudjom Rinpoche. This second > dimension of diversity substantially enriches the presentation, > allowing the reader to appreciate the evolution of _gzhan stong > _thought and the impact of ongoing debates both between _rang stong > _and _gzhan stong _philosophers and among _gzhan stong _philosophers > themselves. The fact that this volume is so complete doctrinally and > historically sets it apart from any other resource on this topic. > > Consideration of each essay in this text would make this review far > too long, but it might be useful to cite a few as examples of the > value of the volume. David Higgins lets us know that _gzhan > stong_-like ideas were already present in Dzogchen accounts of > buddha-nature well before the time of Dolpopa, suggesting that > Tibetan philosophers were wrestling with these ideas well before what > is normally regarded as the start of this debate. Dorje Nyingcha > explores Dolpopa's disciple Garungpa's (fourteenth century) mapping > of accounts of buddha-nature onto the rubric of the three turnings of > the wheel of Dharma, showing how entwined this idea is with > hermeneutic theory. Klaus Dieter-Mathes explores the history of > _gzhan stong _thought in the Kagyu order. He shows that this approach > to _gzhan stong _is very different from that of the Jonang school, > and is akin to that developed by Sakya Chokden, albeit intertwined > with Mahāmudrā thought. This essay connects directly with that of > Yarolsav Komarovsky, who explains Sakya Chokden's understanding of > the _dharmadhātu._ Matthew Kapstein translates two little-known > Nyingma texts that demonstrate the influence that _gzhan stong > _thought had in that tradition as well as the distinctive inflection > it receives there, and discusses the reverberations of these ideas in > contemporary Nyingma thought. Douglas Duckworth, Dorji Wangchuk, > Marc-Henri Deroche, and Michael Sheehy address Mipham's understanding > of buddha-nature and its relation to his synthesis of Madhyamaka and > Yogācāra in the context of the _Ris med _movement of the nineteenth > and early twentieth centuries. > > As I have said, there is a great deal to applaud in this volume. But > there are also some problems to note, and I hope that by noting them > I can suggest practice to other editors of anthologies. First, the > volume is inconsistent both in its translation practice and in its > transliteration practice. Of course, we all know that translators are > willing to dig in their heels to defend a pet translation choice, or > a way of rendering Tibetan phonetically. But it is part of the job of > the editors to ensure that the authors conform to a uniform style in > both domains. > > While the primary readers of this book, as I suggested above, will be > Tibetologists or Buddhologists who can read through the diverse > transliteration schemes and translation choices one will encounter in > this volume, those who are not expert are bound to be confused. When > names are transliterated differently, one might wonder whether one is > reading about the same person or two different people. Is the > embodiment of reality the same as or different from the Dharma-body? > To be sure, sometimes these inconsistencies are reconciled by the > parenthetical insertion of the underlying Tibetan, but, alas, even > this is inconsistent. Some authors overuse the parenthetical Tibetan, > inserting this material when it is really otiose; others err in the > opposite direction, leaving the reader wondering what a particular > technical term in English is translating. Fortunately, the majority > are in the middle. In any case, it is clear that no uniform policy > was enforced on this matter as well, and it should have been. The > book would then be more accessible to the nonspecialist. > > My only other complaint is the way that notes are handled. The notes > are all endnotes, and they are located at the end of each chapter. I > think that in a text such as this, notes are most useful as > footnotes, so that one does not always have to have a moving bookmark > when reading. Barring this, at least put all of the notes together in > one place where they can easily be found. This is particularly an > issue in the case of this book, in which notes are used for a wide > variety of purposes, and again, are used in different ways by > different authors. Some notes are further explorations of an issue; > some simply provide the Tibetan that has been translated in the main > text. Some are references. So, one might fumble in the text trying to > find a note that one hopes will explain a difficult point, only to > find a reference; or, one might hope for a reference, and find > instead a Tibetan phrase. If the notes were at the bottom of the > page, these frustrations could be avoided. > > I was particularly disturbed by Dorji Wangchuk's practice of using a > footnote to document or to defend an interpretative claim, but which > contains only the Tibetan text of a different treatise than that > under discussion, with no translation or gloss. These notes are fine > for those of us who read philosophical Tibetan, but they really shut > out many readers of a book that is, after all, in English. These > notes should have been translated. Once again, I take the failure to > establish a reasonable and uniform policy regarding the use of notes > and the deployment of Tibetan in the text to be an abdication of the > responsibilities of editors. Editorial discipline would have made the > fine book even better. > > These last critical comments do not undermine my assessment of the > scholarship represented in this book, or of its value to our field; > they are only a plea that we work to make what we collect easier for > our readers to handle. This is an extraordinary anthology, and should > be on the bookshelf of anyone interested in Tibetan Buddhist > philosophy. > > Citation: Jay L. Garfield. Review of Sheehy, Michael R.; Mathes, > Klaus-Dieter, eds., _The Other Emptiness: Rethinking the Zhentong > Buddhist Discourse in Tibet_. H-Buddhism, H-Net Reviews. November, > 2020. > URL: https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=55910 > > This work is licensed under a Creative Commons > Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States > License. > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#3992): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/3992 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/78575667/21656 -=-=- POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. -=-=- Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/8674936/1316126222/xyzzy [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
