Doktrína a politika lhaské debaty: obraz samjáské tradice v kronice Baže

Název: Doktrína a politika lhaské debaty: obraz samjáské tradice v kronice Baže
Autor: Synek, Michal
Zdrojový dokument: Sacra. 2012, roč. 10, č. 1, s. 5-32
  • ISSN
    1214-5351 (print)
    2336-4483 (online)
Type: Článek
Licence: Neurčená licence

Upozornění: Tyto citace jsou generovány automaticky. Nemusí být zcela správně podle citačních pravidel.

Public debates of religious specialists could be used as a study example of relations between dogmatic and political aspects of religions. However, as the nature of scriptural sources is socio-economic, the interactions must be primarily studied not on the religious debates per se, but rather on interpretation of such events in historie and dogmatic sources. The aim of the present work is to demonstrate this thesis on the case of Lhasa debate, which took place in the 8th century Tibet and which has left enduring traces in the Tibetan religious consciousness. Based on methodological principles derived from Luther H. Martin's essay History, Historiography and Christian Origins (2000: 69-89) and analysis of dBa'bzhed (2000), one of the earliest "propaganda" texts written about Lhasa debate, of the present work seeks to define hypothetic Samye tradition, as a socio-religious group responsible for the creation and transmitting the chronicle. The tradition is then placed in the cultural and political context of its time and situated in the contemporary doctrinal spectrum. While this method seems to be appropriate for the study of the circles responsible for the creation of the text, about the event deseribed we learn practically nothing. This conclusion seems to be confirmed by a short comparison with Dunhuang document Dunwu dasheng zhengli jue, offering an alternative view of the controversy. Thus, not the actions of the participants of the historie event, but the creative act of the Tibetan and Chinese chronicles authors' constitute the res gestae of the student of religion investigating Lhasa debate.
[1] Bu ston, Rin Chen Grub. (1932). History of Buddhism in India and Tibet. Sri Satguru.

[2] dBa' bzhed. The Royal Narrative Concerning the Bringing of the Buddha's Doctrine to Tibet. (2000). Wien: Verlag Der Össtereichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

[3] bde skyid (ed.). (2009). rBa bzhed phyogs bsgrigs. Beijing: mi rigs dpe skrun khang.

[4] Kamalashila – Dalai Lama. (2003). Stages of Meditation. Ithaca – Boulder: Snow Lion Publications.

[5] Tsong-kha-pa. (2002). The Great Treatise of the Stages of the Path to Enlightenment. Volume III. Ithaca – Boulder: Snow Lion Publications.

[6] Wangxi. (1952). Dunwu dasheng zhengli jue (Ratification des vrais principes du Grand Véhicule d'Éveil Subit). In: Demiéville, P. Le Concile de Lhasa. Paris: l'Imprimerie Nationale de France, pp. 23–165.

[7] Martin, L. H. (2000). History, Historiography and Christian Origins. Studies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses, 29/1, 69–89. | DOI 10.1177/000842980002900105

[8] Whitehouse, H. (2004). Modes of Religiosity: A Cognitive Theory of Religious Transmission. Walnut Creek: Altamira Press.

[9] Bělka, L. (2009). Smějící se Buddha: Hwašang a jeho zobrazení. In: Postava šibala v asijské slovesnosti. Olomouc: Univerzita Palackého, pp. 67–73.

[10] Demiéville, P. (1952). Le Concile de Lhasa. Paris: l'Imprimerie Nationale de France.

[11] Gómez, L. O. (1983). The direct and gradual approaches of Zen master Mahāyāna. In: Gimello, R. M., Gregory, P. N. (eds.), Studies in Ch'an and Hua-yen. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press, pp. 69–167.

[12] Longchen Rabjam. (2002). The Practice of Dzogchen. Ithaca – Boulder: Snow Lion Publications.

[13] Kapstein, M. T. (2000). The Tibetan Assimilation of Buddhism. Conversion, Contestation and Memory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[14] Kapstein, M. T. (2008). The Tibetans. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

[15] Karmay, S. G. (1988). The Great Perfection. Leiden: E. J. Brill.

[16] Martin, D. (1997). Tibetan Histories. London: Syrindia Publications.

[17] Roccasalvo, J. F. (1980). The debate at bsam yas: religious contrast and correspondence. Philosophy East and West, 30/4, 505–520. | DOI 10.2307/1398975

[18] Ruegg, D. S. (1989). Buddha-nature, Mind and the Problem of Gradualism in a Comparative Perspective: On the Transmission and Reception of Buddhism in India and Tibet. London: School of Oriental and African Studies.

[19] Williams, P. (1980). Some Aspects of Language and Construction in the Madhyamaka. Journal of Indian Philosophy, 8, 1–45.

[20] Beckwith, Ch. I. (1987). The Tibetan Empire in Central Asia: A History of the Struggle for Great Power among Tibetans, Turks, Arabs, and Chinese during the Early Middle Ages. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

[21] Chan, V. (1994). Tibet handbook. A Pilgrimage Guide. Chico: Mood Publications.

[22] Coleman, G. (1993). A Handbook of Tibetan Culture. London: The Orient Foundation.

[23] Buswell, R. E. (ed.). (2004). Encyclopedia of Buddhism. New York: Macmillan Reference USA.

[24] Keown, D. (2003). Dictionary of Buddhism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[25] Kolmaš, J. (2009). Malá encyklopedie tibetského náboženství a mytologie. Praha: Libri.

[26] Kolmaš, J. (2010). Slovník tibetské literatury. Praha: Libri.

[27] Powers, J. (2009). Úvod do tibetského buddhismu. Praha: Beta.

[28] Williams, P. (2009). Mahāyāna Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations. London – New York: Routledge.

[29] Žagabpa, W. D. (2000). Dějiny Tibetu. Praha: LN.

[30] The Tibetan & Himalaya Library.

[31] Nitartha Tibetan Software. [16. 5. 2011].

[32] Rangjung Yeshe Wiki. Dostupné z: van Schaik, Sam.

[33] The Great Perfection and the Chinese Monk: rNyingmapa defences of Hwashang Mahāyāna in the Eighteenth Century.