Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorZapart, Jarosław
dc.date.accessioned2014-10-03T07:08:07Z
dc.date.available2014-10-03T07:08:07Z
dc.date.issued2013
dc.identifier.citationJarosław Zapart, „Buddyzm krytyczny” w wymiarze społecznym, filozoficznym i metodologicznym II, "The Polish Journal of the Arts and Culture" 6 (3/2013), s. 177-193pl_PL
dc.identifier.issn1643-1243
dc.identifier.urihttps://depot.ceon.pl/handle/123456789/5369
dc.description.abstractIn second part of the article the doctrinal aspect of Critical Buddhism is further elaborated upon, and the notion of Buddha-nature becomes the main topic. To balance the critique of Shirō Matsumoto, selected apologies of the Buddha-nature concept are presented. According to these, foxing is considered not as incompatible with emptiness (śūnyatā) and with the law of conditioned arising, but as a positive expression of both. At the same time it is shown as a powerful, expedient means (upāya), which can help overcome the nihilistic interpretations of śūnyatā, and should be seen as expanding the prajñāpāramitā teachings. An interpretation of the Tibetan master Rgyal tshab rje follows in a similar vein, clarifying that Buddha-nature is not an substantial entity, but a ‚germ of enlightenment’ whose nature is śūnyatā. Next, the stance of a Chinese treatise, Foxing lun, is taken into consideration. This treatise establishes Buddha-nature as an upāya in accord with conditioned arising, and as a non-substantial potential for awakening. It also adds an epistemic dimension to the discourse, stating that foxing is a mode of proper cognition, i.e. having Buddha-nature means seeing reality as-it-is (tathatā). Last but not least, the methodological aspect of Critical Buddhism is given a critical valuation. The movement is acknowledged for raising sensitive and un-debated issues in the field where religion and social practice meet, but it is also seen as too radical and authoritarian with its urge to establish a 'true' Buddhism by stripping it down to a handful of 'orthodox' concepts. As a conclusion, it is said that the biggest shortcoming of Critical Buddhism lies in blaming the social injustice entirely on the doctrine, and not on its social implementation.pl_PL
dc.language.isoplpl_PL
dc.rightsCreative Commons Uznanie autorstwa na tych samych warunkach 3.0 Polska
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/pl/legalcode
dc.subjecthakamaya noriakipl_PL
dc.subjectmatsumoto shiropl_PL
dc.subjectbuddyzm japońskipl_PL
dc.subjectbuddyzm krytycznypl_PL
dc.subjectnatura buddypl_PL
dc.subjecttathagatagarbhapl_PL
dc.subjectmahajanapl_PL
dc.subjectbuddyzmpl_PL
dc.title„Buddyzm krytyczny” w wymiarze społecznym, filozoficznym i metodologicznym IIpl_PL
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlepl_PL
dc.contributor.organizationUniwersytet Jagielloński, Instytut Filozofiipl_PL
dc.description.epersonJarosław Zapart
dc.rights.DELETETHISFIELDinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Creative Commons Uznanie autorstwa na tych samych warunkach 3.0 Polska
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Creative Commons Uznanie autorstwa na tych samych warunkach 3.0 Polska