This event is online with simultaneous translation to Mandarin and Cantonese, and can be attended via Zoom. Please use the Zoom Registration button to register.
The lecture series and this webinar will have simultaneous translation to Mandarin, Cantonese and English
About this Event
Buddhist concepts and practices have become increasingly popular and integrated into professional psychology. This book is the first to propose a theoretical orientation for counseling based on Early Buddhist teachings, and introduce it to counseling professionals for use in mental health treatment and practice.
Lee begins his book by outlining the essential concepts required to understand the Buddhist view of human nature and the world. He presents the Buddhist counseling model and suggests practices for the spiritual advancement of counselors, including self-cultivation plans, contemplative exercises, and different types of meditation. Lastly, he discusses how to apply the model in assessment, conceptualization, and intervention, and uses several case examples to illustrate the actual process.
The Guide to Buddhist Counseling (Routledge, 2023) is a go-to book in Buddhist counseling, this book is a valuable resource for Buddhist chaplains, counselors, and mental health professionals interested in using Buddhism in their clinical practice, as well as graduate students in religious studies and counseling.
About the Author
Dr. Kin Cheung (George) Lee
Kin Cheung (George) Lee is a Lecturer in the Centre of Buddhist Studies at the University of Hong Kong and a Licensed Psychologist in the State of California (PSY28022). He was previously the Director of Clinical Training at California School of Professional Psychology, Hong Kong campus, and the Assistant Chair of the Department of Psychology, University of the West.
At the University of Hong Kong, he is a founding member of the Master of Buddhist Counseling program as well as the Postgraduate Diploma in Professional Practice of Buddhist Counseling. He has published a number of academic articles in the areas of Buddhist mindfulness, Buddhist counselling, acculturation and family conflicts, and international student psychology.
His primary research focus is the integration of Early Buddhist teaching into a theoretical orientation for mental health treatment, known as the Note, Know, Choose model. Dr. Lee has recently published a textbook in Buddhist Counselling with Routledge, titled The Guide to Buddhist Counseling.
About the Moderator
Dr. Jessica Main
Dr. Jessica Main is an Associate Professor at the Department of Asian Studies, UBC. She began work at UBC in 2009 as the Tung Lin Kok Yuen Canada Foundation Chair and Director of UBC’s Buddhism and Contemporary Society Program.
In 2014, the program was renamed The Robert H.N. Ho Family Foundation Program in Buddhism and Contemporary Society and forms part of a network of academic institutions and scholars around the world. She wrote her PhD dissertation (McGill 2012) on the topic of descent-based discrimination, human rights, and Jōdo Shinshū Buddhism in Japan, looking especially at the problem of caste-based discrimination in Pure Land Buddhism against the burakumin.
She is currently working on a manuscript on this topic entitled, No Hatred in the Pure Land: Burakumin Activism and the Shin Buddhist Response in Interwar Japan. Her research interests include modern Buddhist ethics, social action, and institutional life in Japan, East Asia, and Southeast Asia.
We are delighted to host this virtual symposium entitled:
Other Power IV:
Its Nature and Role in Buddhist Awakening
About this Series
This virtual symposium is the fourth in a series of panels of scholars investigating various dimensions of the “Other Power” in Buddhism organized by Prof. Kenneth Tanaka. Links to the first three symposia as well as video recordings and text Q&A, may be found below.
In this fourth symposium in the series on “Other Power in Buddhism,” we are expanding our scope to include materials from Tibetan Buddhism while continuing to include new topics from India and East Asia. In the first presentation, we will learn that in India and early Tibetan Buddhism consecration is represented as the gateway ritual allowing an initiate access to the ritual practice and scriptural literature of the esoteric tradition. Supporting these consecrations are the Other Power of the Buddha and the lineage graced by the teachers. The second presentation will reveal that according to Tibetan Dzogchen texts, “other power” also refers to the idea that awakening cannot be achieved through the known self but rather is a natural state of being that is already present within each of us. The notion of inherent realization challenges the traditional view that realization is caused by individual effort and self-exertion. The third presentation will argue that the non-dual Mahayana philosophical underpinnings of the mantra teachings ultimately call into question the polemical claims about Other Power over Self Power approaches as well as the very idea that Self Power can exist without Other Power. The final presentation will show that practice is, as it were, enlightenment itself. So the practice is not separate from the world of enlightenment and is sustained, carried, and realized by the wisdom of Buddha or the support of Other Power.
About the Panelists and their Papers
Ronald M. Davidson, Professor, Fairfield University, Connecticut
Grace of the Teacher, Power of the Lineage: Abhiṣeka in India and Early Tibet
Consecration or initiation (abhiṣeka) is represented as the gateway ritual allowing an initiate access to the ritual practice and scriptural literature of the esoteric tradition, variously described as the path of mantras (mantranaya) or the lightning path (Vajrayāna). Both Indian and Tibetan Esoteric Buddhism identify the levels of consecration into the tradition as the blessing of the teacher and his lineage, a model that in some measure evolves from the power of the Buddha in earlier Mahayana documents. The earliest abhiṣeka was simply a consecration of the elements in the mandala, evident in the sixth century CE. By the middle of the seventh century, consecration rituals had substantially evolved into the grand multi-day celebrations found in the Dhāraṇīsaṃgraha translated by Atikūṭa in 654 CE. With the addition of later forms of consecration in the eighth to the tenth centuries, both the form and force of the ritual continued to develop. In Tibet, ritual systems diverged: The conservative traditions like the Sakya closely followed Indian models. On the other hand, alternative explanations, especially among the Nyingma, foregrounded specific Tibetan gnostic concerns that were evident in Tibetan apocryphal tantras. All these required a teacher graced with a lineage.
Ronald M. Davidson is Professor of Religious Studies at Fairfield University in Fairfield, CT. His Ph.D. was in Buddhist Studies at the University of California, Berkeley (1985). His publications focus on Indian and Tibetan esoteric Buddhist traditions and related matters. His publications include Indian Esoteric Buddhism: A Social History of the Tantric Movement (Columbia U. Press, 2002), Tibetan Renaissance: Tantric Buddhism in the Rebirth of Tibetan Culture (Columbia U. Press, 2005), several edited volumes, a series of focused studies on Dhāraṇī Literature, and studies of pre-tantric traditions in India.
Georgios T. Halkias, Professor, The University of Hong Kong
An Exploration of Other Power in the Great Perfection
There are elements similar to the concept of “other power” that are not explicitly discussed or defined in Dzogchen. The most important is the power of the realized guru who imparts pointing-out instructions (ngo sprod) and transmissions (rlung) to the disciple for recognizing rigpa, confers empowerments (dbang), grants blessings (byin rlabs), and gives out instructions (khrid). In treasure literature texts (gter ma), references are made to ḍākinī, female deities or enlightened beings linked to the five elements as supportive forces. They appear in dreams and visions as symbols of ultimate reality, offering guidance and transmitting teachings that enhance spiritual realization. According to Dzogchen texts, “other power” also refers to the idea that awakening cannot be achieved through the known self, but rather is a natural state of being that is already present within each of us. The notion of inherent realization challenges the traditional view of Buddhist realization said to be caused by individual effort and self-exertion, while also questioning the notion of agency by recognizing a self-emerging primordial awareness (rig pa) that underpins all mental and physical phenomena and goes beyond constructed boundaries between self and other.
Georgios T. Halkias is the Director of the Centre of Buddhist Studies at the University of Hong Kong. He earned his DPhil in Oriental Studies at the University of Oxford with an emphasis on Tibetan and Himalayan Buddhism. His dissertation turned into his first book, Luminous Bliss: A Religious History of Pure Land Literature in Tibet (Hawaii 2013). Since then, he has researched and published on Tibetan Buddhist literature and history, the interface between Buddhism and Hellenism, and Pure Land Buddhism in Tibetan contexts. His most recent publications include The Copper-Colored Mountain: Jigme Lingpa on Rebirth in Padmasambhava’s Pure Land (Shambhala 2022), Pure Lands in Asian Texts and Contexts: An Anthology (Hawaii 2019), and Religious Boundaries for Sex, Gender, and Corporeality (Routledge 2018). He currently serves as co-editor-in-chief for the Oxford Encyclopaedia of Buddhism.
Aaron Proffitt, Associate Professor, State University of New York, Buffalo
Other Power and the Mantra Teachings
Pure Land Buddhist thinkers have often categorized Shingon Esoteric Buddhism as a “self power” practice. Shinran (1173-1263) himself notes that many practitioners of Esoteric Buddhism ultimately turn to the Pure Land path at the end of their lives. When read in its broader context however, one finds that not only were the mantra teachings seen as a powerful tool for attaining rebirth in the Pure Land, and not only were some of the most important systematizers of East Asian Esoteric Buddhism also enthusiastically engaged in Pure Land practice throughout their lives, but moreover, the non-dual Mahayana philosophical underpinnings of the mantra teachings ultimately call into question polemical claims about Other Power over Self Power approaches, and as well even undermines the very idea that Self Power can exist without Other Power. In this talk, I will explore how the concept of Other Power functions within the Shingon tradition by exploring the thought of Dōhan (1179-1252), a Kōyasan scholar-monk living during the Kamakura Period. In addition to considering the many areas of “overlap” between Pure Land Buddhism and Esoteric Buddhism, this paper will also consider how, when taken at face value, premodern polemics and modern sectarianism may interfere with our ability to accurately engage with pan-Mahayana concepts like Other Power.
Aaron Proffitt is Associate Professor of Japanese Studies at The University at Albany-SUNY. He earned his Ph.D. in Buddhist Studies at the University of Michigan in 2015. His first book, Esoteric Pure Land Buddhism (Hawaii 2023), explores the ways that Buddhists in East Asia employed tantric thought and practice to attain rebirth in the Pure Land, and contains the first translation of Dōhan’s (1179-1252) Himitsu nenbutsu shō into a modern language. His research and publications have explored Esoteric Buddhism, Pure Land Buddhism, and the Lotus Sutra, and his current research explores the way that emptiness has been understood and employed within the Pure Land tradition.
Makio Takemura, Prof. Emeritus & Past President, Tōyō University, Tokyo
The Dimensions of Other Power in Mahayana Buddhism
It is regarded in Buddhism that one should practice by himself or herself to realize Buddhahood. However, in order to practice the Buddhist way, one is taught to first listen to the Buddha’s teachings, understand them well, and practice them. This is well known as the process of “listening-thinking-practicing” or “faith-practice-enlightenment.” The various teachings of Buddha that are the basis of practice are said to flow out from the realm of truth (dharma-dhātu-niṣyanda). This means that at the starting stage of the Buddhist practice, one should follow the voice of Oneness that transcends oneself and be guided by that Other Power. It may also be thought that Buddhist practices progress by self-power. However, the meaning of wisdom in the Six Paramitas or Perfections (the fundamental practice in Mahayana Buddhism) is that the practice itself has already reached the other shore of enlightenment. Dogen, the founder of Soto Zen school in Japan, made this very point in his work Shobogenzo. This means that practice is, as it were, enlightenment itself. So the practice is not separate from the world of enlightenment and is sustained, carried, and realized by the wisdom of Buddha. As seen above, even though Mahayana is often regarded as “Buddhism of self-power,” the goals of the practices are attained by the support of the Other Power. Nishida Kitaro, considered the greatest philosopher in modern Japan, stated that there cannot be a religion of self-power. I also think that Mahayana Buddhism is also a path that fundamentally follows the calling voice of the Oneness that transcends myself.
Makio Takemura is Prof. Emeritus & Past President of Tōyō University in Tokyo. He earned his Litt.D. in Buddhist Studies at Tokyo University in 1993 with the study of Mind-only philosophy. His dissertation was published as The Study of Three-nature Doctrine in Mind-only Teaching. Since then, He has also researched and published in the areas of Hua-yen Buddhism and Japanese Buddhism. His most recent publications include Mind-only Buddhism, Hua-yen Buddhism, Kukai’s Esoteric Buddhism and Nishida Philosophy (Tokyo, 2021), A Study of Dogen’s Philosophy (Tokyo, 2022), and A New Treatise on Kukai’s thoughts (Tokyo, 2023).
About the Moderator
Kenneth K. Tanaka is Professor Emeritus of Musashino University, Tokyo. He received his education at Stanford (B.A.), a temple in Thailand, Institute of Buddhist Studies, Berkeley (M.A.), Tokyo University (M.A.), and the Universiy of California, Berkeley (Ph.D.). After serving as Associate Professor and Assistant Dean at IBS for 11 years, and a resident priest for 3 years in a Shin temple in California, he taught at Musashino University for 20 years. He is the former President of the International Association of Shin Buddhist Studies (IASBS). His publications include The Dawn of Chinese Pure Land Buddhist Doctrine, Ocean: An Introduction to Jodo Shinshu Buddhism in America, and books in Japanese on Shin and American Buddhism. His books have been translated into Japanese, Chinese, and Portuguese. He is the 2017 recipient of the 27th Nakamura Hajime Eastern Study Prize, awarded by the Eastern Institute and the Indian Embassy, Tokyo.
This virtual symposium is the third in a series of panels of scholars investigating various dimensions of the “Other Power” in Buddhism organized by Prof. Kenneth Tanaka. Links to the first two symposia as well as video recordings and text Q&A, may be found below.
The panelists kindly agreed to share all presentations showed in this video, as well as handouts made available on the day. The PDFs may be viewed and download here:
Professor Lewis, are there any connections between traditions of Newar Buddhism and those of Jagannatha in Odisha? And a second question: do we find cases of Yamāntaka, or Mañjuśrī, in the place of Amitābha in Newar Buddhism? Does that substitution make any sense?
This is like my doctoral exam here. There is a connection between the Jagannatha cult that was brought to Nepal by the Malla Kings in the 17th, 18th century. There are some images and influences but no one has ever explored them, and I haven’t had graduate students, so I have never been able to send people off to discover the answer to some of these questions. And the second question: To my great sorrow at times, there is such a pluralism of Buddhist traditions and practices, that yes, Yamāntaka is there in the paintings, but the protector of Buddhist Monasteries in Nepal is Mahākāla and not Yamāntaka. The other protector is Ganesh. The gods are all Buddhist in the Buddhist Imagination–they’re just worshippers of the Buddha. But Mañjuśrī certainly is a kind of ancestral founder of Newar civilization. He comes and drains the lake that was once the Kathmandu Valley and then teaches the people who follow him to cultivate the land, etc. Yamāntaka is there, but only, I think, in Esoteric practices. – Prof. Todd Lewis
Professor Lewis, when chanting mantras in the Tibetan tradition, there is a lot of emphasis on the accompanying visualizations. Does Other Power in the dharanis/mantras spring more from the sound, the visualization, or a combination of both?
I think the primary is the sound. What I don’t know about—because I haven’t studied it or entered into the circle of initiation—is how tantric initiations scale them. That I am not sure about. So, relevant categories here are body, speech, and mind: I always tell my students to try to think through the categories of the tradition. And these categories are fruitful areas to ask questions, and to find answers.
Another thing in this question of other power. Tantric practitioners (‘vajrācārya’), such as those who practice the Mañjuśrīmūlakalpa (an early tantra that was later greatly elaborated), in Nepal, in Indic tradition, as well as lamas (a term that means tantric teacher, though it is mushed and used all over the place to mean almost any monk)—tantric practitioners believe that through body, speech, and mind, the mantras can pull the presence of the buddhas or bodhisattvas into their bodies, or into a vessel in front of them (such as a kalasha or water vessel). They believe they can compel them like the Vedic gods could be compelled to sit by and take the fire offerings in the fire sacrifice (homa).
The other power represented by buddhas or bodhisattvas is pulled close, made immanent right where the ritual is taking place. That real power to bring the gods down. These tantric practitioners use mudras (body), mantras (speech), and visualizations (mind) from the texts to say ‘do this’. And then, by having the buddhas or bodhisattvas present, they can then be petitioned for help. Of course, the high-level help is to have an enlightened presence in your stream of consciousness. That’s a transformative practice that calms the mind and discerns the real. That’s the way you do it. So, to me, what you all are working on in terms of other power is a very fruitful way of understanding this tradition and relating it to the larger scope of Mahayana Buddhist development. – Prof. Todd Lewis
Professor Jones, my question is about other power and Chinese Pure Land teachings, particularly the role of Master Yinshun 印順 (1906–2005), and his teacher, Taixu 太虛 (1890–1947). I’m interested in whether Master Yinshun had any opinion on other power and self power teachings.
I know more about Taixu than I do about Yinshun. I think the questioner probably knows I just recently published translation of Taixu’s “On the Establishment of the Pure Land in the Human Realm.” Taixu is much more of a traditionalist than we like to think he is, and even though he talks about founding the Pure Land in the human realm, he does not abrogate traditional Buddhist practices or goals. What Taixu says is that self power and other power work together. That’s been standard Chinese thought for quite a long time. They’re synergistic. The only mistake you can make is to rely on self power alone, thinking that by paddling your own canoe, you’ll make it all the way across the Pacific Ocean.
Taixu, in particular, saw the good that you can do in this world (self power) as actually preparing you for rebirth in the Pure Land, that you could get a higher-level rebirth there, according to the levels of the Contemplation Sutra. What he objected to was what he called the pessimism of some people and the optimism of others. The pessimists think this world is just a wreck and that there is nothing you can do for it, so let’s just escape to the Pure Land. The optimists think we can put together a Utopia in this world all on our own and make everything hunky-dory for everybody. In contrast, Taixu said the realistic thing to do is call on the power of buddhas to uphold you and to do what you can. For Taixu, doing as much good as you can do in this world activates the power of sympathetic resonance with the compassionate mind of Amitabha and solidifies your connection with him, making your rebirth in his Pure Land much more likely. Yinshun has a more dour view on all this. I would refer you to the writings of my friend, Stefania Travagnin, who’s spent a lot of time actually in his presence and has published on his work. I haven’t dealt deeply into him, as far as that goes. – Prof. Charles B. Jones
Professor McBride, I was struck especially by some of your translations, and some of these really interesting, lovely terms that you use, such as “elegant reward” and “continuation,” they were good food for thought. For example: “elegant reward,” which looking at the Kanji was kahō (花報, or kehō 華報) in Japanese. This usually refers to an intermediate or proximate reward, something closer in time compared with the final reward. Is that proximate or close sense used by Wŏnhyo when he talks about elegant reward? And “continuation” (K. sangsok 相續; S. anusamḍhi) is just so cool. I would love to hear more about your translation process.
“Elegant reward” is not a very common term that Wŏnhyo uses. Typically, he refers to “fruition rewards,” and kind of the typical things. What’s interesting is that I coined this sort of term, or at least that translation, back when I was in graduate school working on this particular translation. It was something that I developed with Robert Buswell, my mentor who just recently retired at UCLA. This is not a term that I found in other places in his writings; he uses it differently.
Now when it comes to “continuation” (相續), I also sort of coined this translation, because the term, xiangxu in Chinese, or sangsok in Korean, is a technical term. People have translated different writings of Tanluan and have used different expressions for this term. It is used by Tanluan and Wŏnhyo to signify a connection, or series, a continuing mental absorption. What’s interesting is that Daochuo, in roughly the same period, refers to this as a kind of “samadhi.” This sense of samadhi and the mental aspect is very important. Many of the early exegetes who are writing about Pure Land materials—and I think this goes back to some of the things that Professor Jones was talking about. The early scholars, all of them, talk about this as mental but that one can also chant the name. It’s really when you get to Shandao that he seems to emphasize the vocal or the verbal aspect. Early writers tend to emphasize the mental aspect of it—and this is where faith comes in—and that one must strongly believe in a way that is not broken or interrupted. This idea really suggests a continuous, thought process that sort of strung together over time, that never breaks. – Prof. Richard D. McBride
Professor Lewis, can you talk more about Other Power or its analogs in Newar Buddhism, insofar as these exist?
This was, of course, something I was very primed to see when I first went to Nepal. How widespread is the belief, for example, in this age being an age of decline (S. kali yuga). It’s not voiced regularly, this idea that we’re all screwed and living in decline, although I wonder how after Covid might have affected that. All the practices, from initiation in simple Avalokitêśvara meditation when one comes of age as a person, to all the optional practices that are out there involving the assistance of Bodhisattvas. Every one of them. So, the idea expressed in the Pāli Canon that one goes off alone like a Rhinoceros doesn’t work in these rituals. You need a guru and you need to cultivate a personal connection through body, speech, and mind with a kind of enlightened mentor. That seems to be the dominant paradigm.
In terms of initiation (S. adhiṣṭhāna) and transfer of merit, these are other areas that scholars can have trouble with. Certainly, if we looked at householders across the Buddhist world—and I do this with my students all the time—householders wanting to make merit to transfer to their dead relatives, especially newly dead relatives, is common everywhere. I did an exhibition about 3 years ago on Buddhist ritual art, and we called it “Dharma and Puṇya” (Sanskrit for “merit”) and I hadn’t really awakened.
Merit is at the center of most Buddhist mentality in my experience, certainly in Tibet, certainly in the Himalayas, certainly as I see and I read the ancient Indian records. How does one transfer merit? The Abhidharma literature has to stretch to figure out how it works, but nonetheless, it doesn’t really matter what the intellectuals said about it: people believe it. When you build a monument, when you build a stupa —so much of Buddhist civilization runs on the currency of puṇya, of merit transfer, and merit-making. And, if you transfermerit, you make more merit! So, it’s a wonderful expanding franchise of merit making. – Prof. Todd Lewis
***
I just wanted to add in here that this whole discussion of Other Power is often predicated on aspirations for enlightenment, or on the goals of those who want to be awakened and attain Buddhahood. They represent one group. But there are a whole lot of other people who look to the Buddha’s teaching and the Buddha’s power as Prof. Lewis talked about today. And I think that when you start bringing in transfer of merit and puṇya, there’s almost always some kind of power being exchanged and given. So, I think those of us who concentrate so much on soteriology need to expand and to look at Buddhism from a broader perspective. – Prof. Ken Tanaka
Perhaps this a silly question, but something I’m not yet clear on: Does Amida, according to the thought of Shinran, ever take corporeal form?
It’s not a silly question at all! The answer for Shinran, is yes. At various times, Shinran experienced his human teacher and master, Hōnen, as the emanation of Mahāsthāmaprāpta Bodhisattva and as Amitābha Buddha—but perhaps Professor Tanaka would like to add in here. – Prof. Jessica Main
***
I’m wondering what the questioner meant by corporeal form. I think, as you answered Prof. Main, that would be one way. But if the questioner meant whether Amida actually appears in human form (S. nirmāṇakāya) in the actual world in which we live, I’m not sure. I mean, there’s a whole range of ways in which we perceive Amida from the perspective of ultimate truth, as an emanation of tathātā and dharmakāya. I know that among some Pure Land Buddhists, especially in China, there is a birthday for Amida (S. Amitābha, Amitāyus; C. Amituo). But it is true that Amida is represented in most Pure Land traditions in iconic form, as statues and as pictures in a human or anthropomorphic form. – Prof. Ken Tanaka
***
One place where Amitābha seems to appear corporeally, fairly regularly, is when you’re on your deathbed, and he arrives to come get you (C. laiying, J. raigō 來迎). People actually see him coming. As a physical manifestation, it’s accompanied by visuals, sweet fragrances, sounds of music—all the senses are stimulated, when Amitābha comes to get the person who’s about to go to the Pure Land. So I’d say that’s pretty corporeal. – Prof. Charles B. Jones
***
I want to add that with Shin Buddhism there’s a tendency not to be too attached to the human form. On the Buddhist altar you have three forms of Amida: a statue, a painting, and a name. The one that is most emphasized is the name, Namu Amida Butsu. According to Wŏnhyo, focus on the name reduces our attachment to Amida in human form, because Amida is beyond human form. – Prof. Ken Tanaka
***
In some modern Buddhist traditions, like Won Buddhism, they only use the circle form (K. irwon sang 一圓相) and have tried to get rid of all other buddhas except for Śākyamuni. One thing that might be confusing the listeners is how mainstream East Asian traditions, when we’re thinking about China, Korea, and Japan tend to understand the three bodies. The representation of the dharma body (S. dharmakāya) is Vairocana Buddha, the representation of the reward body (S. saṃbhogakāya) is Amitābha Buddha, and the representation of the transformation body (S. nirmāṇakāya) is Śākyamuni Buddha. However, my understanding of Shinran, is that he equates Amitābha Buddha and the dharmakāya, which makes Amitābha analogous to the universe—the universe as it is that we’re all a part of. Is that what you understand, Prof. Tanaka? – Prof. Richard D. McBride
***
No, Shinran does not regard Amitābha as dharmakāya but as saṃbhogakāya. Shinran is clear that Amida Buddha emanates from the dharmakāya; tathātā dharmakāya is the ultimate reality from which Amida appeared and took form. He’s clear on that. – Prof. Ken Tanaka
***
In terms of chanting the name of Amitābha Buddha in Korean Buddhism, it is important to note that there was never any independent Pure Land tradition. My experience when visiting temples in China, particularly in the North, is that everybody chants “Namo Amituofo” and this is one of the interesting differences. In East Asia or in China, and in Korea Pure Land, the worship of Amitābha, devotion to Amitābha, is something that’s very widespread and it’s part of the mainstream practice, the practice tradition that people are doing.
And when it comes to Buddhist spells, and this gets back to some of the things that Prof. Lewis was talking about, the Pañcarakṣā is a great example that’s not well known. I’ve read Prof. Lewis’ book, and it’s been inspirational, because in Korea they have a text called the “Five Great Mantras” (K. Odae chinŏn). It’s not exactly the same as the Pañcarakṣā, but they have these spells. Most of them are associated with Avalokiteshvara, but clearly people are chanting these spells and these were important parts of their lives.
Typically in Western scholarship on Other Power, it’s usually been associated with Amitābha. Buddhist canonical texts are full of dhāraṇī, mantra, and spells, well beyond those connected to Amitābha. It’s interesting that the texts Buddhist monastics and laypeople use are often different from the ones that are in the ‘canon’ as scholars imagine it. There’s are teachings and mantra that are passed down from master to disciple, used by people in the tradition, whether they’re monastic or lay, to address the needs of people. They draw pieces and parts that might be in the canon, but clearly there are things that are being published for use by ordinary Buddhists. – Prof. Richard D. McBride
Is it that the idea of human insufficiency, total lack of ability to reach emancipation, was unique to Shandao and later echoed in Jōdo Shinshū by Shinran or do we find similar trends in Newar, other Chinese forms of Buddhism, Silla thinkers, and so on? In addition to this idea of a total human insufficiency, perhaps you might talk about the problem of the icchantika, or those who cannot be saved.
I wouldn’t go so far as to say that the idea of human insufficiency was taken that far by Shandao. I don’t think he had the view that human beings are ‘depraved.’ As a Chinese Buddhist, he probably had recourse to both Other Power and self power, indicating a belief in the capacity of some to reach emacipation. But the level, the state of non-retrogression—something that Prof. McBride emphasized—is something to keep in mind. In the grand scheme of things, the aim for most people regarding their ordinary lives in this world, this life, was obviously not birth in the Pure Land. Although some people say Pure Land is ‘here and now,’ traditionally Pure Land is after death. But what was available to people was the level of non-retrogression (S. avaivartika; J. futai 不退). And that level was what Shinran was aiming for, and shinjin realization and trusting is exactly that. It is a level of non-retrogression. – Prof. Ken Tanaka
***
I think the Tantric tradition is still very alive and well, and although the mountain is steep one can, with the help of a tantric master, still succeed in the spiritual quest. I think that the end result of Vajrayāna Buddhism dominating Newar and Tibetan society is a different historical arc and endpoint, compared to what we have in East Asia. – Prof. Todd Lewis
***
For the Korean tradition, both self power and Other Power are there, and the tradition that became dominant held that all beings possess tathāgata-garbha, and the idea of the icchantika, one who is completely lost and unable to achieve liberation—I don’t think that Korean thinkers saw themselves as completely lost. Now, whether lay people thought that, that might be another story, but this is why the rich ritual tradition, of which chanting the name of Amitabha is part, is so important: repentance rituals, rituals invoking mantras and dhāraṇīs, and all these sorts of things. This tradition gave people things to hold on to and these have continued from early times. They are even and going through a sort of a revival in contemporary Korean Buddhism. – Prof. Richard D. McBride
***
In surveying the literature, icchantika seems to function mostly as a bad name that you call somebody that you’re disagreeing with. But there’s a bigger issue here. Probably the least popular teaching that Buddhism ever came up with was that it takes three incalculable eons to achieve full liberation, and the 1,000 lifetimes that the Buddha himself spent climbing that mountain. Nobody wanted to hear that. Absolutely nobody. And the whole history of Buddhism is looking for workarounds to kind of get to the goal a lot faster. So, in Chan Buddhism, the way you deal with it is to say “well, you’re already there, actually, you just don’t realize it”. And that’s the only problem you have to overcome. In Esoteric Buddhism, you say “well, with the right adhiṣṭhāna and absorbing the essence of the guru, or whatever you do, you hot wire the whole process of sokushin jōbutsu 即身成仏, you ‘become a Buddha in this very body’”. In a way, Pure land is the only tradition that really came clean that yes, it does take a long time and lots of effort. What it promised was not a shortcut to the goal, but a perfect place to go to pursue it with no distractions, with a Buddha right there to teach you. But Pure Land still said, if you’re born at the lowest level of the low, you’re going to be there for a really really long time. Still, at least you’re assured of finally making it. So, of all the traditions, Pure Land is one that really kind of held on to the difficult and long path to enlightenment. It’s really hard, and it’s going to take a long time. But don’t worry, we’ve got a good place for you to go do it. – Prof. Charles B. Jones
Leading scholars, Sangha Bhikkhus (Monks), and community leaders will participate in a facilitated dialogue on the vision of Dr. Ambedkar, as he outlined it in his monumental publication, The Buddha and His Dhamma (1957). The discussion will also include how Buddhism is facilitating a peaceful and democratic transformation and provides pathways for human emancipation globally.
Panelists: Ven. Bhante Dr. Saranpala, Rr. Rajratana Ambedkar, Mr. H.L. Virdee, and Mr. Raj Kumar Oshoraj
Moderator: Dr. Jessica L. Main
Ven. Bhante Dr. Saranpala
Consul-General Manish
Ven. Bhante Dr. Saranpala starts the session by leading the chanting of the three refuges and five precepts
Panelists (from left to right): Mr. Raj Kumar Oshoraj, Mr. H.L. Virdee, Dr. Rajratana Ambedkar, Ven. Bhante Dr. Saranpala; and Moderator, Dr. Jessica Main
Group photo after the event
About the Symposium Series
The 2023 Symposium is part of an annual celebration of Dr. Ambedkar, with a three-year hiatus due to the pandemic.
Dr. Kalzang Dorjee Bhutia (University of Southern California) lead this interdisciplinary workshop connecting three different methods: firstly, the study of material religion; secondly, scholarly conversations around Buddhist communities and climate change; and thirdly, doing community-based collaborative projects in Buddhist studies. The workshop guided participants in creating biodegradable prayer flags as a way for them to think about the connected issues of sustainability and waste in global ecosystems, and also as a way to consider the importance of traditional craft knowledge as a method for the study of Buddhism.
It was discussed historical examples of prayer flag materials and texts, and reflected on how these aspirations have changed over time to reflect contemporary concerns. We also discussed work with community-based organizations in India and Nepal who are engaged with the creation of biodegradable prayer flags and consider the broader implications of these debates for Indigenous futures in the Himalayas.
Dr. Kalzang Dorjee Bhutia explains concepts before making the flags
This event is hybrid, and can be attended in person or online via Zoom. However you choose to attend, please use the Zoom Registration button to register. In person attendees will be asked to follow all current UBC pandemic health guidelines in response to COVID 19.
Leading scholars, Sangha Bhikkhus (Monks), and community leaders will participate in a facilitated dialogue on the vision of Dr. Ambedkar, as he outlined it in his monumental publication, The Buddha and His Dhamma (1957). The discussion will also include how Buddhism is facilitating a peaceful and democratic transformation and provides pathways for human emancipation globally.
Panelists: Ven. Bhante Dr. Saranpala, Rr. Rajratana Ambedkar, Mr. H.L. Virdee, and Mr. Raj Kumar Oshoraj
Moderator: Dr. Jessica L. Main
About the Panelists
Ven. Bhante Dr. Saranpala
Dr. Saranpala has been a Buddhist monk for over 35 years, as well as a global public speaker, mindfulness and meditation teacher, and founder of the annual Toronto conference, Canada: A Mindful and Kind Nation. He started at the age of 10 as a novice monk in Bangladesh, followed by monastic and secular education in Sri Lanka and academic training at the University of Toronto and McMaster University in Ontario, Canada, obtaining Bachelor’s, Master’s, and Doctoral degrees in Religious Studies. Dr. Saranpala teaches Dhamma and meditation, transmitting the universal message of love, kindness, compassion, understanding and wisdom and is recipient of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canada 150 Medal and Sesquicentennial Community Award from the Government of Canada; the Spirit Award from the Government of Ontario for humanitarian services and was appointed World Civility Ambassador by iChange Nations for kindfulness/mindfulness work.
Dr. Rajratana Ambedkar
Dr. Rajratna Ambedkar is an active socio-political and Buddhist activist. He is the great grand nephew of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, and a fourth-generation member of the Ambedkar family. He received a degree from Mumbai University in 2003, and a DBM degree from the Institute of Chartered and Financial Accountants of India, Dehradun University, in 2008, followed by an ADM degree in 2008 and MBA degree in 2010 from ICFAI University. He currently serves as the President of the Buddhist Society of India (BSI) and through this society, spreads the thought of Bodhisattva Dr. B.R. Ambedkar and Lord Buddha to the people of India and Standing Committee Secretary at The World Fellowship of Buddhists in Bangkok, Thailand.
Mr. H.L. Virdee
Mr. Harbans L. Virdee moved to the UK at the age of 15 with his father in 1966 and slowly became involved in the Ambedkarite movement in the UK and the cause of Buddhism.
He became treasurer of Bharatiya Buddhist Council UK in 1973. In 1976, he founded the Ambedkar Buddhist Association of London (currently, the Buddha Dhamma Association). He served as presiden from 1991 to 1994 of the of the Federation of Ambedkarite and Buddhist Originations (UKFABO). And in 1999, he constructed the Sanghamitta Vihara (Satnampura, Phagwara, Punjab) to contribute to the flourishing of Buddhism. In 2008, he helped purchase land on the main road from Chennai to Pondicherry for the construction of a Buddhist school and Vihara. He has also helped to purchase land near Jetvan, Shravasti, and constructed the first and only Bhikkhuni training centre in India. Mr. H.L. Virdee was recognized for “Outstanding Buddhist Leadership” by Thai King’s Guru in 2016. In 2020, he helped found “Dhamma Waves” towards the flourishing of Buddhism around the globe. He has written over 12 books and numerous articles on Buddhism and Dr. Ambedkar’s mission and is currently the International Coordinator for FABO, travelling all over the world to unite the Ambedkarite Buddhist community.
Mr. Raj Kumar Oshoraj
Mr. Raj Kumar Oshoraj has lived in Canada for 25 years, and has organized several programs for the Buddhist community at the local level, as well as the celebrations held by the Canadian Parliament. He had the opportunity to participate in the Buddha Jayanti celebrations at UNO Headquarters in New York. In 2023, he traveled to India and participated in the National Buddhist Conference. Mr. R.K. Oshoraj wants to cultivate Buddhism in society, particularly among the Indian diaspora and, more specifically, in the Punjab state of India. With this goal, he is currently working on projects to increase the available Buddhist literature in Punjabi language, raise awareness of Buddhist identity and importance of indicating their identity as Buddhists in the next census. Still working towards his goals, Mr. R.K. Oshoraj played a leading role in raising funds from Canada to build Viharas (Buddhist Temples) in Punjab and has remained involved in ensuring their active participation in society. He has supported Buddhists from all around the globe by participating in their programs and jointly organizing Buddhist programs with them in Canada.
About the Moderator
Dr. Jessica Main
Dr. Jessica Main is an Associate Professor at the Department of Asian Studies, UBC. She began work at UBC in 2009 as the Tung Lin Kok Yuen Canada Foundation Chair and Director of UBC’s Buddhism and Contemporary Society Program. In 2014, the program was renamed The Robert H.N. Ho Family Foundation Program in Buddhism and Contemporary Society and forms part of a network of academic institutions and scholars around the world. She wrote her PhD dissertation (McGill 2012) on the topic of descent-based discrimination, human rights, and Jōdo Shinshū Buddhism in Japan, looking especially at the problem of caste-based discrimination in Pure Land Buddhism against the burakumin. She is currently working on a manuscript on this topic entitled, No Hatred in the Pure Land: Burakumin Activism and the Shin Buddhist Response in Interwar Japan. Her research interests include modern Buddhist ethics, social action, and institutional life in Japan, East Asia, and Southeast Asia.
About the Symposium Series
The 2023 Symposium is part of an annual celebration of Dr. Ambedkar, with a three-year hiatus due to the pandemic.
I’m doing my PhD research on the mental factors discussed in the Abhidharmasamuccaya within the Tibetan Tradition. My question is about possible sources in the sutras for the Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya (ABK) listings of mental factors. Any suggestions you have would be most appreciated. I am most interested in sūtra source(s) for the 48 mental factors (caitasika) section of the first chapter of ABK.
Ching Keng:
Did you mean the scriptural sources behind the classification of mental factors (caitasika, caitta) as a category among the division of dharma into five categories? Lin Qian’s dissertation might be a good place to start. (Qian, Lin. 2015. “Mind in Dispute: The Section on Mind in Harivarman’s Tattvasiddhi.” Ph.D. diss, University of Washington.)
Weijen Teng:
For scripture sources used by the ABK, you can also consult Bhikkhuni Dhammadinna’s research on Śamathadeva’s Abhidharmakośopāyikā-ṭīkā (Upāyikā in short), the Chos mngon paʼi mdzod kyi ʼgrel bshad nye bar mkho ba zhes bya ba in Tibetan (Derge no. 4094 / Peking no. 5595), or “The Essential Companion to the ‘Treasury of the Abhidharma’”, which is a handbook for the study of the Abhidarmakośabhāṣya that quotes the passages from the Mūlasarvāstivāda Tripiṭaka cited by Vasubandhu.
Bibek Sharma:
I was responsible for the first chapter, but I do not remember if I had to go to any āgamas or sūtras, to quote any of the things in terms of mental factors (caitasika). But at the same time, I have a problem with the very premise of this question in the sense that we often have this idea in the modern scholarship that the sūtras are the real words of Buddha, and then we kind of take Abhidharma and all the treatises as things that were developed later on. We take sūtras as the most authentic, and then we ignore other sources, for example, abhidharma or the commentaries. Whether we agree or disagree on this point, however, the way things were transmitted in India was never clear, and it is still not very clear. India is a place where, when you buy one thing, you get one free; that is, when there is a text there is always a commentary. That’s the convention. Now, we working with this ancient convention, developed in a different space and time from the conventions that we invented in modern scholarship. So, when we try to look at the references made in the Caitasita section, we don’t find anything in āgamas and sutras. But perhaps we do find those references in the abdhidharma and the commentaries, and so on.
Ching Keng:
I’d like to add two points here. First, is that this practice of dividing all the dharmas into five categories was not the oldest Buddhist tradition. It arose along with the Abhidharma tradition, but I don’t know the precise time. As far as I can recall, ancient treatises actually trace all these issues back to the āgamas. So, I think that’s definitely a good place to start. And second, if you want to investigate why there are ’48’ categories in the Caitasita section, rather than 50 or more–that’s a separate issue. So, there are actually two separate issues here.
How do you handle footnotes in your translation, especially with regard to important information found in commentaries?
Jeffrey Kotyk:
Well, I translated the Madhyāntavibhāga-bhāṣya, which has been published now. The policy was to minimize footnotes unless they are necessary. But in some cases, it is necessary to clarify the meaning. For example, using a footnote to add a bit of commentary as a translator as to what exactly the paragraph is saying, or to clarify that there’s a large departure from what the Sanskrit is saying, or in other cases, what a parallel translation is saying. The policy of the BDK translation series is to minimize footnotes and to make it as readable as possible for a general audience. But we still do use footnotes, or rather, they become endnotes. We try to avoid a massive scholarly apparatus, where on every page you have half a dozen footnotes with Sanskrit diacritics, and so on. So, while we do have endnotes, the apparatus is not as extensive as it would be in an academic translation.
Ken Tanaka:
Thank you for that. Actually, at the beginning of the project – over thirty years ago – the policy was not to have any notes at all. That led to a lot of controversy between the translators and the BDK. And I was in attendance for this controversy back twenty-five years ago in San Francisco, and it got very heated. But, in the end, the scholars won out arguing that it’s impossible to translate these difficult texts without adding notes.
Bruce Williams:
We probably all have more extensive notes in our own versions that we might want to do something else with. One device I used to cut out a lot of the footnotes was an English glossary with the Sanskrit and Chinese in it, with names and things like that. But it’s a technical text. Even when you try to put it into English as clearly as possible, it’s just not clear what in the heck is going on. Sometimes you really need a footnote to just communicate meaning. We’re still discussing how to deal with the apparatus on this text and I’ve tried to keep my footnotes to a minimum: things like textual changes, things that are quite different than another text, or something that I can’t put into a glossary. But I still end up with about probably thirty footnotes per chapter. I have no idea if that’s too many or not, but this is something I’m sure of: translation committees and editorial committees will have something to say on footnotes, but I do try to keep them to a minimum.
Bibek Sharma:
I would say a text like Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya, which is so difficult and so profound, needs footnotes. We also need to follow the policy of BDK, as Ken has already mentioned. It is a very difficult compromise for us as translators, because there are many elements that we would like to explain. But at the same time the footnotes would be very long to unpack certain passages. The reason for that is we are translating from Xuanzang–which has never been done before. Louis de la Vallee Poussin’s translation, which we have already talked about, and subsequent translations that replicate Poussin’s translations provide extensive footnotes for us to consult. So, it’s a very difficult compromise that we have to come up with. We do have footnotes, but we keep them as minimal as possible.
Many thanks indeed for these very helpful presentations and the overall endeavor. I wondered if you might briefly give some illustrations or characterize the way in which de La Vallée-Poussin does not always align with the original Chinese (as mentioned in the introductory talk)?
Bruce Williams:
I mentioned a couple examples earlier where de La Vallée-Poussin shifts between Xuanzang and Paramārtha, and that he will not footnote anything that’s different in Xuanzang if he’s following Paramārtha. He also puts lots of summaries in, little editorial inclusions. I remember one section where there was a long paragraph. And I couldn’t figure out where he got it from, and then, after I read the paragraph, I realized that what I was translating was really an answer to the paragraph. He inserted a paragraph, I think, entirely on his own, to set up the answer that was in Xuanzang’s translation. It seemed to me that he was providing context for a reader, what might be a little gray box in a textbook, or something like that. And, again, de La Vallée-Poussin tends to summarize Xuanzang, providing the argument but no sense of the Xuanzang’s language or exact wording. This is constant when dealing with de La Vallée-Poussin. Especially in the case of argument: that’s where he is really excellent. I mean, he has a deep understanding of Abhidharma, and the French and English translations of de La Vallée-Poussin convey the main points of the argument and help the reader grasp it. Having that knowledge conveyed it’s easier to go back and translate in a way more faithful to the original wording. There are places where I just look at it and I have no clue what a given paragraph is about. Eventually I do–and de La Vallée-Poussin is extremely valuable for providing that.
Bibek Sharma:
I want to speak further on two myths that we have in the modern scholarship. The first myth: that de La Vallée-Poussin’s translation is a faithful translation of the Chinese version. Bruce just described how this is not fully the case. The second myth: that Xuanzang is also somehow very faithful to Sanskrit texts. I do not agree with that entirely. Of course, he wanted to be faithful to the source text. That is his convention. But it does not mean he was translating solely the exact source wording of a text into Chinese–we do not know precisely which text he was using. I believe Xuanzang had many sources. He was at Nālandā University for 17 years. Perhaps he had more resources at that time, sub-commentaries, and also the teachers, who must have told him many things. The way of learning and transmitting in India was through the teacher, so he might have heard much from his teachers. From these sources, he translates his own Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya, one that is readable in Chinese, but also faithful to diverse Indian sources. So, of course Xuanzang was a genius. I’m sure he knew translation conventions; he knew all the translations, because when we talk about the Chinese we have a layer of different conventions of translations and then every translator had their own convention and used their own style. He was all aware of this, but at the same time he wanted to be bit more faithful to the Sanskrit, and its compounds. So, he invented his own way of translating things using many resources. But when we read his translation centuries later, without any kind of explanation, knowing how he designed his conventions and which were his sources–that becomes a difficult task.
Weijen Teng:
At the beginning of the chapter I have been translating, “On the Exposition of the Cognition”, Xuanzang seems to have added a few lines to provide some background information to the subject: Xuanzang added that there are two kinds of understanding (prajñā), namely the the uncontaminated (anāśrava), and the contaminated (sāśrava). This information does not appear in the extant Sanskrit text we have now, nor does it appear in Paramārtha’s translation. Poussin did not translate this sentence. This shows that Poussin’s translation is not always as faithful to Xuanzang’s translation, as we expected. Nonetheless, I agree with Bruce. I think this is Poussin’s intentional decision. Poussin would sometimes deviate from Xuanzang’s translation for the purpose of being closer to the Sanskrit version of the Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya.
One question I have is about Xuanzang’s and Paramārtha’s approaches to translating Sanskrit grammatical elements. May I ask how distinctive their approaches are? In addition, do we have any clues to when the practice started?
Weijen Teng:
Although I mentioned this in my presentation, thus far I haven’t spotted any significant differences overall between Paramārtha’s and Xuanzang’s translation grammatical expressions. They are quite similar and I think Xuanzang might have consulted Paramārtha’s translation, keeping his translation of this grammatical expressions. Perhaps Xuanzang changed them slightly when he felt his translations were better. It was common practice for medieval Chinese translators to consult previous Chinese translations of Buddhist texts, but I do not know for certain that Xuanzang had access to Paramārtha’s text itself. Maybe Keng Ching or Bibek Sharma could speak to that.
In terms of when this practice started. Historically, as I mentioned, we have to consult all other Chinese translations to examine this. But I think, right now, if we can identify those particular Chinese characters or expressions that are actually the translation of Sanskrit grammatical elements, then we can use them to search digitally through other translations–and a fuller picture might emerge.
Bibek Sharma:
In textual studies, this is the number one question: Are we sure that Xuanzang and Paramārtha were using the same source text? We are not very sure. We do not have the evidence to say definitively that they are using the same text, or same transmission. What we see with the Indian texts, for example, when we compare the Pāli sūtras and the āgamas–and then examine the same sūtra, with the same content–is that they deviate because the transmission in each case was different. As well, there are different versions of the same sūtra. So, I’m not sure whether they were using the same text.
In terms of their approach, the way Paramārtha translates and the way Xuanzang translates are different in convention. Paramārtha tends to use more characters. He did not invent the four-character convention that Xuanzang strictly followed. Although I am not entiredly sure, I would still say that he had Paramārtha’s translation in his hands, and he was improving upon it. He was making it more concise. He was efficiently translating those things in four characters, using all the previous translations in Indic languages as well as Chinese. This is a very tentative kind of opinion, not based on firm evidence because we don’t know which manuscript they were using.
Bruce Williams:
I want to add a quick note to this discussion. When I lined up the Sanskrit of the kārikās with Paramārtha’s and Xuanzang’s translations, while there’s obviously a lot of differences in the Chinese, it’s not uncommon to find whole couplets that are identical between Paramārtha and Xuanzang. To me, that is beyond any kind of probable happening, that they would just spontaneously come up with the same translation. And just in the two chapters I’ve done this, it is common–at least in terms of whole couplets, but definitely in terms of whole lines–to find identical translation, with perhaps a change of one character. So, at least in terms of the kārikās, to me it seemed obvious that Xuanzang knew Paramārtha. And if he knew the kārikās he would have known the text. That is my impression.
This event is hybrid. However you choose to attend, please use the Registration button to register. In person attendees will be asked to follow all current UBC pandemic health guidelines in response to COVID 19.
Asian Studies Auditorium – 1871 West Mall, Vancouver, BC | V6T 1Z2
About this Event
This interdisciplinary workshop will connect three different methods: firstly, the study of material religion; secondly, scholarly conversations around Buddhist communities and climate change; and thirdly, doing community-based collaborative projects in Buddhist studies. The workshop will guide participants in creating biodegradable prayer flags as a way for them to think about the connected issues of sustainability and waste in global ecosystems, and also as a way to consider the importance of traditional craft knowledge as a method for the study of Buddhism.
We will discuss historical examples of prayer flag materials and texts, and reflect on how these aspirations have changed over time to reflect contemporary concerns. We will also discuss work with community-based organizations in India and Nepal who are engaged with the creation of biodegradable prayer flags and consider the broader implications of these debates for Indigenous futures in the Himalayas.
About the Speaker
Dr. Kalzang Dorjee Bhutia (University of Southern California)
Kalzang Dorjee Bhutia is a visiting fellow in the East Asian Studies Center at the University of Southern California.
He is from west Sikkim, and works on the more-than-human histories of the Kanchendzonga region that he grew up in.
He is currently working on a monograph on the environmental history of Sikkimese Buddhism and is engaged in making biodegradable prayer flags for local communities.
This event is hybrid. However you choose to attend, please use the Zoom Registration button to register. In person attendees will be asked to follow all current UBC pandemic health guidelines in response to COVID 19.
Asian Studies Room #604 – 1871 West Mall, Vancouver, BC | V6T 1Z2
About this Event
The atelier is that of the Newar Buddhist priest, scholar, raconteur, translator, and print pioneer Niṣṭhānanda Bajrācārya, operating in 1914 Kathmandu. The canon is crafted out of what the Newar Buddhist literature has to offer for a translation of these sources into modern literary Newar. The narrative is the Buddha’s life story.
Drawing on materials from his own atelier, Christoph Emmrich will lead the group through Niṣṭhānanda’s translation and expansion of the Lalitavistara, keeping a close eye to some of its Sanskrit sources. This guided tour will focus on the transitional in Niṣṭhānanda’s text, directing the participants’ attention to shifts between speech and script, print and manuscript, translation and commentary, as well as between Sanskrit and both Classical and Modern Newar.
About the Speaker
Christoph Emmrich (Associate Professor of Buddhist Studies at the University of Toronto)
Christoph Emmrich (Ph.D. University of Heidelberg, 2004) is Associate Professor of Buddhist Studies at the University of Toronto. He engages with fields as diverse as Nepalese and Burmese Buddhism, Sanskrit, Pali, Newar, Burmese and Mon literature, and Tamil Jainism. He works with ritual specialists, girl children, and young women among the Newars in the Kathmandu Valley (Nepal) and in Yangon, Mandalay, and Mawlamyine (Burma) studying their involvement in Buddhist and Hindu practices related to marriage, coming-of-age, gender, childhood, and the writing of ritual. He has worked on canonical Theravāda and Śvetāmbara Jain doctrines of time, as well as on the history of Jain literature and religious institutions in North and South Arcot, Tamil Nadu. In his work, he addresses questions of resemblance and resistance, transfer and translation, mimesis and memory, institution and event. His latest book Writing Writes for Newar Girls: Marriage and Menarche in Kathmandu Valley Ritual Manuals is forthcoming with Brill. Currently, he is leading a team, located at the University of Toronto, the University of Virginia, and in Kathmandu, that is compiling the Newar Online Dictionary (NOD), the first academic electronic meta-dictionary of classical and modern Newar.
Kenneth K. Tanaka is Professor Emeritus of Musashino University, Tokyo. He received his education at Stanford (B.A.), a temple in Thailand, Institute of Buddhist Studies, Berkeley (M.A.), Tokyo University (M.A.), and the Universiy of California, Berkeley (Ph.D.). After serving as Associate Professor and Assistant Dean at IBS for 11 years, and a resident priest for 3 years in a Shin temple in California, he taught at Musashino University for 20 years. He is the former President of the International Association of Shin Buddhist Studies (IASBS). His publications include The Dawn of Chinese Pure Land Buddhist Doctrine, Ocean: An Introduction to Jodo Shinshu Buddhism in America, and books in Japanese on Shin and American Buddhism. His books have been translated into Japanese, Chinese, and Portuguese. He is the 2017 recipient of the 27th Nakamura Hajime Eastern Study Prize, awarded by the Eastern Institute and the Indian Embassy, Tokyo.
