Did Xuanzang meet Candrakīrti?

[Indrajala]

I just read something that mentions Xuanzang (602–664) was at Nālandā University in the 630s when Candrakīrti (6th-7th c) held a position there.

Has anyone read anything or seen anything to suggest that they might have possibly met?

Xuanzang was particularly interested in Yogācāra material, so he might not have had much in common with Candrakīrti's area of expertise. The place was also enormous.

Still, it is interesting to consider that they might have met.

[Huifeng]

I just read something that mentions Xuanzang (602–664) was at Nālandā University in the 630s when Candrakīrti (6th-7th c) held a position there.

Has anyone read anything or seen anything to suggest that they might have possibly met?

Xuanzang was particularly interested in Yogācāra material, so he might not have had much in common with Candrakīrti's area of expertise. The place was also enormous.

Still, it is interesting to consider that they might have met.

Haven't seen anything at all to suggest this.

~~ Huifeng

[Leo Rivers]

Xuanzang and Candrakīrti?

Nalanda was actually a University - meaning it consisted of colleges - and within a college students would cluster around a teacher in a department who was department-head or a popular "thesis adviser".

FIRST: The way teachers became famous was to defeat a rival philosophy in a debate that was famous because it upheld the reputation of the School.

NEXT, a biography must survive relating a teacher's "wins" in debates. Xuanzang's debate at Nalanda survived because he defended the Yogacara which met applause in its contemporary context and was later supported by later rich patron who paid to have books telling us about it printed.

Xuanzang's Biography largely survived because Xuanzang had state support in China. That's why his debates with Kumarajiva are known. (Wriggens, p. 30) And it is important "he defeated all challengers (ibid, page 53) - I think a draw is passed over in silence.

AND: It seems Dharmapala's reputation a Nalanda rested on his effectiveness at calming down Madhyamaka/Yogacara tensions by offering reconcilling Views, (Lausthaus, page 403-405), as is enshrined in his commentary on Aryadeva's Sataka sastra which is Darmapala's refutation of Bhavavivika's Madhyamaka critique of Yogacara.

The Yogacarabhumi is the reason Hsuan Tzang went to India. It was this defense of Dharmapala's that actually makes its appearance in his own Ch'eng Wei-shin lun of Dharmapala's works.

PERHAPS: Candrakīrti was against this spirit of the times at Nalanda. (my guess). Why?

Dharmapala was the was trained by Silabhadra who taught Yogacara to Hsaun Tzang. (Wriggens, page 131)

It may be Candrakīrti was most active subsequently to Hsaun Tzang, (this seems the implication from Lausthaus, page 412, and his opinion on page 447) He doesn't appear in Wriggin's index.

THEREFORE: I believe Candrakīrti may have met with some disapproval at Nalanda - Candrakīrti and was at odds with the 'spirit of the day' at Nalanda.

DON'T FORGET: Candrakīrti was made famous because it was a keystone of the State Religion in Tibet much later. And Tibetan literature was translated and printed by the USA because it annoyed the Chinese with whom we were in a Cold War. )



Lusthaus, D., 2003. Buddhist Phenomenology: A Philosophical Investigation of Yogacara Buddhism and the Ch’eng Wei-shih Lun, RoutledgeCurzon.

Wriggins, S., 2003. The Silk Road Journey With Xuanzang, Basic Books.

[Malcolm]

Candrakirti was a rather late, much later than Xuanzang -- Candrakirit was a contemporary of Candragomin.

Xuanzang and Candrakīrti?

Nalanda was actually a University - meaning it consisted of colleges - and within a college students would cluster around a teacher in a department who was department-head or a popular "thesis adviser".

The way teachers became famous was to defeat a rival philosophy in a debate that was famous because it upheld the reputation of the School.

NEXT, a biography must survive relating a teacher's "wins" in debates. Xuanzang's debate at Nalanda survived because he defended the Yogacara which met applause in its contemporary context and was later supported by later rich patron who paid to have books telling us about it printed.

Xuanzang's Biography largely survived because Xuanzang had state support in China. That's why his debates with Kumarajiva are known. (Wriggens, p. 30) And it is important "he defeated all challengers (ibid, page 53) - I think a draw is passed over in silence.

It seems Dharmapala's reputation a Nalanda rested on his effectiveness at calming down Madhyamaka/Yogacara tensions by offering reconcilling Views, "(Lausthaus, page 403-405), as per his is commentary on Aryadeva's Sataka sastra which is Darmapala's refutation of Bhavavivika's Maddhyamaka critique of Yogacara.

The Yogacarabhumi is the reason Hsuan Tzang went to India. It was this defense of Dharmapala's that actually makes its appearance in his own Ch'eng Wei-shin lun of Dharmapala's works.

Candrakīrti was against this spirit of the times at Nalanda. (my guess). Why?

Dharmapala was the was trained by Silabhadra who taught Yogacara to Hsaun Tzang. (Wriggens, page 131)

It may be Candrakīrti was most active subsequently to Hsaun Tzang, (this seems the implication from Lausthaus, page 412, and his opinion on page 447) He doesn't appear in Wriggin's index.

SO I believe Candrakīrti may have met with some disapproval at Nalanda - Candrakīrti was at odds with the 'spirit of the day' at Nalanda. Candrakīrti was made famous TO US by voicing the State Religion position in Tibet much later.)



Lusthaus, D., 2003. Buddhist Phenomenology: A Philosophical Investigation of Yogacara Buddhism and the Ch’eng Wei-shih Lun, RoutledgeCurzon.

Wriggins, S., 2003. The Silk Road Journey With Xuanzang, Basic Books.

[Malcolm]

DON'T FORGET: Candrakīrti was made famous because it was a keystone of the State Religion in Tibet much later. And Tibetan literature was translated and printed by the USA because it annoyed the Chines with whom we were in a Cold War. )

No, Candrakirti was made famous in Tibet because of the clarity of his presentation of Madhyamaka and the fact that his works superceded those of Bhavaviveka as the dominant voice in Madhyamaka from the 12th century onwards based on Atisha's praise of Candrakirti's works as the sole path to liberation in the eleventh century.

It is most likely that Candrakirti lived between 600-650.

[Leo Rivers]

based on Atisha's praise of Candrakirti's works as the sole path to liberation

I stand corrected! : )


... although I hope I can suggest Atisha's praise of Candrakirti doesn't mean I am to be shunned as an icchantika!

[Malcolm]

based on Atisha's praise of Candrakirti's works as the sole path to liberation

I stand corrected! : )


... although I hope I can suggest Atisha's praise of Candrakirti doesn't mean I am to be shunned as an icchantika!

Nope. Anyway, at this point in my life, I find all this Buddhist philosophy boring and don't take it very seriously anymore. It was a useful tool, but eventually it is a distraction.

[Leo Rivers]

Nope. Anyway, at this point in my life, I find all this Buddhist philosophy boring and don't take it very seriously anymore. It was a useful tool, but eventually it is a distraction.

I am curious. Do you mean academically rationalizing the activity of meditation and the insights of meditation - or programmatic or thematic meditations altogether, (bhavanakrama).

(me, when I feel burned out it's always the case of looking behind myself and seeing that I have been towing the two pronged anchor of ego and a notion of a result as a reward.)

[Malcolm]

Nope. Anyway, at this point in my life, I find all this Buddhist philosophy boring and don't take it very seriously anymore. It was a useful tool, but eventually it is a distraction.

I am curious. Do you mean academically rationalizing the activity of meditation and the insights of meditation - or programmatic or thematic meditations altogether, (bhavanakrama).

Nope, what I mean is that Buddhist Philosophy and tenet systems is pretty much a dry hump. It does not lead anywhere. In the end it is merely dry intellectualization divorced from personal experience.

N

[Anders]

Nope. Anyway, at this point in my life, I find all this Buddhist philosophy boring and don't take it very seriously anymore. It was a useful tool, but eventually it is a distraction.

I am curious. Do you mean academically rationalizing the activity of meditation and the insights of meditation - or programmatic or thematic meditations altogether, (bhavanakrama).

Nope, what I mean is that Buddhist Philosophy and tenet systems is pretty much a dry hump. It does not lead anywhere. In the end it is merely dry intellectualization divorced from personal experience.

N

You mean to tell us you've gone all Zen pragmatic on us after all these years?

I hear you though. But, and I am sure you can empathize, 'tis also the lot of intellectuals to keep studying until we realise it is, to use a classic phrase after all no more than counting the treasures of others.

For me, I couldn't trust that I wasn't missing out on something important until I had connected enough dots to see the emperor wore no clothes. Waste of time? Maybe now, but I am not sorry I have the baggage with me. And though I agree it is, on a personal level, somewhat pointless, I don't mind saying it can be casually interesting to have a glance at every now and then.