Podcasts about aryadeva

In this episode of the podcast, Geshe Sonam Ngodup explains a verse from the Great Indian Pundit Aryadeva's 'Four Hundred Verses'. This verse is about the importance of developing wisdom, specifically 'Dependent arising'. Geshe la explains some techniques for using this in our daily life. Geshe la teaches in Tibetan and his teachings are translated by Venerable Khedrup. Wisdom's Key ཤེས་རབ་ཀྱི་ལྡེ་མིག། རྟེན་ཅིང་འགྲེལ་བར་འབྱུང་བ་གང། When dependent arising is seen མཐོང་ན་གཏི་མུག་འབྱུང་མི་འགྱུར། Confusion (ignorance) will not occur དེ་ཕྱིར་འབད་པ་ཀུན་གྱིས་འདིར། Thus every effort has been made here གཏམ་འདི་ཐོག་མར་བསྙད་པར་བྱ། Foremost to emphasize this subject Visit our Facebook page for more teachings by Geshe Sonam Ngodup and English translator Ven. Jamyang Khedrup https://www.facebook.com/LamaYesheLing/ More about our teachers: https://lamayesheling.org/teachers-and-facilitators/ To learn more about our upcoming programs please subscribe to our newsletter at https://community.lamayesheling.org/civicrm/mailing/subscribe

En este episodio de Iluminaciones Rebeldes...¿que hacer cuándo el maestre de une se pone celose? Es una pregunta en general complicada, pero si ele maestre es Nagarjuna y somos Aryadeva, se complica más. Karnaripa, en IR. En https://open.spotify.com/show/6n7S0pkuQjUJbNoUXp1ufm?si=pbsXN7QUR3-sSDuK2BAq0w o https://anchor.fm/sanghasinnombre/episodes/18-Karnaripa-alias-Aryadeva-eg7kj8 #buddhism #zenbuddhism #ratademetal #budismo #buddhismandpsychotherapy #buddhismandscience #buddhismarts #meditation #meditacion #engagedbuddhism #budismoengajado #spirituality #yoga #zen #buddhismbeginner #buddhismbooks #buddhistbooks #buddha #tibetanbuddhism #tibet --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

In this recording from his early days at Columbia University Professor Thurman explores Indo-Tibetan Buddhism in the intellectual setting of ancient India and Tibet, how it relates to modern philosophical thought and to the mindfulness revolution in popular culture. Focusing on the Dialecticist Centrism found in the writings of Aryadeva, Dharmakīrti, Dignāga, Tsongkhapa, Vasubandhu & in the teachings of the 14th Dalai Lama Robert Thurman provides an academic perspective on the Buddha’s teachings on Karma, The Subtle Body system, Reincarnation and the Yogācāra school’s “Three Turnings of the Wheel of Dharma” framework as the ground work for a frank exploration of the esoteric concept of super knowledge. Professor Thurman begins this podcast by detailing the cultural understanding + social context of the seemingly fantastical descriptions of psychic or super normal events found in Buddhist teachings + commentaries and a teaching on the indestructible drop or the “spiritual gene” residing in the heart chakra in the esoteric tantric system. Second half of podcast includes a comparison of the different Buddhist logicians and their perspectives on the five aggregates or Skandhas, a suggestion of Bruce Lamb’s “Wizard of the Upper Amazon: The Story of Manuel Manuel Córdova-Rios” and a guided thought experiment for busy people of any era. “Buddhist Inner Sciences: Super Knowledge For Busy People – Episode 159 of the Bob Thruman Podcast” photo, Created with love by Ryan McGuire via www.gratisography.com. The song ‘Dancing Ling’ by Tenzin Choegyal from the album ‘Heart Sutra‘ (2004) by Ethno Super Lounge is used on the Bob Thurman Podcast with artist’s permission, all rights reserved. “Buddhist Inner Sciences: Super Knowledge For Busy People” podcast is an

In this recording from his early days at Columbia University Professor Thurman explores Indo-Tibetan Buddhism in the intellectual setting of ancient India and Tibet, how it relates to modern philosophical thought and to the mindfulness revolution in popular culture. Focusing on the Dialecticist Centrism found in the writings of Aryadeva, Dharmakīrti, Dignāga, Tsongkhapa, Vasubandhu & in the teachings of the 14th Dalai Lama Robert Thurman provides an academic perspective on the Buddha's teachings on Karma, The Subtle Body system, Reincarnation and the Yogācāra school's "Three Turnings of the Wheel of Dharma" framework as the ground work for a frank exploration of the esoteric concept of super knowledge. Professor Thurman begins this podcast by detailing the cultural understanding + social context of the seemingly fantastical descriptions of psychic or super normal events found in Buddhist teachings + commentaries and a teaching on the indestructible drop or the "spiritual gene" residing in the heart chakra in the esoteric tantric system. Second half of podcast includes a comparison of the different Buddhist logicians and their perspectives on the five aggregates or Skandhas, a suggestion of Bruce Lamb's "Wizard of the Upper Amazon: The Story of Manuel Manuel Córdova-Rios" and a guided thought experiment using traditional Indo-Tibetan for busy people of any age.   "Buddhist Inner Sciences: Super Knowledge For Busy People - Episode 159 of the Bob Thruman Podcast" photo, Created with love by Ryan McGuire via www.gratisography.com. The song ‘Dancing Ling’ by Tenzin Choegyal from the album ‘Heart Sutra‘ (2004) by Ethno Super Lounge is used on the Bob Thurman Podcast with artist’s permission, all rights reserved. "Buddhist Inner Sciences: Super Knowledge For Busy People" podcast is an excerpt from a course taught by Robert A.F. Thurman at Columbia University, focusing mainly on his book "The Central Philosophy of Tibet" - a study and translation of Jey Tsong Khapa's "Essence of True Eloquence" (tib: drang nges legs bshad snying po)', but also addressing material in Jey Tsong Khapa's "Ocean of Reasoning" translated by Geshe Ngawang Samten & J Garfield, and in Aryadeva's "Four Hundred Stanzas" translated by Ruth Sonam. To listen to the full, unedited thirteen class series please visit: www.archive.org. To listen to more archive recordings from this class please consider becoming a Tibet House US member. To Learn about the benefits of Tibet House US Membership please visit: www.tibethouse.us.

In this podcast Robert AF Thurman discusses the history of Nālandā & why the Dalai Lama of Tibet identifies Tibetan Buddhism as well as himself as heirs to the university whose ruins are located in modern-day Bihar, India. Founded under the patronage of the Gupta King Chandragupta II Vikramāditya in the 5th Century then Destroyed in 1203 by Turkish Muslim invaders, Professor Thurman illustrates how Nālandā University brought together the greatest minds of India, Persia, Indonesia, China & Tibet finding it’s highest expression in The seventeen greatest Pandits of Nālandā Monastery, whom the Dalai Lama celebrates in his famous eulogy. Podcast includes an overview of the most influential of the "Great Seventeen" Mahayana Buddhist yogi scientist sages (Nagarjuna, Aryadeva, Buddhapalita, Bhavaviveka, Chandrakirti, Shantideva, Shantarakshita, Kamalashila, Asanga, Vasubandhu, Dignaga, Dharmakirti, Arya Vimuktisena, Haribhadra, Gunaprabha, Shakyaprabha & Atisha) known for their middle-way centrist perspective & the popular Stages of the Path (lam-rim) teachings. “I am the longest guest of government of India for the last 58 years and am now paying back for that gesture by becoming the messenger of Indian culture. In fact, I consider myself a son of India. A few years ago, some Chinese reporters asked me why I identified myself as India's son. I told them that my mind and each part of my brain are filled with the knowledge and thought of Nalanda. Besides, in last 50 years this body survived on Indian dal, chapati and rice. That is why both physically and spiritually, I am a son of India. Buddha himself stated my followers should not accept my teaching out of faith or out of devotion, but rather thorough investigation and experiment, the scientific way of approach. So all the Nalanda masters like Nagarjuna, Aryadeva, Asanga, Chandrakirti, all these great masters of Nalanda, even Buddha's own words, they carry investigation whether Buddha's statement is acceptable or not. So they are always based on logic and experiment so, therefore, I follow that pattern, tradition.” HH Dalai Lama from www.huffingtonpost.in. This podcast is an excerpt from "Why does the Dalai Lama say he is "Son of Nālandā"?: The inaugural ISAS-VSB Lecture on Religion in the Modern World" A Talk given in October 2017. Photo by Abhishek Sundaram via www.flickr.com. To listen to more recordings from past programs with Robert AF Thurman at Tibet House US in New York City + Menla in Phoenicia, New York in the Catskills please consider becoming a Tibet House US Member. The song ‘Dancing Ling’ by Tenzin Choegyal from the album ‘Heart Sutra‘ (2004) by Ethno Super Lounge is used on the Bob Thurman Podcast with artist’s permission, all rights reserved.

In this podcast Robert AF Thurman discusses the history of Nālandā & why the Dalai Lama of Tibet identifies Tibetan Buddhism as well as himself as heirs to the university whose ruins are located in modern-day Bihar, India. Founded under the patronage of the Gupta King Chandragupta II Vikramāditya in the 5th Century then Destroyed in 1203 by Turkish Muslim invaders, Professor Thurman illustrates how Nālandā University brought together the greatest minds of India, Persia, Indonesia, China & Tibet finding it’s highest expression in the seventeen greatest Pandits of Nālandā Monastery, whom the Dalai Lama celebrates in his famous eulogy. Podcast includes an overview of the most influential of the “Great Seventeen” Mahayana Buddhist yogi scientist sages (Nagarjuna, Aryadeva, Buddhapalita, Bhavaviveka, Chandrakirti, Shantideva, Shantarakshita, Kamalashila, Asanga, Vasubandhu, Dignaga, Dharmakirti, Arya Vimuktisena, Haribhadra, Gunaprabha, Shakyaprabha & Atisha) known for their middle-way centrist perspective & the popular Stages of the Path (lam-rim) teachings. “I am the longest guest of government of India for the last 58 years and am now paying back for that gesture by becoming the messenger of Indian culture. In fact, I consider myself a son of India. A few years ago, some Chinese reporters asked me why I identified myself as India’s son. I told them that my mind and each part of my brain are filled with the knowledge and thought of Nalanda. Besides, in last 50 years this body survived on Indian dal, chapati and rice. That is why both physically and spiritually, I am a son of India. Buddha himself stated my followers should not accept my teaching out of faith or out of devotion, but rather thorough investigation and experiment, the scientific way of approach. So all the Nalanda masters like Nagarjuna, Aryadeva, Asanga, Chandrakirti, all these great masters of Nalanda, even Buddha’s own words, they carry investigation whether Buddha’s statement is acceptable or not. So they are always based on logic and experiment so, therefore, I follow that pattern, tradition.” HH Dalai Lama from www.huffingtonpost.in. This podcast is an excerpt from “Why does the Dalai Lama say he is “Son of Nālandā”? a talk given in October 2017. Photo by Abhishek Sundaram via www.flickr.com. To listen to more recordings from past programs with Robert AF Thurman at Tibet House US in New York City + Menla in Phoenicia, New York in the Catskills please consider becoming a Tibet House US Member. The song ‘Dancing Ling’ by

The Buddha's Wheel of Dependent Origination describes the cycle of existence—the endless wheel of samsara and suffering. The first link on this wheel is ignorance, or mis-knowing. Specifically, the idea that we are separate from others. Professor Thurman explains how this fundamental misunderstanding of separateness creates the whole universe of suffering. It is also the key to putting an end to the cycle altogether. “Buddhist Inner Sciences: Fundamental Mis-knowing” podcast is an excerpt from a course taught by Robert A.F. Thurman at Columbia University, focusing mainly on his book “The Central Philosophy of Tibet” – a study and translation of Jey Tsong Khapa's “Essence of True Eloquence” (tib: drang nges legs bshad snying po)', but also addressing material in Jey Tsong Khapa's “Ocean of Reasoning” translated by Geshe Ngawang Samten & J Garfield, and in Aryadeva's “Four Hundred Stanzas” translated by Ruth Sonam. To listen to the full, unedited thirteen class series please visit: www.archive.org. This podcast is apart of the Buddhist Inner Sciences 101 Podcast Series taken from the Bob Thurman & Tibet House US archives which are intended to provide an introduction to the yogic, meditative & theoretical practices of the tradition. These recordings are intended to be general overviews & one should be studying with a qualified teacher before attempting or engaging in the practices. To listen to more archive recordings from this class please consider becoming a Tibet House US member. To Learn about the benefits of Tibet House US Membership please visit: www.tibethouse.us.

The Buddha’s Wheel of Dependent Origination describes the cycle of existence—the endless wheel of samsara and suffering. The first link on this wheel is ignorance, or mis-knowing. Specifically, the idea that we are separate from others. Professor Thurman explains how this fundamental misunderstanding of separateness creates the whole universe of suffering. It is also the key to putting an end to the cycle altogether. “Buddhist Inner Sciences: Fundamental Mis-knowing” podcast is an excerpt from a course taught by Robert A.F. Thurman at Columbia University, focusing mainly on his book “The Central Philosophy of Tibet” – a study and translation of Jey Tsong Khapa’s “Essence of True Eloquence” (tib: drang nges legs bshad snying po)’, but also addressing material in Jey Tsong Khapa’s “Ocean of Reasoning” translated by Geshe Ngawang Samten & J Garfield, and in Aryadeva’s “Four Hundred Stanzas” translated by Ruth Sonam. To listen to the full, unedited thirteen class series please visit: www.archive.org. This podcast is apart of the Buddhist Inner Sciences 101 Podcast Series taken from the Bob Thurman & Tibet House US archives which are intended to provide an introduction to the yogic, meditative & theoretical practices of the tradition. These recordings are intended to be general overviews & one should be studying with a qualified teacher before attempting or engaging in the practices. To listen to more archive recordings from this class please consider becoming a Tibet House US member. To Learn about the benefits of Tibet House US Membership please visit: www.tibethouse.us.

In Conceiving the Indian Buddhist Patriarchs in China (University of Hawai'i Press, 2015), Stuart Young examines Chinese hagiographic representations of three Indian Buddhist patriarchs–Asvaghosa (Maming), Nagarjuna (Longshu), and Aryadeva (Sheng tipo)–from the early fifth to late tenth centuries, and explores the role that these representations played in the development of Chinese Buddhism's self-awareness of its own position within Buddhist history and its growing confidence that Buddhism could flourish in China despite the distance between the middle kingdom and the land of the Buddha. On the one hand, this project traces these three legendary figures as they are portrayed first as exemplars of how to revive the Dharma in a world without a Buddha, then as representatives of a lineage stretching back to Shakyamuni, and finally as scholar types who transmitted the Dharma to China via their exegetical and doctrinal works. More broadly, however, Young uses this transformation as an index of changing views of medieval China's relationship to Shakyamuni's India, and of Chinese Buddhists' confidence in their own ability to realize the Buddhist soteriological path and firmly establish the Indian tradition on Chinese soil. One theme running throughout the book is the way in which these three patriarchs bridged the Sino-Indian divide.This was particularly important for those Chinese Buddhists who were unsettled by the geographical and historical distance that separated them from the India of Shakyamuni's times. The Chinese found Asvaghosa, Nagarjuna, and Aryadeva particularly attractive because while their Indian origins lent them authority, they were, like the Chinese who peered down the well of history at them, living in a time without a Buddha and thus faced a dilemma not so dissimilar from the predicament in which medieval Chinese found themselves. Unlike the arhats, who experienced Shakyamuni's ministry first-hand, and unlike the celestial bodhisattvas, who were not bound by history, these three Indian patriarchs occupied a temporal position between Shakyamuni's India and medieval China. In addition, as Young shows, the Chinese attributed qualities to and highlighted aspects of these Indian patriarchs that were in accord with the values of Chinese literati, Buddhist and otherwise. In so doing, the Chinese rendered the Indian patriarchs familiar and made them into models that Chinese literati could realistically and willingly emulate.This point is related to another theme linking the chapters together: the Chinese Buddhist appropriation of Indian Buddhist and Chinese religious elements so as to claim them as their own. Young notes, however, that even as the patriarchs developed into models to be emulated, they were also transformed into objects of veneration. Besides being scholarly-types who sat around writing doctrinal treatises, Nagarjuna came to be associated with Pure Land thought and practice (and even had his own pure land, according to some,) and was worshipped for his apotropaic powers and ability to provide this-worldly benefits, while Asvaghosa became a silkworm deity and served as the protagonist in myths that provided a Buddhist justification for the killing of silkworms, to give but a few examples. And in a final chapter, Young shows how Buddhists co-opted Chinese conceptions of sanctity and sainthood so as to show that these qualities that were in reality of Chinese provenance were in fact Indian and Buddhist through-and-though. Readers will thus learn not only the details of Asvaghosa, Nagarjuna, and Aryadeva's Chinese careers over a five-and-a-half-century period, Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In Conceiving the Indian Buddhist Patriarchs in China (University of Hawai’i Press, 2015), Stuart Young examines Chinese hagiographic representations of three Indian Buddhist patriarchs–Asvaghosa (Maming), Nagarjuna (Longshu), and Aryadeva (Sheng tipo)–from the early fifth to late tenth centuries, and explores the role that these representations played in the development of Chinese Buddhism’s self-awareness of its own position within Buddhist history and its growing confidence that Buddhism could flourish in China despite the distance between the middle kingdom and the land of the Buddha. On the one hand, this project traces these three legendary figures as they are portrayed first as exemplars of how to revive the Dharma in a world without a Buddha, then as representatives of a lineage stretching back to Shakyamuni, and finally as scholar types who transmitted the Dharma to China via their exegetical and doctrinal works. More broadly, however, Young uses this transformation as an index of changing views of medieval China’s relationship to Shakyamuni’s India, and of Chinese Buddhists’ confidence in their own ability to realize the Buddhist soteriological path and firmly establish the Indian tradition on Chinese soil. One theme running throughout the book is the way in which these three patriarchs bridged the Sino-Indian divide.This was particularly important for those Chinese Buddhists who were unsettled by the geographical and historical distance that separated them from the India of Shakyamuni’s times. The Chinese found Asvaghosa, Nagarjuna, and Aryadeva particularly attractive because while their Indian origins lent them authority, they were, like the Chinese who peered down the well of history at them, living in a time without a Buddha and thus faced a dilemma not so dissimilar from the predicament in which medieval Chinese found themselves. Unlike the arhats, who experienced Shakyamuni’s ministry first-hand, and unlike the celestial bodhisattvas, who were not bound by history, these three Indian patriarchs occupied a temporal position between Shakyamuni’s India and medieval China. In addition, as Young shows, the Chinese attributed qualities to and highlighted aspects of these Indian patriarchs that were in accord with the values of Chinese literati, Buddhist and otherwise. In so doing, the Chinese rendered the Indian patriarchs familiar and made them into models that Chinese literati could realistically and willingly emulate.This point is related to another theme linking the chapters together: the Chinese Buddhist appropriation of Indian Buddhist and Chinese religious elements so as to claim them as their own. Young notes, however, that even as the patriarchs developed into models to be emulated, they were also transformed into objects of veneration. Besides being scholarly-types who sat around writing doctrinal treatises, Nagarjuna came to be associated with Pure Land thought and practice (and even had his own pure land, according to some,) and was worshipped for his apotropaic powers and ability to provide this-worldly benefits, while Asvaghosa became a silkworm deity and served as the protagonist in myths that provided a Buddhist justification for the killing of silkworms, to give but a few examples. And in a final chapter, Young shows how Buddhists co-opted Chinese conceptions of sanctity and sainthood so as to show that these qualities that were in reality of Chinese provenance were in fact Indian and Buddhist through-and-though. Readers will thus learn not only the details of Asvaghosa, Nagarjuna, and Aryadeva’s Chinese careers over a five-and-a-half-century period, Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In Conceiving the Indian Buddhist Patriarchs in China (University of Hawai’i Press, 2015), Stuart Young examines Chinese hagiographic representations of three Indian Buddhist patriarchs–Asvaghosa (Maming), Nagarjuna (Longshu), and Aryadeva (Sheng tipo)–from the early fifth to late tenth centuries, and explores the role that these representations played in the development of Chinese Buddhism’s self-awareness of its own position within Buddhist history and its growing confidence that Buddhism could flourish in China despite the distance between the middle kingdom and the land of the Buddha. On the one hand, this project traces these three legendary figures as they are portrayed first as exemplars of how to revive the Dharma in a world without a Buddha, then as representatives of a lineage stretching back to Shakyamuni, and finally as scholar types who transmitted the Dharma to China via their exegetical and doctrinal works. More broadly, however, Young uses this transformation as an index of changing views of medieval China’s relationship to Shakyamuni’s India, and of Chinese Buddhists’ confidence in their own ability to realize the Buddhist soteriological path and firmly establish the Indian tradition on Chinese soil. One theme running throughout the book is the way in which these three patriarchs bridged the Sino-Indian divide.This was particularly important for those Chinese Buddhists who were unsettled by the geographical and historical distance that separated them from the India of Shakyamuni’s times. The Chinese found Asvaghosa, Nagarjuna, and Aryadeva particularly attractive because while their Indian origins lent them authority, they were, like the Chinese who peered down the well of history at them, living in a time without a Buddha and thus faced a dilemma not so dissimilar from the predicament in which medieval Chinese found themselves. Unlike the arhats, who experienced Shakyamuni’s ministry first-hand, and unlike the celestial bodhisattvas, who were not bound by history, these three Indian patriarchs occupied a temporal position between Shakyamuni’s India and medieval China. In addition, as Young shows, the Chinese attributed qualities to and highlighted aspects of these Indian patriarchs that were in accord with the values of Chinese literati, Buddhist and otherwise. In so doing, the Chinese rendered the Indian patriarchs familiar and made them into models that Chinese literati could realistically and willingly emulate.This point is related to another theme linking the chapters together: the Chinese Buddhist appropriation of Indian Buddhist and Chinese religious elements so as to claim them as their own. Young notes, however, that even as the patriarchs developed into models to be emulated, they were also transformed into objects of veneration. Besides being scholarly-types who sat around writing doctrinal treatises, Nagarjuna came to be associated with Pure Land thought and practice (and even had his own pure land, according to some,) and was worshipped for his apotropaic powers and ability to provide this-worldly benefits, while Asvaghosa became a silkworm deity and served as the protagonist in myths that provided a Buddhist justification for the killing of silkworms, to give but a few examples. And in a final chapter, Young shows how Buddhists co-opted Chinese conceptions of sanctity and sainthood so as to show that these qualities that were in reality of Chinese provenance were in fact Indian and Buddhist through-and-though. Readers will thus learn not only the details of Asvaghosa, Nagarjuna, and Aryadeva’s Chinese careers over a five-and-a-half-century period, Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In Conceiving the Indian Buddhist Patriarchs in China (University of Hawai’i Press, 2015), Stuart Young examines Chinese hagiographic representations of three Indian Buddhist patriarchs–Asvaghosa (Maming), Nagarjuna (Longshu), and Aryadeva (Sheng tipo)–from the early fifth to late tenth centuries, and explores the role that these representations played in the development of Chinese Buddhism’s self-awareness of its own position within Buddhist history and its growing confidence that Buddhism could flourish in China despite the distance between the middle kingdom and the land of the Buddha. On the one hand, this project traces these three legendary figures as they are portrayed first as exemplars of how to revive the Dharma in a world without a Buddha, then as representatives of a lineage stretching back to Shakyamuni, and finally as scholar types who transmitted the Dharma to China via their exegetical and doctrinal works. More broadly, however, Young uses this transformation as an index of changing views of medieval China’s relationship to Shakyamuni’s India, and of Chinese Buddhists’ confidence in their own ability to realize the Buddhist soteriological path and firmly establish the Indian tradition on Chinese soil. One theme running throughout the book is the way in which these three patriarchs bridged the Sino-Indian divide.This was particularly important for those Chinese Buddhists who were unsettled by the geographical and historical distance that separated them from the India of Shakyamuni’s times. The Chinese found Asvaghosa, Nagarjuna, and Aryadeva particularly attractive because while their Indian origins lent them authority, they were, like the Chinese who peered down the well of history at them, living in a time without a Buddha and thus faced a dilemma not so dissimilar from the predicament in which medieval Chinese found themselves. Unlike the arhats, who experienced Shakyamuni’s ministry first-hand, and unlike the celestial bodhisattvas, who were not bound by history, these three Indian patriarchs occupied a temporal position between Shakyamuni’s India and medieval China. In addition, as Young shows, the Chinese attributed qualities to and highlighted aspects of these Indian patriarchs that were in accord with the values of Chinese literati, Buddhist and otherwise. In so doing, the Chinese rendered the Indian patriarchs familiar and made them into models that Chinese literati could realistically and willingly emulate.This point is related to another theme linking the chapters together: the Chinese Buddhist appropriation of Indian Buddhist and Chinese religious elements so as to claim them as their own. Young notes, however, that even as the patriarchs developed into models to be emulated, they were also transformed into objects of veneration. Besides being scholarly-types who sat around writing doctrinal treatises, Nagarjuna came to be associated with Pure Land thought and practice (and even had his own pure land, according to some,) and was worshipped for his apotropaic powers and ability to provide this-worldly benefits, while Asvaghosa became a silkworm deity and served as the protagonist in myths that provided a Buddhist justification for the killing of silkworms, to give but a few examples. And in a final chapter, Young shows how Buddhists co-opted Chinese conceptions of sanctity and sainthood so as to show that these qualities that were in reality of Chinese provenance were in fact Indian and Buddhist through-and-though. Readers will thus learn not only the details of Asvaghosa, Nagarjuna, and Aryadeva’s Chinese careers over a five-and-a-half-century period, Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In Conceiving the Indian Buddhist Patriarchs in China (University of Hawai’i Press, 2015), Stuart Young examines Chinese hagiographic representations of three Indian Buddhist patriarchs–Asvaghosa (Maming), Nagarjuna (Longshu), and Aryadeva (Sheng tipo)–from the early fifth to late tenth centuries, and explores the role that these representations played in the development of Chinese Buddhism’s self-awareness of its own position within Buddhist history and its growing confidence that Buddhism could flourish in China despite the distance between the middle kingdom and the land of the Buddha. On the one hand, this project traces these three legendary figures as they are portrayed first as exemplars of how to revive the Dharma in a world without a Buddha, then as representatives of a lineage stretching back to Shakyamuni, and finally as scholar types who transmitted the Dharma to China via their exegetical and doctrinal works. More broadly, however, Young uses this transformation as an index of changing views of medieval China’s relationship to Shakyamuni’s India, and of Chinese Buddhists’ confidence in their own ability to realize the Buddhist soteriological path and firmly establish the Indian tradition on Chinese soil. One theme running throughout the book is the way in which these three patriarchs bridged the Sino-Indian divide.This was particularly important for those Chinese Buddhists who were unsettled by the geographical and historical distance that separated them from the India of Shakyamuni’s times. The Chinese found Asvaghosa, Nagarjuna, and Aryadeva particularly attractive because while their Indian origins lent them authority, they were, like the Chinese who peered down the well of history at them, living in a time without a Buddha and thus faced a dilemma not so dissimilar from the predicament in which medieval Chinese found themselves. Unlike the arhats, who experienced Shakyamuni’s ministry first-hand, and unlike the celestial bodhisattvas, who were not bound by history, these three Indian patriarchs occupied a temporal position between Shakyamuni’s India and medieval China. In addition, as Young shows, the Chinese attributed qualities to and highlighted aspects of these Indian patriarchs that were in accord with the values of Chinese literati, Buddhist and otherwise. In so doing, the Chinese rendered the Indian patriarchs familiar and made them into models that Chinese literati could realistically and willingly emulate.This point is related to another theme linking the chapters together: the Chinese Buddhist appropriation of Indian Buddhist and Chinese religious elements so as to claim them as their own. Young notes, however, that even as the patriarchs developed into models to be emulated, they were also transformed into objects of veneration. Besides being scholarly-types who sat around writing doctrinal treatises, Nagarjuna came to be associated with Pure Land thought and practice (and even had his own pure land, according to some,) and was worshipped for his apotropaic powers and ability to provide this-worldly benefits, while Asvaghosa became a silkworm deity and served as the protagonist in myths that provided a Buddhist justification for the killing of silkworms, to give but a few examples. And in a final chapter, Young shows how Buddhists co-opted Chinese conceptions of sanctity and sainthood so as to show that these qualities that were in reality of Chinese provenance were in fact Indian and Buddhist through-and-though. Readers will thus learn not only the details of Asvaghosa, Nagarjuna, and Aryadeva’s Chinese careers over a five-and-a-half-century period, Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In Conceiving the Indian Buddhist Patriarchs in China (University of Hawai’i Press, 2015), Stuart Young examines Chinese hagiographic representations of three Indian Buddhist patriarchs–Asvaghosa (Maming), Nagarjuna (Longshu), and Aryadeva (Sheng tipo)–from the early fifth to late tenth centuries, and explores the role that these representations played in the development of Chinese Buddhism’s self-awareness of its own position within Buddhist history and its growing confidence that Buddhism could flourish in China despite the distance between the middle kingdom and the land of the Buddha. On the one hand, this project traces these three legendary figures as they are portrayed first as exemplars of how to revive the Dharma in a world without a Buddha, then as representatives of a lineage stretching back to Shakyamuni, and finally as scholar types who transmitted the Dharma to China via their exegetical and doctrinal works. More broadly, however, Young uses this transformation as an index of changing views of medieval China’s relationship to Shakyamuni’s India, and of Chinese Buddhists’ confidence in their own ability to realize the Buddhist soteriological path and firmly establish the Indian tradition on Chinese soil. One theme running throughout the book is the way in which these three patriarchs bridged the Sino-Indian divide.This was particularly important for those Chinese Buddhists who were unsettled by the geographical and historical distance that separated them from the India of Shakyamuni’s times. The Chinese found Asvaghosa, Nagarjuna, and Aryadeva particularly attractive because while their Indian origins lent them authority, they were, like the Chinese who peered down the well of history at them, living in a time without a Buddha and thus faced a dilemma not so dissimilar from the predicament in which medieval Chinese found themselves. Unlike the arhats, who experienced Shakyamuni’s ministry first-hand, and unlike the celestial bodhisattvas, who were not bound by history, these three Indian patriarchs occupied a temporal position between Shakyamuni’s India and medieval China. In addition, as Young shows, the Chinese attributed qualities to and highlighted aspects of these Indian patriarchs that were in accord with the values of Chinese literati, Buddhist and otherwise. In so doing, the Chinese rendered the Indian patriarchs familiar and made them into models that Chinese literati could realistically and willingly emulate.This point is related to another theme linking the chapters together: the Chinese Buddhist appropriation of Indian Buddhist and Chinese religious elements so as to claim them as their own. Young notes, however, that even as the patriarchs developed into models to be emulated, they were also transformed into objects of veneration. Besides being scholarly-types who sat around writing doctrinal treatises, Nagarjuna came to be associated with Pure Land thought and practice (and even had his own pure land, according to some,) and was worshipped for his apotropaic powers and ability to provide this-worldly benefits, while Asvaghosa became a silkworm deity and served as the protagonist in myths that provided a Buddhist justification for the killing of silkworms, to give but a few examples. And in a final chapter, Young shows how Buddhists co-opted Chinese conceptions of sanctity and sainthood so as to show that these qualities that were in reality of Chinese provenance were in fact Indian and Buddhist through-and-though. Readers will thus learn not only the details of Asvaghosa, Nagarjuna, and Aryadeva’s Chinese careers over a five-and-a-half-century period, Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This morning we began the cycle of Settling the Mind in its Natural state following the instructions that the Buddha gave to Bahia “In the seen let just the seen be…” “In the heard let just the heard be”,” In the mentally perceived let just be the mentally perceived…” So we don’t elaborate or label. We suspend judgment as if you are listening to a fascinating person or are seeing other people’s mind. Reality is speaking to you. Bare, naked. Alan mentioned that the quintessential instruction is to do it without distraction, without grasping. This is a practice without inquiry.We meditated on the visual, auditory, tactile and mental fields.Then he explained Aryadeva’s qualities to be a Buddhist: First: Perception, including hearing, thinking and meditation. Second: Open mind and Third, Yearning to test the practices on oneself.