Event date:19:00-21:00 (EST) Friday, February 18, 2022
Organizer: Princeton University
This talk comes at the end of a day-long symposium at Princeton University on the topic of “Translating Buddhist Philosophy for the Philosophy Curriculum,” focusing around a new English translation of the Twenty Verses and Exposition by the 4th/5th century Indian Buddhist philosopher Vasubandhu.
Vasubandhu would surely have been thrilled to learn that centuries after the composition of his work, philosophers would choose to spend their time reading and thinking about his words, ideas, and arguments. He might well have been intrigued by the questions motivating the symposium’s engagement with his text: In what form, with what supporting material, and to what end could Vasubandhu’s Twenty Verses and Exposition become a part of the curriculum in Euro-American style philosophy departments today, if at all? This talk will speak to this question by stepping back from Vasubandhu and his text to contemplate the broader project of whether, and if so how, to bring Buddhist philosophers and philosophical texts from classical India into our contemporary philosophy curriculum. It will address this question by evaluating the various ways Buddhist philosophy has been understood in modern scholarship, and by comparing modern philosophers’ methods with those in traditional Buddhist scholastic texts.
Lecture Report: “Philosophy, Philosophers, and Buddhist Scholastic Texts (Śāstra)”
Yin-Cheng Distinguished Lecture Series
Princeton University, February 18, 2022, at 7:00–8:45 pm
Lecture by Professor Parimal G. Patil (Harvard University) Response by Professor Katherine (Trina) Janiec Jones (Wofford College)
Report by Sinae Kim and Kentaro Ide (Princeton University)
Supported by the Buddhist Tzu Chi Charity Foundation, the keynote lecture of the Yin-Cheng Distinguished Lecture Series on Buddhism was hosted virtually by the Center for Culture Society and Religion (CCSR) of Princeton University on February 18, 2022. This lecture came at the end of a day-long symposium at Princeton University on “Translating Sanskrit Buddhist Philosophy for the Philosophy Curriculum,” focused on a new translation of Vasubandhu’s (ca. fifth century) Twenty Verses and Exposition. The keynote speaker was Professor Parimal Patil from Harvard University, whose lecture was entitled “Philosophy, Philosophers, and Buddhist Scholastic Texts (Śāstra).” The respondent was Professor Katherine (Trina) Janiec Jones from Wofford College. The lecture was conducted by Zoom Webinar and YouTube live stream, with simultaneous English and Chinese channels. The recording of the lecture was also made available online. The event started with a welcoming address by Professor Jonathan Gold from the Department of Religion at Princeton University. Prof. Gold first extended his deep appreciation to the Buddhist Tzu Chi Charity Foundation and Princeton CCSR for their general support, to Professor Jinhua Chen and Vicky Baker at the University of British Columbia for helping to organize this event, to Jennifer Klumpp and Jenny Wiley Legath at Princeton CCSR for their work, and Dr. Rey Sheng Her, Deputy CEO of Buddhist Tzu Chi Charity Foundation and Associate Professor at Tzu Chi University, for his leadership in this lecture series. Prof. Gold then introduced the academic careers and research interests of Prof. Patil and Prof. Jones. The event then proceeded to Dr. Rey Sheng Her’s welcoming remarks. Prof. Patil gave a sixty-minute talk, followed by Prof. Jones’s response. The floor was then opened to questions from the audience.
Prof. Patil is a professor of Religion and Indian Philosophy at Harvard University, where he has taught since receiving his Ph.D. from the University of Chicago in 2002. From 2011–2017, he was Chair of the then newly formed Department of South Asian Studies. He teaches in three program units: Philosophy, South Asian Studies, and the Study of Religion. In particular, he focuses on Buddhist philosophy in India, the old and new epistemologists, Indian traditions of physicalism and skepticism, and contemporary Anglo-American philosophy of religion. His books include Against a Hindu God: Buddhist Philosophy of Religion in India on Buddhist epistemology and the philosophy of language and mind that supports it, and Buddhist Philosophy of Language in India, a study of Jñānaśrīmitra’s (b. 975–1000) Monograph on Exclusion, which is co-authored with Lawrence J. McCrea. He is currently working on two book-length projects on the new epistemologists of late pre-modern and early modern India, the tentative titles of which are A Reader in the New Epistemologists and Belief, Desire, and Motivation in the Philosopher’s Stone. In addition to philosophy, he also has interests in classical Sanskrit literature and literary theory and the history of Buddhism in India.
Prof. Jones also received her Ph.D. from the University of Chicago, and is a professor of Religion at Wofford College. She served as Wofford’s first Associate Provost for curriculum and co-curriculum from 2014 to 2021. While her training was in Indian philosophy and religion, she has published on topics ranging from the post-9/11 Religious Studies classroom to religious hybridity. Her most recent article is entitled “A Theology of Increasing Adequacy: Process, Practicality, and Relationship.” She is currently working on a book about her parents’ experiences with dementia in their final years and how her own training in Buddhist studies impacted her ability to cope with their dissolving sense of personal identity.
In his lecture entitled “Philosophy, Philosophers and Buddhist Scholastic Texts (Śāstra),” Prof. Patil shared his perspective on the broader project of whether and how to bring Buddhist philosophers and philosophical texts into our philosophy curriculum. He divided his remarks into three parts: 1) he discussed what he meant by “Buddhist philosophy” and shared controversial thoughts on the state of the field; 2) he introduced a few typical Buddhist framing narratives and suggested some ways to break through them; and 3) he concluded by providing his suggestions for the Buddhist philosophy project.
Prof. Patil’s discussions in Part One and Part Two were based on the history of Buddhist philosophy in India. In Part One, he proposed that we need to see the term “philosophy” in “Buddhist philosophy” as an academic discipline rather than an intellectual practice. Patil responded to possible counterarguments, such as that this frame would be too restricted and distort the projects of many Buddhist authors and be therefore irresponsible. This, he suggested, has to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. The adjective “Buddhist,” said Prof. Patil, could also be treated like the terms “ancient” and “modern.” According to him, a focus on “philosophy” as an academic discipline provides a helpful place to answer why Buddhist philosophy has not yet become a part of the discipline of philosophy. He said the decrease in including Buddhist philosophy in the academic discipline of philosophy is not primarily due to professional philosophers’ prejudice or lack of interest. Instead, he argued, it is simply because those working on Buddhist philosophical texts are not yet philosophers of sufficient caliber to be hired in the top-ranking philosophy departments in North America. There are also many other problems: few adequate translations of Buddhist philosophical texts; few explanatory materials suitable for those who have not studied the primary languages; and even fewer high-quality peer-reviewed articles on this topic. He also pointed out the profoundly Eurocentric nature of much curriculum design, a shocking level of ignorance of non-western philosophy, and specific institutional considerations. He did not find any of these particularly demoralizing, since they point us to exactly what we need to do. He suggested that those in appropriate positions should train a new generation of philosophers who can read primary texts, produce translations, and participate in philosophical engagements.
In Part Two, Prof. Patil talked about common Buddhist narratives by dividing them into four frames. The first framing narrative is the so-called six “orthodox” Indian philosophy systems that are paired into three: Sāṃkhya-Yoga, Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika, and Mīmāṃsa-Vedānta. These six systems have been presented in opposition to the three “heterodox” traditions: Buddhism, Jainism, and Physicalism. This six systems framework has usually been presented as historically grounded and valuable for making sense of the history of philosophy in India. However, Prof. Patil argued that this framework is neither historically grounded nor conceptually sound; it completely distorts what Indian philosophy is and masks the critical role of Buddhist philosophy. The mythical distinction between orthodox and heterodox not only tells nothing about the history of philosophy in classical India but also profoundly distorts the history of Buddhist philosophy in India. Prof. Patil traced the historical origins of doxography through such works as Madhusūdhana Sarasvatī’s sixteenth-century treatise, written to prove the superiority of nondual Vedānata. Later, the myth of “six systems” was adopted by modern Western orientalists and Indologists like Friedrich Max Müller (1823–1900), which have had a lasting influence on studies of Indian philosophy. Prof. Patil argued that uncritical application of this framework, which itself is a historical construct, hinders sound understanding of philosophical debates that cut across the mythical orthodox and heterodox divide, such as debates about whether testimony is a source of knowledge, or whether or not scripture is authorless.
This also often minimizes the critical and innovative role of Buddhism. For example, Buddhist philosopher Dignāga’s (ca. 480–540) work promoted a significant transformation in the self-conception and organization of Sanskrit philosophy. Under the influence of Dignāga’s “Buddhist” philosophy, there was an “epistemological turn” not only among Buddhist philosophers but also among Sanskrit philosophers in general. This prompted Sanskrit philosophers to reconfigure their philosophical inquiry as a theory of knowledge. Beginning with Dignāga, Sanskrit philosophers started to read and criticize their opponents’ works in a far more detailed and systematic way. The critical exchange between rival philosophical traditions became more intimate, using a shared conceptual framework to formulate and pursue philosophical questions. Prof. Patil said that if we choose to understand the history of philosophy in India within the framework of the orthodox and heterodox systems, most of what is exciting and essential about Buddhist philosophy will be lost.
A second framing narrative engages notions of “Right View,” the “Path,” and ethics. As Prof. Patil said, it is widely thought that what makes Buddhist philosophy distinct from contemporary philosophy is that Buddhist philosophers see their world as part of the path to nirvāṇa, and therefore intrinsically connected to questions of how we ought to live. According to him, this is a false and misleading way to understand Buddhist philosophy in India. While Buddhist philosophers related to the Buddha in one way or another, the major project of Buddhist philosophers in India, he suggested, concerned the rejection of metaphysical justifications and, thus, was primarily ontological and epistemological. As Prof. Patil said, Vasubandhu’s verses, for example, seem to reveal little of this kind of philosophical preoccupation with the “Path.” Furthermore, the works of Buddhist philosophers such as Dignāga and Jñānaśrīmitra do not necessarily support the view that the “Path” was the focal point of Buddhist philosophy. Prof. Patil warned that this view could prevent in-depth studies of many dense debates on ontology, metaphysics, language, and mind as developed in Buddhist philosophical texts.
The third framing narrative was that of schools, textual traditions, and commentaries. Prof. Patil said another framing narrative that we ought to set aside is schools such as Abhidharma, Madhyamaka, and Yogācāra. The term “school” suggests an institutional structure. But Prof. Patil pointed out that there are often no clear agreements and disagreements among different schools. He also opined that identifying individual philosophers as representing philosophical schools is equally unhelpful. For example, Vasubandhu’s Treasury of Metaphysics was written from the perspective of the Vaibhāṣika interpretation of Abhidharma textual tradition, his commentary on the Treasury was written from the perspective of the Sautrāntika interpretation of Abhidharma text tradition, and Twenty Verses and Exposition was written from the perspective of the Yogācāra tradition. Prof. Patil emphasized that Vasubandhu was neither confused nor inconsistent, arguing that Vasubandhu’s philosophical commitment was not to schools but to more subtle lines of argument regarding mental content. He also pointed out that there are many internal variations and practitioners within single schools, It would therefore be misleading to describe individual authors within the framework of schools. Instead, he suggested it would be more accurate to think of them as belonging to a single textual tradition. Sanskrit philosophers look back to “foundational texts” that serve as the source of their basic concepts and arguments. In other words, what Sanskrit philosophers share is not a philosophical standpoint but building blocks and common textual resources offered by their predecessors. As Prof. Patil stressed, that Indian philosophers belong to a “textual tradition” does not mean their works are merely exegetical and lack philosophical creativity. In the Sanskrit philosophical world, the majority of works presented themselves as “commentaries,” which do not just clarify the meaning of the texts on which they are commenting but, in fact, develop the root texts’ arguments. Commentaries are creative and uniquely authoritative practices. Philosopher-commentators consumed the preexisting texts, trying to make good use of them to articulate their own philosophical claim.
The fourth frame was decolonization. Unlike the first three framing narratives he discussed, Prof. Patil said that the frame of decolonization is one we should embrace. Based on the critical examinations of the first three interpretive frameworks, Prof. Patil envisioned the “decolonization” of Buddhist philosophy in integrating Buddhist philosophical texts into our contemporary philosophy curriculum. However, Prof. Patil warned that mere inclusion of Sanskrit philosophical texts in the Euro-American centric curriculum of philosophy is by no means satisfactory, and that one should not move too quickly at the expense of carefully considering how to do justice to Sanskrit philosophical texts. This means understanding the texts’ arguments on their own terms, outlining the contexts of philosophical debates, and accounting for intellectual practices and reading conventions that do not follow our conventions.
Prof. Patil explained this point by taking an example from a tenth-century Indian Buddhist philosopher: Jñānaśrīmitra’s concept of “conditionally-adopted position.” Jñānaśrīmitra’s “conditionally-adopted position” is a sort of “white lie,” a statement that is not entirely true but includes at least a partial element of truth and serves an appropriate conventional purpose. Jñānaśrīmitra introduced this concept to explain how it becomes possible for humans of different levels of insight to engage in conventionally successful inferential and conceptual activity in the absence of a “real” object. According to Prof. Patil, this theory allows the philosopher to meet different requirements for commenting on the textual sources offered by Dharmakīrti (ca. 600–670). While Jñānaśrīmitra at least partially legitimates Dharamakīrti’s claim that perception is free from the inferential process, he also takes a different position from his predecessor: the position that the distinction between perception and inference cannot be made. The concept of a “conditionally-adopted position” thus enables Jñānaśrīmitra to theorize the lower orders of conventionality, while highlighting the Buddhist position that nothing ultimate is expressed through linguistic, conceptual conventions. As the case of Jñānaśrīmitra illustrates, to do justice to Sanskrit philosophical texts becomes possible only through in-depth reflection on the intellectual practices and debates in which philosophers developed their arguments.
Prof. Patil ended the lecture by providing three suggestions. First, we ought to take a broadly counterfactual approach to India’s Buddhist history of philosophy. After carefully reading a primary text, we ought to ask ourselves what the authors would say if they were here today, how they would characterize the philosophical problems and explain their most important arguments. And we also need to ask ourselves what we would say to them if we were in their place. This exercise aims to create a productive dialogue between two philosophers who see each other as epistemic peers. We need to focus on a single author, text, and line of argument to do this.
Second, we need to produce high-quality translations of primary texts and encourage interdisciplinary, collaborative research among scholars, which requires good philosophical and philological training. Lastly, we need to highlight how Buddhist arguments were constantly being updated. For instance, the works of Vasubandhu, Dignāga, and Dharmakīrti were received, studied, and commented on both by their successors and critics, and this created lines of Indian philosophical debate regarding the nature of language and mind. To discover and recover such lines of argument through history is essential for future studies of Sanskrit Buddhist philosophy.
Following the talk, Prof. Jones made her response by first stating appreciation for Prof. Patil’s thoughtful talk and for the support of the Buddhist Tzu Chi Charity Foundation. Her response mainly focused on the question of the Buddhist philosophy curriculum with which Prof. Patil began his talk. She shared her personal experience of job interviews in 2001 during which she was asked whether she could create new courses on Islam rather than on her own expertise, Buddhist philosophy. She brought this up because it underlined the confusion of categories in American universities. She pointed out how this revealed that Buddhism was categorized as other; a category in which Islam was also included. While teaching Islam to undergraduate students, she realized how vital it is to have high-quality translations of primary sources and explanatory materials geared to non-specialists. She argued that translations should not only be done by specialists for specialists. She emphasized the importance and difficulty of writing good accessible books for non-specialists. By non-specialists, she meant two groups: teachers and students with no substantial training in Buddhist studies. Based on her experience serving as an associate provost at Wofford College, she concluded by asking practical questions about the realities on the ground and expressed her concern about the current moment and future of higher education, asking: “How would the prospect to include Vasubandhu into curricula be received in your department on your campus? How would you marshal good arguments for making this change?”
The question and answer session covered a broad range of topics, including the feasibility of providing courses on Buddhist philosophy in many schools due to marketing and financial constraints; the possibility of an online platform that could share lectures and materials; how scholars in the humanities combat double standards in academia; how to understand the idea of grouping and labeling textual traditions in relation to schools in the history of Indian philosophy; the role of the “Path” beyond the “Right View” in Vasubandhu’s Treasury of Metaphysics; and the role of practice or the lack thereof in our interpretation of philosophical texts.
Bibliography
Patil, Parimal G. Against a Hindu God: Buddhist Philosophy of Religion in India. New York: Columbia University Press, 2009.
McCrea, Lawrence J., and Parimal G. Patil. Buddhist Philosophy of Language in India: Jñanasrimitra on Exclusion. New York: Columbia University Press, 2010.
Jones, Katherine Janiec. “A Theology of Increasing Adequacy: Process, Practicality, and Relationship.” Journal of Interreligious Studies, no. 34 (2022): 66–76.