DOI: 10.25136/2409-8728.2020.10.33909

Abstract: The object of this research is the Buddhist doctrine of non-self; while the subject is the content of this doctrine and its evolution with the course of time. Special attention is given to demonstration of the fact that initially the Anatta doctrine did not imply the denial of existence of the subject (self) as such. The author examines such aspects of the topic as the doctrine of non-self in the early Buddhism (Pāli Canon) and the problem of interpretation of the phenomenon of self in modern Buddhism, including by such cultural and philosophical figures as Ngawang Lobsang Tenzin Gyatso (14th Dalai Lama). The novelty of the conducted research consists in carrying out the first in Russia comprehensive study of Buddhist doctrine of non-self and outlining a new perspective on the problem. The author’s special contribution is lies in translations of the passages from Sutta dedicated to Anatmavada, which allowed formulating the fundamentally new conclusions. The following conclusions were made: 1) throughout history, Anatmavada underwent a difficult path from solely soteriological teaching that did not imply denial of self or subject to the open denial of subject in Buddhism of later period (the author sees recent interpretation of Anatmavada as incorrect); 2) two concepts of Anatta in early Buddhism can be determined: more common Anatmavada-2 and more “marginal” Anatmavada-1, which tends to denial of Anatta; 3) Anatmavada has evolved over the course of history from Anatmavada-2 to more nominalistic interpretations observed in the Buddhism of later period in form of the denial of self as such; 4) early Buddhism is not interested in ontological discourse on the existence of self; 5) Skandha in early Buddhism should be viewed from soteriological perspective – as a subject for meditation on the emergence, existence and elimination of certain moments of experience.

DOI: 10.25136/2409-8728.2019.9.31153

Abstract: This article examines the metaphysical nature of Samkhya and the concept of subject within it; then the author refers to the polemics between Buddhists and Samkhyaks as it is described in the passage Atmapariksha from Shantarakshita's Tattvasamgraha (VIII century) with the commentary "Panjika” of Shri Kamalashila. The subject of this research is the concept of subject within the philosophical system of Samkhya as it is given in Samkhya Karika and section on the polemics with Samkhya of the chapter Atmapariksha from Shantarakshita's Tattvasamgraha with the commentary "Panjika” of Shri Kamalashila. The object of this research is the Samkhya Karika and Shantarakshita's Tattvasamgraha. The key research method is the classical historical-philosophical method suggesting the combination of several methodological approaches. Genetic approach, comprehended as a method of studying philosophical concepts and notions, is based on the analysis of their origin and development. It implies consideration of the objects in evolutionary perspective, in dynamics of their historical development, therefore requires the establishment of initial conditions, key stage, main trends and strategies of development. The main goal of such research lies in identification of connection between the objects in time, studying of transitions from the historically older forms of philosophical (or even pre-philosophical) reflection towards the historically more recent. The author’s special contribution consists in conducting the first even research in Russia and in Russian language of the chapter “Discussion with the representatives of Samkhya on Atman” of the passage Atmapariksha from Shantarakshita's Tattvasamgraha with the commentary "Panjika” of Shri Kamalashila based on the original translation from Sanskrit.

DOI: 10.25136/2409-8728.2017.10.20948

Abstract: The subject of this article is the philosophical polemics between Buddhism and Indian School of Nyaya-Vaisheshika on the question of existence and qualities of an actor as it presented in the chapter Atmapariksha (literally, "Study of the Atman") in Shantarakshita’s Tattvasamgraha). Shantarakshita is a Buddhist philosopher of the VIII century, one of the prominent Buddhist thinkers in India and Tibet, a representative of the school of Svatantrika-Madhyamaka. An outstanding oeuvre of Shantarakshita is "Tattvasamgraha" ("Compilation of Essential Problems", or "Compendium of Principles"). It is an extensive polemic work, containing 26 chapters that subject to criticism the identical number of the fundamental philosophical schools of India (Sankhya, Nyaya, Vaisheshika, Mimansa, Lokayata, Yoga, Vedanta, and also Jainism and Buddhism of other schools). The author concludes that the key postulate of the Nyaya-Vaisheshika regarding the actor lies in the fact that for the mental phenomena (for example, desire, etc.), which are considered as qualities within its system, necessitates the presence of a certain substrate, namely Atman. Shantarakshita, in turn, criticizes the position of the Nyaya-Vaisheshika that the numerous perceptions are comprehended by "self" and, therefore, pertain to the same actor. This article is first to introduce translation from Sanskrit into the Russian language of a substantial passage from Shantarakshita’s Tattvasamgraha with commentaries of Kamalashila dedicated to the question of the existence of actor, as well as philosophical analysis of the aforementioned fragment of text.

DOI: 10.7256/2454-0757.2013.1.7080

Abstract:

Abstract: