English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The Samyé debate (792–794) between the Chinese Chan monk Moheyan and his Indo-Tibetan opponents has long been one of the key issues in the study of Indo-Tibetan Buddhism. This article attempts to approach this debate from a different angle, by focussing on the common ground that enabled the debate in the first place, instead of the doctrinal opposition between the two parties. This article argues that there are several areas where Kamalaśīla’s doctrinal positions are comparable to or even compatible with the doctrinal positions found in Northern Chan texts. First, the article points to the centrality of the  Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra  and how it signifies their commitment to a form of Yogācāra-Madhyamaka synthesis. Second, the controversy revolving around the “Single Vehicle” (Ekayāna) is discussed. Third, the article discusses how to understand the “interface” between Yogācāra and Madhyamaka in Kamalaśīla’s texts and Northern Chan texts. Lastly, the article compares yogic perception discussed by Kamalaśīla and the extrasensory apprehension alluded to in Northern Chan texts.

The Compatible and the Comparable – Searching for Doctrinal Sharedness between Kamalaśīla and Northern Chan