Abstract
From about the fourth to the tenth century Buddhist monks in China engaged in formal, semi-public, religious disputation. I describe the Indian origins of this disputation and outline its settings, procedures, and functions. I then propose that this disputation put its participants at risk of performative contradiction with Buddhist tenets about language and salvation, and I illustrate how some chinese Buddhists attempted to transcend these contradictions, subverting disputation through creative linguistic and extra- linguistic strategies.
Similar content being viewed by others
WORKS CITED
T. = The Tokyo edition of the Tripitaka, Taishō shinshū daizōkyō. Ed. and comp. Takakusu Junirō et al. 85 vols. Taishō Issaikyō Kankōkei, Tokyo, 1924–1932.
Aitken, Robert: 1990, The Gateless Barrier: The Wu-men kuan (Mumonkan), North Point, San Francisco.
Chang, Chung-yuan: 1965, ‘Ts'ao-tung Ch'an and its Metaphysical Background’, Tsing Hua Journal of Chinese Studies 5(1), 33–66.
Chang, Chung-yuan: 1969, Original Teachings of Ch'an Buddhism, Vintage, New York.
Chi, R. S. Y.: 1969, Buddhist Formal Logic, Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, London.
Cleary, Thomas: Sayings and Doings of Pai-chang, Center Publications, Los Angeles.
Cleary, Thomas and J.C. Cleary: 1977, The Blue Cliff Record, Shambala, Boulder.
Cleary, Thomas and J. C. Cleary: 1990, Book of Serenity, Lindisfarne Press, New York.
Daye, Douglas Dunsmore: 1973, Review of Richard S. Y. Chi, Buddhist Formal Logic. Philosophy East and West 23(4), 525–535.
Daoxuan: 664, Ji gujin fodao lunheng, T. 2104
Daoxuan: c. 664, Guang hongming ji, T. 2103.
Epstein, Mark: 1995, Thoughts Without a Thinker: Psychotherapy from a Buddhist Perspective, Basic Books, NY.
Factor, R. Lance: 1983, ‘What is the “Logic” in Buddhist Logic?’, Philosophy East and West 33(2), 183–188.
Garrett, Mary M.: 1994, ‘The “Three Doctrines Debates” of Tang China: Competitive Religious Debate as a Rhetorical Strategy’, Argumentation and Advocacy 30(3), 150–161.
Garrett, Mary M.: 1993a, ‘Wit, Power, and Oppositional Groups: A Case Study of “Pure Talk”’, Quarterly Journal of Speech 79(3), 303–318.
Garrett, Mary M.: 1993b, ‘Classical Chinese Conceptions of Argumentation and Persuasion’, Argumentation and Advocacy 29(3), 105–115.
Graham, Angus C.: 1978, Later Mohist Logic, Ethics and Science, Chinese University Press, Hong Kong.
Gupta, Bina: 1980, ‘Are the Hetvābhāsas Formal Fallacies?’, Journal of Indian Philosophy 8, 135–147.
Jan, Yun-hua: 1972, ‘Tsung-mi: His Analysis of Ch'an Buddhism’, T'oung Pao 58, 1–54.
Kohn, Livia: 1995, Laughing at the Tao: Debates among Buddhists and Taoists in Medieval China, Princeton University, Princeton.
Kroll, J. R.: 1985, ‘Disputation in Ancient Chinese Culture’, Early China 11–12, 118–145.
Powell, Robert: 1986, The Record of Tung-shan, University of Honolulu Press, Hawaii.
Robinson, Richard H.: 1967, Early Mādhyamika in India and China, University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, Wis.
Robinson, Richard H.: 1972, ‘Did Nāgārjuna Really Refute all Philosophical Views?’, Philosophy East and West 22(3), 325–331.
Senzaki, Nyogen and Ruth McCandless: 1961, Iron Flute: 100 Zen Koan, C.E. Tuttle, Rutland, VT.
Schloegl, Irmgard: 1976, The Zen Teaching of Rinzai, Shambala, Berkeley.
Swanson, Paul: 1989, Foundations of T'ien-T'ai Philosophy: The Flowering of the Two Truths Theory in Chinese Buddhism, Asian Humanities, Berkeley.
Vassiliev, Boris: 1937, ‘“Ju-shih Lun” — A Logical Treatise Ascribed to Vasubandhu’, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 8(4), 1013–1037.
Zongmi: 833, Chanyuan zhuquan, T 2015.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Garrett, M.M. Chinese Buddhist Religious Disputation. Argumentation 11, 195–209 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007747017533
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007747017533