Tibetan Monk Zheng Of Epistemology Of

The Tubo Monks’ Debate occurred in the late8thcentury AD, which was a debateon Buddhism, showing different interpretations of Buddhist scholars from differentcultures. Reviewing the whole event it was easy to know that the “GradualEnlightenment” advocated by Kamalasila gave tit for the “Sudden Enlightment” ofMahayana, and it seemed that the issue of “learn and practice” became the focus of thewhole debate. However, if we anatomize this debate we will see that the real reason ofthis difference rooted in their different opinion on “non-discriminating wisdom”. Both ofthem attached importance to “non-discriminating wisdom” and treated it as the key ofobtaining the Buddha-hood. But they diverged on how to get “Non-discriminatingwisdom”. It was Kamalasila’s idea that we can get it through gradual theoretical learning.While Mahayana believed that there were no need of theoretical learning, and we can get“non-discriminating wisdom” if we watched our minds and “Non-manasikara”. After afurther analysis we can tell that their different opinion on “non-discriminating wisdom”was derived from their different Buddhist thoughts. Kamalasila was developed fromYogacara-Svatantrika madhyamaka of Indian, and Mahayana belonged to the NorthernSchool of Chinese Chan Buddism. These different origins formed their different thoughtsand logic. Showing on Buddha-Nature theory, Kamalasila thought that Buddhata wasShiyou, while Mahayana thought it was Ereignis. Thus, the issue of Buddha Naturebecame the real focus of the Tubo Monks’ Debate. Within this essay, the author willanalyze the Tubo Monks’ Debate from three different dimensions:“learn and practice”,“non-discriminating wisdom”, and the thoughts of Buddha Nature. All these threedimensions belong to philosophical epistemology, and the author will try to re-interpretthe debate between Kmalasila and Mahayana from epistemological point of view so thatwe can have a deeper understanding of the philosophical essence of the Tubo Monks’Debate.