Abstract: The subject of this article is meaning of the work “Ocean of Reasoning : a Great Commentary on the Nāgārjuna's Mūlamadhyamakakārikā” by Je Tsongkhapa for understanding the phenomenon of Nāgārjuna, his contribution to the development of the history of Buddhism overall and Buddhist philosophy in particular, essence of the explained by hum system of Madhyamaka – middle way, free from the extremes of reification and nihilism. The author establishes that false interpretations of Mūlamadhyamakakārikā as just logical-epistemological text and a guide for polemicizing, as well as such an improper understanding of the ontology of Nāgārjuna, when the doctrine of dependent origination is proclaimed higher teaching of the Buddha, can be overcome through the commentary of Je Tsongkhapa. The novelty of this study is defined by the fact that it involves original text of Tsongkhapa, which is translated into the Russian language for the first time, as well as introduced into the discourse on national Buddhology. Due the commentary of Tsongkhapa, it is established that the doctrine of emptiness is the “heart of teaching of the Buddha”, and the argument on the dependent origination is “superior to all arguments”, as it helps to cognize emptiness as the “dependently emerging suchness”. The doctrine of dependent origination and the view of emptiness comprise a semantic unity, although they are not identical. Therefore, translation from the Tibetan language and examination of the writings of Je Tsongkhapa, namely “A Great Commentary”, are relevant and essential for reconstruction of the authentic teaching of Nāgārjuna, as well as overall comprehension of Buddhist philosophy.

Abstract: The author conducts the analysis of origins of philosophical study of Buddhism – the role of Russian Buddhologists F. I. Sherbatsky and O. O. Rozenberg in development of the philosophical interpretation of Buddhism, meaning of the Masson-Oursel approach; covers certain insufficiently studied, but important approaches towards interpretation of Buddhist philosophy in comparison with the Western, formulated in modern philosophical comparative studies (“Neo-Buddhism” of B. Dandaron, procedural approach of N. P. Jacobson, historical-philosophical approaches of S. Radhakrishnan, P. Raju), as well as certain approaches of comparative philosophical study of Buddhism on the “internal” vector, particularly the writings of W. Libenthal and W. Lay on Sinification of Buddhist philosophy. Historical-philosophical and cross-cultural methodology of analysis of the origins of comparative philosophical study of Buddhism and main approaches is applied in the course of this research. The following conclusions were made: the absence of the recognized academic tradition of philosophical interpretation of Buddhism is an enormous theoretical-methodological challenge emerged in the very beginning of Buddhological studies and retained to this day; hermeneutical distortions, permitted by the Western comparativists in the process of philosophical interpretation of Buddhism, are also rooted in the fact that the as a subject of philosophical comparative studies most often become early Far Eastern forms of Buddhism, although the most mature form of Buddhist philosophy is Nagarjuna. Therefore it can be expected that the most promising trends of comparative philosophical studies of Buddhism would be associated namely with examination of Madhyamaka in its Indo-Tibetan tradition.

Abstract: The subject of this research is the Indo-Tibetan tradition of Buddhist meditation, viewed in the context of Indian and Tibetan Buddhist texts, as well as Tibetan oral tradition of Dharma transmission, realized in the past by Je Tsongkhapa, and currently by the 14th Dalai Lama Tenzin Gyatso and other Tibetan lamas. The goal lies in preliminary consideration of Buddhist mediation as a phenomenon of the Buddhist spiritual practice, an important element of practical functioning of the Teaching of Buddha, determination of the place of mediation in the Noble Eightfold Path, characteristics of its concept and types. The author uses hermeneutic approach that leans on the systemic view of the functional aspect of the Teaching of Buddha, as well as hermeneutic understanding of meditation phenomenon, etymological and contextual analysis of meditation in functional relation with Buddhist ethics and philosophy. The main conclusion consists in the thesis that meditation in Buddhism is one of the three basis practices (morality, focus, and wisdom), as well as an essential technique in exercising and developing higher wisdom, and therefore a quintessential means for realization of Dharma. The Tibetan tradition practices two types of meditation – analytical meditation with such its variety as reflective meditation; as well as unidirectional focus.

Abstract: The subject of this research is the Mahayana, which as commonly knows, was being transmitted in two directions: Tibet and Mongolian world (Mongolia, Buryatia, Kalmykia, Tuva), and Eastern Asia (China, Korea, Japan). Comparison of the two directions of Mahayana with regard to traditions lead to the question: why the mainstream of Indo-Tibetan Mahayana manifests as a “gradual” path to enlightenment, while the mainstream of Chinese / Far Eastern Mahayana as a “sudden” path; which one most vividly reflects Chan/Zen? For answering this question, the author analyzes the differences between Indo-Tibetan and Chinese traditions in terms of interpreting the Buddhist ontology. The scientific novelty consists in the subject itself – the ontological differences between the two directions of Mahayana that manifest in the alternative ways of conceptualization of the Path (gradual and sudden path to enlightenment), as well as in the method of philosophical cross-cultural analysis applied to the philosophical comparison of the two directions of Mahayana. A conclusion is made that the methods and content of philosophical interpretations of the basic Buddhist doctrines and substantiation of the path in Indo-Tibetan and Chinese Madhyamaka have significant differences, which require the further detailed analysis.

Abstract: The object of this philosophical-theological research is the Indo-Tibetan and Chinese traditions of Mahayana in the aspect of conceptualization of the Path: a comparison is drawn according to the method of posing and solving of the problem of “gradual”/ “sudden” path, conceptualization of correlation between the “gradual” and “sudden”. The author analyzes the place of “sudden” (“quick” or “straight”) methods of achieving enlightenment in the Indo-Tibetan Mahayana; describes the controversy of “gradual” and “sudden” in the Chinese Buddhism and its origins in the traditional patterns of Chinese thought; reveals the meaning of the notions “gradual” and “sudden”. The article applies the comparative historical-philosophical methodology and cross-cultural method of philosophical research of Buddhism based on the principle of coupling of the “external” academic approach and “internal” approach of the representatives of classical Buddhism learnedness. The scientific novelty is associated with the choice of a subject of comparative philosophical study, with the applied cross-cultural philosophical method that alongside the academic standards of scientific rationality takes into consideration the Buddhist criteria of philosophical rationalism. A conclusion is made that the two main traditions of Mahayana – the Into-Tibetan and the Chinese have significant differences in conceptualization of the Path, as well as solution of the problem of “gradual” path / “sudden” path, understanding of their interrelation that allows stating that in a certain sense they are the alternative strategies of achieving of one and the same soteriological goal of Mahayana – the state of Buddha.

Abstract: This article examines the multiplicity of Buddhist practice in their inner unity, as well as substantiates the approach that acknowledges the crucial theoretical-methodological importance of the Indo-Tibetan presentation of Buddhist philosophy and practice in their functional interrelation through the categories of "Base", "Path" and "Fruit". The key subject is the philosophical and soteriological contents of these categories, as well as multi-stage conceptualization of the Path and various schemes of multi-stage systematization in Indo-Tibetan Siddhanta texts alongside treatises about the paths and stages. The author applies the historical-philosophical methods, system and comparative approaches, combination of academic standards of scientific rationalism with the principles of Buddhist hermeneutics; suggests the approach towards multi-stage conceptualization of Buddha’s Teaching based on the Indo-Tibetan sources that represents a “gradual” path on enlightenment as a universal method of presentation of Buddhist doctrines and practices in their inner unity; provides academic analysis of the content of the Base (absolute and relative truth), Path (combination of meditative practices), and Fruit (final goal and results of the Path – status of Buddha). It is established that Buddhist philosophy is not limited by the content of the Base, but also captures the Path and the Fruit. A position is formulated about the inadequacy of contraposition of philosophy and practice in Buddhism; “gradual” and “instantaneous” ways of enlightenment. Conclusion is made that the idea of “gradualness” is not strictly the approach of the Gelugpa school, but rather exists in all of the Tibetan Buddhist schools and dates back to the Indian heritage: the idea of “gradual” path that is not reducible just to the temporal sense was substantiated not only in the Mahayana, but also in the early Buddhist texts.

Abstract: The subject of this article is associated with the fact that the philosophical comparativistics, rapidly developing in the late XX century, due to the countermotion of the philosophers of both world traditions – East and West – demonstrates higher interest towards Buddhism. After the pioneering works of F. I. Shcherbatskoy, multiple publications oriented towards the search for possible parallelisms between the West and Buddhist philosophical teaching have appeared in the West. The article is dedicated to the critical analysis of experience of the comparative examination of L. Wittgenstein’s ideas, who had a revolutionary impact upon the modern philosophical thought, with the philosophy of Buddhism, particularly Madhyamaka that represented the explication of Prajñāpāramitā by the Ancient Indian philosopher Nagarjuna and his successors (Buddhapālita, Bhāviveka, Chandrakirti, and others), as well as the turned to be the philosophical foundation Indo-Tibetan Mahāyāna. The goal of the work consists in the critical consideration of the key moments of K. Gudmunsen’s comparative approach towards interpretation of the Madhyamaka philosophy, substantiated from the perspective of analytical philosophy within the platitude of comparison betwee the Nagarjuna’s doctrine of the late Wittgenstein. Conclusion is made that there are opening the heuristic abilities for development of the new approaches towards the problematic of “reality, consciousness, language” , using the ideas of Wittgenstein as a hermeneutic “key” to interpreting Madhyamaka and its comprehension in the context of modern world philosophy.

Abstract: The subject of this research is the Buddhist way of conceptualization of the human problem that is being revealed in the context of comparison with the fact, which place a “man” held within the rationalistic philosophical tradition of the West. The author examines the philosophical foundation of the Buddhist model of evolution of identity in the wheel of being (Bhavacakra) according to the formula of the twelve links of dependent origination – the most important doctrine in the Buddhist ontology of dependent origination (Pratītyasamutpāda, rten’brel) and its distinct features, as well as its connection with the other essential philosophical theory of Buddhism – theory of emptiness in interpretation of Prasaṅgika –  the subschool of Madhyamaka. The methodology of this research is based on the principles of comparative philosophical study of Buddhism, formulated by one of the founders of the philosophical Buddhology Russian philosopher and orientalist O. O. Rozenberg, as well as the hermeneutic ideas of M. Heidegger on the dialogue with the Other and the need for understanding the “sacredness of being” and the connection between the man and reality. The scientific novelty consists in the comparison of the Buddhist way of conceptualization of the problem of a man with the Western rationalistic tradition of studying a man, as well as determination of a number of specific characteristics of the Buddhist anthropology. The author concludes that unlike the Western philosophy, the anthropomorphism is not typical for the Buddhist philosophy; a man is not the criterion of all the things, and is not considered self-evident, but rather something relative in the circle of unfree being; but at the same time, it has the complete potential for achieving the freedom and realization of the limitless resources of consciousness, the possibility of which finds the substantiation in the doctrine of dependent origination, theory of emptiness, and theory of tathāgatagarbha. In understanding of the Buddhist philosophers, a human does not have its own internal nature; a human is a dependently emerged phenomenon, and thus, he can transform or rid, and the suffering comprising the content of the unfree being can be irrevocably eliminated.

Abstract:  
The subject of this research is the comparativist experience of establishment of the philosophical approach towards examination of Buddhism within the framework of academic Buddhology and comparative philosophy. Special attention is given to the establishment of the philosophical methodology of the study of Budhism due to self-identification of the topic of comparative philosophy in broad and narrow sense, as well as analysis of the contribution of F. I. Scherbatsky and O. O. Rozenberg into substantiation of the philosophical Buddhology, reframing of the essence of theoretical-methodological principles of Rozenberg and the importance of his philosophical approach for understanding of the unity in multiplicity of Buddhism along with articulation of the problem of authentic Buddhism. Due to the strong influence of the works of F. I Scherbatsky, who took the Buddhist philosophy out the boundaries of Orientalism into the area of legitimate philosophy, and turned it into the discipline of historical-philosophical science, the greatest development in Russia and abroad received the comparative historical-philosophical research of the Buddhist and Western philosophy, aimed at the search of parallelisms between the specific doctrines. The philosophical methodology of the study of Buddhism in its establishment was tightly linked to the formation of the discipline of comparative philosophy in its broad and narrow sense – as the global trend of synthesis of the Eastern and Western philosophies, as well as the cross-cultural historical-philosophical research. The author concludes that the approach of O. O. Rozenberg corresponds with the Buddhological tradition formed by the Buryat scholars of Buddhism, which consists in complementing the academic opportunities by the resources of Buddhist wisdom in examination of Buddhism. Not just the knowledge of the original Buddhist texts and classical Hindu commentary literature, but also the reliance upon “living” tradition is necessary for establishment of the specific scientific methodology in the modern Buddhology.