Jingjing Li

In contemporary phenomenological discussions of sociality, shared experience has garnered much scholarly attention. The crux of this discussion concerns how to define shared experience given a plurality of subjects. Enriching this discussion, I suggest that it is more meaningful to consider the interdependency of the I and the we, rather than the primacy of the I or the we. To this end, I focus on the writings composed by a Chinese Yogācāra thinker, Kuiji (632–682). As I will argue, it is the second-person perspective that sustains the I−we interdependency, further making it possible to constitute, conserve, and transform a shared lifeworld in which a personal lifeworld is contextualized. Sociality, thus, is mutually constitutive and collaboratively transformative. The transformative aspect of sociality points to a possibility of reimagining how various types of injustice that have been perpetuated in communal history—sex discrimination, for instance—can be skillfully tackled and jointly corrected.

In this article, I examine the work of Ven. Longlian (1909–2006) to explore how women engage and can engage with Buddhist philosophy. Posthumously acclaimed as the most understanding Buddhist nun in modern China, Longlian is known as a significant reviver of monastic disciplines and Buddhist education. Building on existing research in social history and cultural anthropology, I present Longlian as an erudite philosopher. Taking lived experience seriously, I argue for reading her work as a Buddhist expression of performative phenomenology, which enriches the Euro-American articulation of this theory with her conceptions of karma, embodied knowledge, and skilfulness. Engaging with Buddhism through performative phenomenology, Longlian has lived out a life that showcases a possibility of closing the rift between the “new women” and the “traditional women” in Chinese modernity, which further expresses a more process-oriented feminism.

In this paper, I intend to make a case for Buddhist phenomenology. By Buddhist phenomenology, I mean a phenomenological interpretation of Yogācāra’s doctrine of consciousness. Yet, this interpretation will be vulnerable if I do not justify the way in which the anti-essentialistic Buddhist philosophy can countenance the Husserlian essence. I dub this problem of compatibility between Buddhist and phenomenology the ‘problem of essence’. Nevertheless, I argue that this problem will not jeopardize Buddhist phenomenology because: 1) Yogācārins, especially late Yogācārins represented by Xuanzang do not articulate emptiness as a negation but as an affirmation of the existent; 2) Husserl’s phenomenological essence is not a substance that Yogācārins reject but the ideal sense (Sinn) that Yogācārins also stress. After resolving the problem of essence, I formulate Buddhist phenomenology as follows: on the epistemological level, it describes intentional acts of consciousness; on the meta-epistemological level, it entails transcendental idealism.

In this article, I investigate how Taixu 太虛 (1890–1947) and Fazun 法尊 (1902–1980) tackle what I refer to as the problem of conventional reality. It is a problem that thrives on the metaphysical characterization of this-worldly conventionality as a non-existent illusion and the normative prioritization of transcending this-worldly illusions. In exploring their resolution to this problem, I zoom in on Taixu’s initiative to build a pure land on Earth and Fazun’s cause of institutionalizing the true dharma through Buddhist education. As I will argue, these practitioners reread the twofold truth in Madhyamaka to reorient themselves with illusory conventions, which indicates a performative philosophy of renewing Buddhist norms, especially those related to the Bodhisattva ideal. Instead of creating a rift with the historical past, Taixu and Fazun rearrange the past to reinforce the openness of their tradition. It is through their effort that humanistic Buddhism becomes the modern, new normal.

Among Buddhist reformers, Longlian 隆蓮 (1909–2006) is renowned for revitalizing monastic discipline and Buddhist education in modern China, especially for Buddhist women. Complementing findings in social history and cultural anthropology, I reread Longlian’s work on morality to investigate the philosophical thought that supports her monastic reform. I argue for interpreting her moral theory as a Buddhist expression of meta-ethical pluralism. It is a theory that appreciates a plurality of moralities for sentient beings who are preoccupied with this-worldly life, aspiring to other-worldly liberation, or re-engaging with this-worldly reality to guide others to the Bodhisattvas’ path. Instead of postulating a unitary standard of morality, Longlian encourages each person to explore moral values suitable to their own world as a preparatory step towards universal awakening. In doing so, Longlian makes a case for her monastic reform in a secular world and manages to respond to the (neo-)Confucian critique of Buddhism as a socially disengaged teaching.

In this article, I elaborate on the approach to joy preserved in East Asian Yogācāra texts authored by Xuanzang and his disciple, Kuiji. I argue that these Yogācāra Buddhists propose a contextualist approach that does not presume joy to be an emotion with an essential property but rather perceives joy as always contextualized in lifeworlds at the personal and interpersonal levels. As such, Xuanzang and Kuiji outline two contrasting pictures of joy to capture how it is experienced in the lifeworld of ignorance and the lifeworld of wisdom, respectively. Upon delineating what joy is and how it is experienced, I continue to explore what joy can promise. Since joy does not have an inherent property, people can always make a collaborative effort to recontextualize joy for inclusion and emancipation. As such, I hope to draw on the Yogācāra analysis of joy to enrich the feminist discussion on happiness.

Focusing on Liang Shuming’s (梁漱溟 1893–1988) early writings, this chapter explores how Buddhist philosophy—especially the Yogācāra doctrine of consciousness-only—influenced his philosophical thought from 1913 to 1921. I define Liang as a Buddhist, not only because of his lifestyle as a practicing Buddhist, but also because Yogācāra furnished him with a vocabulary to structure his philosophical system and because the Buddhist notion of non-duality offered him a way of navigating life between this-worldly matters and other-worldly concerns. As this chapter argues, these three senses in which Liang can be termed a Buddhist are interconnected and mutually reinforced in the early phase of his thought.

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Philosophy's Big Questions: Comparing Buddhist and Western Approaches ed. by Steven M. EmmanuelJingjing Li (bio)Philosophy's Big Questions: Comparing Buddhist and Western Approaches. Edited by Steven M. Emmanuel. New York: Columbia University Press, 2021. Pp. 336. Paperback $30.00, ISBN 978-0-231174-87-9.The call for diversifying and globalizing philosophy has garnered growing scholarly attention. The newly published volume, Philosophy's Big Questions: Comparing Buddhist and Western Approaches, edited by Steven M. Emmanuel, is another crucial contribution to the initiative of making comparative philosophy a cross-cultural dialogue between intellectual traditions. Drawing upon theories preserved in Buddhist and Western philosophies, authors in this collection present a diversity of viewpoints to advance the current philosophical discussion and, thus, add "new possibilities for thinking about old questions" (p. 7). In appreciating the intellectual insights and diverse voices from non-Western philosophical traditions, all the eight chapters in this volume make philosophical research, both in content and method, more inclusive.That is why contributors to this volume do not follow the traditional way of sorting philosophical inquiries into subfields, such as epistemology, metaphysics, or ethics. Rather, their chapters revolve around major philosophical questions that make these subfields possible. As such, they not only make philosophical writings more accessible to non-specialists, but also introduce readers to the practice of philosophy itself. As remarked by Gilles Deleuze, "the truth is that in philosophy and even elsewhere it is a question of finding the problem and consequently of positing it, even more than of solving it."1 Indeed, a true philosophical question does not predetermine its answers and, thus, cannot be resolved with a simple "yes" or "no." Rather, by reconceptualizing the presumptions that constitute a philosophical problem, people can reimagine philosophy as a field and rethink philosophical practice as a meaningful way of life.Following this line of reasoning, Chapter 1 asks the question of how we should live (p. 23). Expanding the widely held understanding of happiness as merely "subjective well-being," Stephen J. Laumakis proposes to connect the comprehension of human flourishing with the larger discussion about a "morally appropriate human life" (p. 24). Turning to Western and Buddhist thought, Laumakis positions these thinkers in their respective contexts to detail their [End Page 1] approaches. On the one hand, philosophers in Euro-American traditions tend to define a good life in terms of the person-action-consequence paradigm as presented in Aristotle's virtue ethics, Kant's deontology, and Mill's consequentialism (p. 28). On the other hand, Buddhist clerics examine what counts as a morally appropriate life in their soteriological project of liberating sentient beings from suffering, where Theravāda Buddhists promote the arhat ideal for attaining a personal release from saṃsāra (p. 41), and Mahāyāna followers propose following the Bodhisattvas' path to attain awakening for all (p. 44). Instead of reading Buddhist theories as a version of virtue ethics or consequentialism, Laumakis brings thinkers from these two traditions into dialogue to explore how Buddhist approaches can advance Western moral theories, not only because of the reciprocity of metaphysical investigation and moral cultivation in Buddhism, but also due to the Buddhist way of motivating moral actions (p. 52).Chapter 2 moves on to enquire, "what is knowledge?" (p. 58). Considering how Buddhist epistemology lays the ground for metaphysical investigation of the ultimate nature of reality and the moral cultivation needed to realize awakening, Douglas Duckworth compares the reciprocity of knowledge and practice as the vision and method required for awakening (p. 60). Drawing upon the writings of Dignāga (c. 480-540) and Dharmakīrti (c. 600-660), Duckworth outlines three sets of epistemic issues: how conceptual and perceptual knowledge are differentiated and correlated (p. 62); how self-awareness, defined as knowledge by acquaintance, is lived by perceivers--a knowledge that is not about something but rather serves as the foundation therefor and, thus, cannot be reduced to representational knowledge, such as conception or perception (p. 68); and how Buddhists articulate Yogic perception as the knowledge of skill to be embodied by practitioners for the realization of awakening (p. 71). Altogether, the Buddhist answers to these three issues invite scholars...

While phenomenology and Yogacara Buddhism are both known for their investigations of consciousness, there exists a core tension between them: phenomenology affirms the existence of essence, whereas Yogacara Buddhism argues that everything is empty of essence (svabhava). How is constructive cultural exchange possible when traditions hold such contradictory views? Answering this question and positioning both philosophical traditions in their respective intellectual and linguistic contexts, Jingjing Li argues that what Edmund Husserl means by essence differs from what Chinese Yogacarins mean by svabhava, partly because Husserl problematises the substantialist understanding of essence in European philosophy. Furthermore, she reveals that Chinese Yogacara has developed an account of self-transformation, ethics and social ontology that renders it much more than simply a Buddhist version of Husserlian phenomenology. Detailing the process of finding a middle ground between the two traditions, this book demonstrates how both can thrive together in order to overcome Orientalism.

RÉSUMÉDans cet article, j'explore comment nous pouvons nous servir d'idées philosophiques provenant du Yogācāra chinois afin d’élargir le projet du féminisme bouddhiste. En me concentrant sur les écrits de Xuanzang (env. 602–664) et de son disciple Kuiji (632–682), j'examine comment la théorie de la conscience du Yogācāra peut être interprétée comme un récit genré de la non-dualité. Ainsi, le terme «dialectique du Yogācāra» serait employé afin de décrire cette théorie de la non-dualité qui souligne la fluidité et la transformabilité. Je soutiens que les Yogācārins chinois ont développé la dialectique du genre, et qu'ils ont ainsi pu éroder subtilement le sexisme à l’époque prémoderne.

This article proposes a new reading of the mirror analogy presented in the doctrine of Chinese Yogācāra Buddhism. Clerics, such as Xuanzang 玄奘 and his protégé Kuiji 窺基, articulated this analogy to describe our experience of other minds. In contrast with existing interpretations of this analogy as figurative ways of expressing ideas of projecting and reproducing, I argue that this mirroring experience should be understood as revealing, whereby we perceive other minds through the second-person perspective. This mirroring experience, in its allusion to the collectivity of consciousness, yields the metaphysical explication of mutual interdependence and the prescription of norms for compassionate actions.

In this paper, I scrutinize Mou Zongsan’s doctrine of Moral Metaphysics in which Mou fuses Kant’s architectonic of knowledge with Chinese philosophy. Through this doctrine, Mou contends that: 1) according to Chinese philosophy, humans do have access to intellectual intuition; 2) this possibility justifies the legitimacy and priority of Chinese philosophy. To examine Mou’s argument, I first present Mou’s reading of Kant’s conception of intellectual intuition; then, I elucidate the way in which Mou identifies intellectual intuition as the intuitive knowledge in Confucianism; subsequently, I introduce Mou’s doctrine Moral Metaphysics and his critique of Kant and Heidegger; finally, I reflect on Mou’s readings of Kant by pinpointing issues in this interpretation. Nevertheless, this examination shall never negate Mou’s contribution to modernizing Chinese philosophy.

In this paper, I investigate the account of self-consciousness provided by Chinese Yogācārins Xuanzang (602-664CE) and Kuiji (632-682CE). I will explain how they clarify the transition from selfattaching to self-emptying through the articulation of consciousness (vijñāna). Current scholarship often interprets the Yogācāra account of consciousness either as a science of mind or as a metaphysical idealism. Both interpretations are misleading, partly because they perpetuate various stereotypes about Buddhism, partly also because they overlook the religious goal of realizing in practice the wisdom of emptiness and the non-egoistic compassion. Against the status quo, I argue that through their account of self-consciousness, Xuanzang and Kuiji advocate what can be referred to as transcendental idealism that stresses the correlation between subjectivity and objectivity. Yogācārins thus neither nullify the existence of subjectivity nor formulate subjectivity as a higher entity. The transcendental idealism yields a Buddhist phenomenology that is similar to and also different from Edmund Husserl’s transcendental phenomenology. In what follows I will first characterize Husserl’s phenomenology as an approach to consciousness at two levels (the descriptive level and the explicative level). Then, I elicit the Buddhist phenomenology from Yogācāra philosophy that is not only descriptive and explicative but also prescriptive. This three-level architectonic of consciousness, while reaffirming the importance of agency, further justifies the role of religious rituals and moral practices for Yogācāra devotees.

In this paper, I intend to make a case for Buddhist phenomenology. By Buddhist phenomenology, I mean a phenomenological interpretation of Yogācāra’s doctrine of consciousness. Yet, this interpretation will be vulnerable if I do not justify the way in which the anti-essentialistic Buddhist philosophy can countenance the Husserlian essence. I dub this problem of compatibility between Buddhist and phenomenology the ‘problem of essence’. Nevertheless, I argue that this problem will not jeopardize Buddhist phenomenology because: 1) Yogācārins, especially late Yogācārins represented by Xuanzang do not articulate emptiness as a negation but as an affirmation of the existent; 2) Husserl’s phenomenological essence is not a substance that Yogācārins reject but the ideal sense that Yogācārins also stress. After resolving the problem of essence, I formulate Buddhist phenomenology as follows: on the epistemological level, it describes intentional acts of consciousness; on the meta-epistemological level, it entails transcendental idealism.