- Paperback: 548 pages
- Publisher: Ateneo De Manila Univ Pr (February 1, 1997)
- Language: English
- ISBN-10: 0824819497
- ISBN-13: 978-0824819491
- Product Dimensions: 6 x 1.2 x 9 inches
- Shipping Weight: 2.4 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
- Average Customer Review: 4.3 out of 5 stars See all reviews (3 customer reviews)
- Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,377,194 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
Enter your mobile number or email address below and we'll send you a link to download the free Kindle App. Then you can start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
To get the free app, enter your email address or mobile phone number.
Pruning the Bodhi Tree: The Storm Over Critical Buddhism
Use the Amazon App to scan ISBNs and compare prices.
Frequently Bought Together
Customers Who Bought This Item Also Bought
Top Customer Reviews
I would be happy if the problematic issue central to this book were simply an academic one - but, it isn't. If Hakayama and Matsumoto are right in their assumptions, there is a serious flaw running through our received perception of Mahayana and Zen Buddhism etc. - arguably the Buddhist schools which have been the most influencial in the West. In short, if Hakamaya and Matsumoto are correct, we have embodied a fallacious distortion of Buddhism.
Needless to say, this is a strong claim to make, and not everyone agrees with it. The essays by Sallie B. King, Peter Gregory, Yamabe Nobuyoshi et al. - go some way to revise the rather harsh strictures delivered by the 'Critical Buddhist' fraternity. Regrettably, the case made by Hakamaya, Matsumoto -amplified again by their supporters in this book, seems to have been based on generalisations - even a dogmatic refusal to see that the key terms in question (e.g. Dharmadhatu, Dhatu-vada, Tathagata-garbha, Hongaku etc.) - admit of alternative interpretations. Peter Gregory's carefully written chapter - 'Is Critical Buddhism Really Critical'? - fairly turns the tables on Hakamaya and Matsumoto, pointing out that their arguments are - paradoxically, a kind of 'substantialism' and thus self-defeating.Read more ›