دانلود کتاب مقایسه پدیدارشناسی هوسرل و یوگاکارای چینی در دنیای چند فرهنگی – سفری فراتر از شرق شناسی

Th e Buddhist philosopher N ā g ā rjuna ( c. 150–250) once referred to his opponent as the one who rides on horseback but forgets about the horse (T30N1564, P33a26–7). Th e horse here is a metaphor for methodology. Reminding his interlocutors how their mistakes can be found in the premise of their argumentation, N ā g ā rjuna likewise reveals to us the danger of overlooking the underlying implications in our approach to the philosophical study of ideas. Bearing in mind this warning, we will not jump directly into a comparative study of Husserl’s phenomenology and Chinese Yog ā c ā ra in our project. Rather, we must fi rst ask what is involved when a comparison is made across a cultural, historical, and linguistic divide as major as this one. As such, by examining our own approach to comparative studies and explicating our methodologies, we can remain mindful of the horse we are on when we begin our journey. Aft er decades of development, comparative philosophy has faced several critiques and challenges, in no small part owing to the fi eld’s tangled history with Orientalism. As a discourse popularized since the time of colonization, Orientalism epitomizes a way of thinking that overgeneralizes the world into the East and the West. If comparative philosophy can furnish people with a method to go beyond the Orientalist bifurcation, it then retains the potential to showcase the ways in which we engage in intercultural dialogues in the era of globalization. And so, against this backdrop, we hope to foreground three questions. First, how can comparative philosophy promote multiculturalism without perpetuating Orientalism and its related cultural imperialism? Second, why are we continuing to adopt the comparative approach in this book given the recent developments in the fi eld? And lastly, what do we mean when we refer to our project as “comparative philosophy”? To remind us of the horse we are riding for our journey, the fi rst part of this book is dedicated to examining our methodologies. Aft er scrutinizing how the approaches employed by comparative philosophers were once imbued with diff erent versions of Orientalism, I propose the “both–and” approach that refuses to treat intellectual traditions as being mutually exclusive and realizes the correlative non-duality of these traditions. To be more specifi c, this approach will both maintain the distinctiveness of each tradition in its own context for exploring their middle ground and manifest their interconnectedness in the broader shared space of meaning for conversations and collaborations. Th e purpose of this approach is threefold: fi rst, to avoid assimilating traditions into a third entity; second, to refrain from treating these traditions as polar opposites; and third, to expand their shared horizon. Sources of inspiration for the term “both–and” come from the phenomenological as well as the Buddhist traditions. Hans-Georg Gadamer envisions the expansion of the shared horizon through the traveler analogy, in which a traveler with the capacity of entering diff erent lived realities remains “ both here and there ” (Gadamer 1989: 458). In Buddhist terms, “both–and” encapsulates the idea of the middle path in its stress on the irreducibility and interdependence of binaries (T30N1564, P33b11–12). We will further the discussion of methodology in Chapter 1. In Chapters 2 and 3, we position Husserl’s phenomenology and Chinese Yog ā c ā ra in their respective contexts. For intercultural dialogues, contextuality is important in that ideas are cultivated—though not always produced—by the greater sociopolitical climate in which they came to be. In contextualizing phenomenology and Yog ā c ā ra, we distance ourselves from synthetization and juxtaposition to enter a plurality of lived realities diff erent from our own. Traveling between these realities, we will secure a middle ground for our journey. Th is middle ground transpires when we introduce the framework for comparison. It is a three-level framework—the three levels being the descriptive, the explicative, and the prescriptive—which can be inferred from and therefore applied to both Husserl’s phenomenology and the Yog ā c ā ra philosophy articulated by Xuanzang and his disciples. Far from being mutually exclusive to one another, these two traditions can be brought into constructive conversations on multiple levels. It is therefore possible for people coming from these traditions to collaborate with one another in a multicultural world.