James Apple
James B. Apple is full Professor of Buddhist Studies at the University of Calgary. He received his doctorate in Buddhist Studies from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. His current research focuses upon the critical analysis of Mahāyāna sūtras and topics within Indian and Tibetan Buddhist scholasticism.
Phone: +1 (403) 220-8267
Address: Social Sciences #532
Department of Classics and Religion
2500 University Drive N.W.
Calgary, AB T2N 1N4
Canada
Phone: +1 (403) 220-8267
Address: Social Sciences #532
Department of Classics and Religion
2500 University Drive N.W.
Calgary, AB T2N 1N4
Canada
less
InterestsView All (44)
Uploads
Papers by James Apple
paper initially presents a brief synopsis of the known reception history in Tibet of the “Heart Sūtra,” commonly called the “Heart of Wisdom” (prajñāhṛdaya ≈ shes rab snying po) in Indian and Tibetan culture. The comparative collation demonstrates that the version found in the De ga g.yu tshal prayers manual, dating to approximately 823 CE slightly differs from all known versions found among Tibetan Kangyurs as well as all
versions preserved in Sanskrit and Chinese. The paper concludes that the Dunhuang Tibetan version of the Heart of Wisdom preserved in IOL Tib J 751, despite representing an official ceremonial ninth century version of the sūtra, disappeared from Tibetan Buddhist traditions due to historical circumstances.
Dedication: To Seishi Karashima-sensei, who always took the time to provide guidance in my research endeavors.
works? If so, how is the metaphor used and what principles does its use illustrate? This article compares the use of this metaphor among diverse Mahāyāna Buddhist exegetes found in India, Tibet, China, and Japan. It examines the use of this metaphor by select thinkers such as Zhiyi (智顗, 538–97), Atiśa (982–1054), Prajñāmukti (ca. 11th century), and Nichiren (日蓮, 1222–82) to demonstrate how this trope is appropriated in Indian and East Asian forms of Buddhism. Further, the article examines points of difference between these select scholars to illustrate important distinctions between Indian Buddhist and East Asian Buddhist soteriology.
Madhyamaka (Middle Way thought and practice) who upheld a lineage based on Nāgārjuna and Candrakīrti that descended down to Atiśa’s direct teachers Bodhibhadra and Avadhūtipa. Atiśa’s lineage of the Middle Way of Nāgārjuna was contemplative in nature and did not utilize epistemological warrants (pramāṇa) to realize ultimate reality. Atiśa’s Middle Way synthesized the teachings of Bhāviveka and Candrakīrti, bringing together compatible elements of their teachings for soteriological efficacy in progression on the path. The following chapter outlines Atiśa's great middle way (dbu ma chen po) or mere appearance (snang ba tsam).
The following chapter provides a brief historical background to Maitreya and Tuṣita in the life of Tsongkhapa, describes the context for the understanding of Tuṣita Heaven as a buddha-field among Tsongkhapa’s followers, and concludes
with a description of the characteristics of Maitreya’s field as a pure land.
to sections §102-135. The fragments collated in Parts 1 and 2 altogether comprise a version of the Kāśyapaparivarta preserved in Old Tibetan that was previously unknown.
the Middle Way (madhyamakopadeśa) of Atiśa Dīpaṃkaraśrījñāna
(982-1054 CE) using the approach of Pierre Hadot (1922-2010) to
interpreting philosophia as a way of life. The paper first outlines the
attractiveness of Pierre Hadot’s program for reading ancient philosophy
and his notions of spiritual exercises and philosophia. The paper
then addresses recent critiques of interpreting Buddhist thought as
philosophia within the socio-historical context of Indian Buddhism. In
response to such criticisms, a reading of Atiśa’s Special Instructions on
the Middle Way (hereafter, Special Instructions) furnishes a case study
for Buddhist spiritual exercises within a way of life that brings about
self-transformation.