Category:Indogaku Bukkyōgaku Kenkyū

No abstract given. Here is the first relevant paragraph:

From ancient times, the origin of "tathāgata", which has been usually translated as 如 來 (one who comes thus), is not unknown. This has been used as the title of Buddha, chiefly in Buddhism from the start.
      Now, I will consider the meaning of "tathāgata" in the Abhisamayālaṃkārālokā Prajñāpāramitā-vyākhyā of Haribhadra (ed. by Wogihara) (W.). This includes the Aṣṭasāhasrikā-Prajñāpāramitā-sūtra (As.), Maitreya's Abhisamayālaṃkāraśāstra-kārikā (A.) which is a summary of the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā-Prajñāpāramitā-sūtra (P.), and Haribhadra's commentary which is based on the P. and the As. Accordingly at first, I point out sentences of "tathāgata", which I think as the etymological explanations, and then survey the character of it. (Mano, "'Tathāgata' in Haribhadra's Commentary," 22)

No abstract given. Here are the first relevant paragraphs:

The term ' ārambaṇa ' is one of the technical terms unique to Buddhism. Being equivalent to Pali ' ārammaṇa ' and Cl. Skt. ' ālambana ' it is usually used in the sense of 'basis of cognition' or 'sense-object', e.g. rūpa as ārambaṇa of cakṣurvijñāna, or dharma as that of manovijñāna. The usual equivalent to this term in Tibetan and Chinese language is ' dmigs pa ' and '所 縁', respectively.
      What I am going to examine here is whether or not the same meaning mentioned above can be applied to this term used in the Ratnagotravibhāga (RGV), I, 9.

Read more here . . .

Takasaki, Jikidō. "A Manuscript of the Mahāyānottaratantraśāstropadeśa, a Sanskrit Commentary on the Ratnagotravibhāga." (In Japanese.) Indogaku Bukkyōgaku Kenkyū (Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies) 23, no. 2 (1975) 52–59.

It was reported by H. W. Bailey that a Khotanese-hybrid Sanskrit manuscript fragment from Dunhuang, IOL Khot S5 (abbr. S5) verso side, quotes verses from the Ratnagotravibhāga (abbr. RGV) and attributes them to Maitreya. S5 is the earliest text hitherto known that ascribes the authorship of the RGV to Maitreya. While Bailey dates the S5 verso side to the period between the end of the 8th century and the 11th century, we can now further specify the date of composition as some time between the first half of the 9th century and the 11th century. Our rationale for this more specific terminus post quem is that the Chinese version of the Aparimitāyurjñānadhāraṇī (無量寿宗要経) written on the recto side of S5 is likely one of the numerous copies of the sūtra produced during (or shortly after) the reign of king Khri gtsug lde btsan, that is, during the first half of the 9th century. This fact is attested by two witnesses: Pelliot Tibétain 999 and the colophon of S5 recto side. There is also another Dunhuang Sanskrit fragment (Pelliot Chinois 2740) which quotes the RGV, and it is identified as the missing part of S5: the text of Pelliot 2740 recto precisely supplies the missing portion of S5 recto, and the two fragments are very similar in terms of size, material, and scripts. (Source: Academia.edu)

Sasaki, Shizuka. "Hōshōron no bonnōshōkisetsu" (The Explanation of the Origination of kleśa in the Ratnagotravibhāga). Indogaku Bukkyōgaku Kenkyū (Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies) 40, no. 1 (1991): 128–34.

Kano, Kazuo. "Hōshōronchū kenkyū (I): Phywa pa niyoru hōshōron I.26 kaishaku" (A Study of Commentaries on the Ratnagotravibhāga (I): Phywa pa's Interpretation of Verse I.26). Indogaku Bukkyōgaku Kenkyū (Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies) 51, no. 2 (2003): 109-11.

Kano, Kazuo. "Mahāyānottaratantraparicaya: Kashumīru yurai no shinshutsu no Hōshōron chū bonbun danpen" (Mahāyānottaratantraparicaya: Sanskrit Fragments from a Newly Available Ratnagotravibhāga Commentary from Kashmir). Indogaku Bukkyōgaku Kenkyū (Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies) 62, no. 2 (2014): 152–58.

I refer to the commentary on the Dharmadhātustava by Dol po pa Shes rab rgyal mtshan (l292-1361) in the last volume of this Journal'"`UNIQ--ref-000067C6-QINU`"' and make it clear that this text is one of the important texts for him to establish the theory of other-emptiness (gzhan stong) or the great Madhyamaka (dbu ma chen po) in the Jo nang pa'"`UNIQ--ref-000067C7-QINU`"' Though it is not so cited as the five Treatises of Maitreya, he seems to acknowledge the reason why he must depend on it. Though the authorship of Nāgārjuna is doubted on the ground of reference to the tathāgatagarbha idea, this is convenient for Dol po pa who wants to establish the great Madhyamaka mixed the Madhyamaka idea with the Yogācāra idea or the tathāgatagarbha idea. That is to say, he uses it in order to prove that the idea of tathāgatagarbha is also taught in the Mādhyamika literature of Nāgārjuna.
      Then which text does he depend on to establish his original idea? As the Ratnagotravibhāga is cited most frequently in his bDen gnyis gsal ba'i nyi ma"`UNIQ--ref-000067C8-QINU`"', it seems to be the most important text in his great Madhyamaka. I consider his commentary on the Ratnagotravibhāga"`UNIQ--ref-000067C9-QINU`"' attributed to Maitreya here'"`UNIQ--ref-000067CA-QINU`"'. (Mochizuki, introduction, 111)

Nakamura, Zuiryū. "On the Commentary to the Uttaratantraśāstra by Vairocanarakṣita." (In Japanese.) Indogaku Bukkyōgaku Kenkyū (Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies) 28, no. 2 (1980): 509–16.

No abstract given. Here are the first relevant paragraphs:

. . . We may conclude the characteristics of the TG [tathāgatagarbha] theory in this sūtra in the following way.

1) The biggest contribution of the MPS [Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra] to the history of the TG theory is the establishment of the concept of buddhadhātu as explaining the nature of tathāgatagarbha. This dhātu concept as showing the essence or nature common to sattvas and the Tathāgata seems to be introduced by the AAN [Anūnatvāpūrṇatvanirdeśa], but the MPS, succeeding the AAN, utilized it in its full scope, in which are involved various other meanings of the term dhātu developed in Buddhism, such as relic of the Buddha, the 18 component elements, the 4 gross elements, sphere of the dharma, the essence of dharmas (e.g. the tathāgatakāya is not (consisting) of elements of collected materials (bsags paḥi khams), but of the essence of the dharma (chos kyi khams) (L. 110a1–2). It suggests that 'dharmakāya' is 'dharmadhātu-kāya' ), the word root, etc.

2) The most unique expression of this sūtra with respect to the TG is the ātman, which is regarded as a sort of taboo in Buddhism*. Connotation of this term in the text is completely identical with dhātu.

3) Inspite of the use of such an abstract concept, the MPS is far from systematization of the theory, in comparison with the AAN and the ŚMS [Śrītmalasūtra]. Especially the relationship between tathāgatagarbha and dharmakāya, problem of the pure mind and the defilements, etc. are not discussed explicitly as in the SMS. In this respect, I hesitate a bit to suppose the date of the MPS as coming after the ŚMS.

4) Inspite of frequent references to the icchantika, the term agotra is not used. In general, the gotra concept is lacking in the MPS. This point is common to the AAN, and the ŚMS. (Takasaki, section 6, 9–10)

Read more here . . .

No abstract given. Here is the first relevant paragraph:

The point now I am going to express here is the discovery of the use of a compound noun ' tathāgata-gotra-saṃbhava ' in the Ratnagotravibhāga (Uttaratantra), which seems to be the Sanskrit original for '如來性起', one of the important terms in the philosophy of the Hua-yen (華嚴) Sect of Chinese Buddhism, but is actually not found in the Avataṃsaka, the basic scripture for that sect. (Takasaki, para. 1, 48)

Read more here . . .