Property:ArticleSummary
From Buddha-Nature
This is a property of type Text.
&
Articles/'Gos Lo tsā ba gZhon nu dpal's Commentary on the Ratnagotravibhāgavyākhyā (Theg pa chen po rgyud bla ma'i bstan bcos kyi 'grel bshad de kho na nyid rab tu gsal ba'i me long)-Review by Hugon +
This book contains a critical edition of a Tibetan commentary composed by 'Gos Lo tsā ba gZhon nu dpal (1392-1481) on the ''Ratnagotravibhāgavyākhyā''. The ''Ratnagotravibhāga'', attributed to Maitreya, and its ''vyākhyā'', attributed to Asaṅga, are of special significance in Buddhism for the discussion of the 'buddha-nature' (''tathāgatagarbha''), i.e. the idea that the nature of a buddha is inherent in every human being. gZhon nu dpal's commentary (hereafter: ZhP), which has never been published before, provides an account on this issue which is imposing both in view of its size as well as its historical and philosophical importance. Mathes' edition thus provides an important and valuable contribution to future studies on the subject.<br> The edition proper (pp. 1-576) is preceded by a brief introduction (pp. ix–xvii) which, besides editorial remarks, deals with gZhon nu dpal's life and education on the basis of an unpublished biography by his disciple Zhwa dmar Chos kyi grags pa (1453-1524), and of the ''bKa' gdams chos 'byung'' of Las chen Kun dga' rgyal mtshan (b. 1440), another of his disciples.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000022A-QINU`"' This information adds to the preliminary observations by Mathes in an article entitled '"Gos Lo tsā ba gZhon nu dpal's Extensive Commentary on and Study of the ''Ratnagotravibhāgavyākhyā'' (Mathes 2002)'"`UNIQ--ref-0000022B-QINU`"', which gives a more detailed biographical account and discusses the position that gZhon nu dpal holds in ZhP.<br> 'Gos Lo tsā ba Yid bzang rtse ba gZhon nu dpal is well known to Tibetologists for his work entitled ''The Blue Annals'' (''Deb ther sngon po''), composed a few years earlier than ZhP.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000022C-QINU`"' This mine of biographical, bibliographical and historical information already gives us an idea of the mastery that this remarkable scholar had of all fields of Buddhist studies. Mathes' introduction informs us of the key elements of gZhon nu dpal's thorough education in all the major religious traditions with the most important masters of the time, such as Tsong kha pa (1357-1419), the Fifth Karmapa De bzhin gshegs pa (1384-1415), the rNying ma pa teacher sGrol ma ba Sangs rgyas rin chen (1350-1430), or the Sa skya master Rong ston Shes bya kun rig (1367-1449). gZhon nu dpal distinguishes himself by his open-minded and non-sectarian approach, which is reflected in his ZhP, where he combines the commentarial tradition of rNgog Blo ldan shes rab (1059-1109) with sGam po pa's (1079- 1153) "Great Seal" (''mahāmudrā'') interpretation. The introduction also deals with the circumstances of the redaction of ZhP — composed in 1473 as gZhon nu dpal was nearly blind and had to dictate his work from memory over a period of four months — and of the carving of the printing blocks as described in the colophon. Mathes notes that gZhon nu dpal obviously had access to the Sanskrit original of the ''Ratnagotravibhāgavyākhyā'' as he frequently discusses Sanskrit words from this text and occasionally mentions or (politely) criticizes the existing translation by rNgog Lo tsä ba Bio ldan shes rab, which is the one found in the canon (sDe dge ''bsTan 'gyur'' 4024–4025).'"`UNIQ--ref-0000022D-QINU`"' Mathes (p.xv) also mentions a translation by Nag tsho Lo tsā ba which gZhon nu dpal occasionally discusses, but gives no specifics about this translator.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000022E-QINU`"' By comparing the quotations of the ''Ratnagotravibhāgavyākhyā'' in ZhP with the Sanskrit text (edited by E.H. Johnston)'"`UNIQ--ref-0000022F-QINU`"' and the Tibetan translation found in the canon (edited by Z. Nakamura on the basis of Sde dge, Narthang and Peking ''bsTan 'gyur'')'"`UNIQ--ref-00000230-QINU`"', Mathes establishes that gZhon nu dpal's version, in several cases, better fits the original (p. xiv).<br><br>
[https://www.e-periodica.ch/digbib/voltoc?rid=ast-002:2006:60::1132&id=browse&id2=browse1&id3=#251 Read more here . . .]
Articles/'Gos Lo tsā ba gZhon nu dpal's Extensive Commentary on and Study of the Ratnagotravibhāgavyākhyā +
In this paper I present some preliminary observations on 'Gos Lo tsā ba Gzhon nu dpal's (1392-1481) commentary on the ''Ratnagotravibhāgavyākhyā'', which I am editing and evaluating as a part of my habilitation project. Three years ago I gained access to a photocopy of a 698-folio-long handwritten ''dbu med'' version of this text.'"`UNIQ--ref-00006792-QINU`"' Like the Indian ''vyākhyā'', the commentary is divided into five chapters. Their headings are listed together with the folio numbers on a cover page, which bears the seal of the Zhva dmar pa and assigns the letter ''ha'' to the volume containing Gzhon nu dpal's commentary. It is thus reasonable to assume that the original was kept in the library of the Shamarpas in Yangpacan, probably already from the time of the famous Fourth Shamarpa Chos kyi grags pa (1453-1524), who was a disciple of Gzhon nu dpal. After the war with Prithivi Narayan Shah in 1792, Yangpacan was seized by the Gelug government and the text found its way to Drepung, where many other Kagyu texts were kept. Recently I received a photocopy of a Yangpacan block-print from Tibet with the same text on 463 folios. This could be the text described by A khu ching Shes rab rgya mtsho as having 461 folios.'"`UNIQ--ref-00006793-QINU`"' The numbering starts anew with each chapter; thus a small calculation mistake could explain the difference of two folios. (Mathes, introductory remarks, 79) +
A
Articles/A Clue to the Authorship of the Awakening of Faith: "Śikṣānanda's" Redaction of the Word "Nien" +
The text, ''Ta-ch'eng ch'i-hsin lun''<sup>f</sup> (The Awakening of Faith in Mahāyāna, henceforth abbreviated as AFM), has been the center of a long controversy in the field of Buddhist studies. It has been suspected by Mochizuki Shinkō<sup>g</sup>'"`UNIQ--ref-00006745-QINU`"' and others to be a Chinese fabrication, while Tokiwa Daijō and others defend its alleged Indian origin. The present short article will not review the past and present scholarship on the AFM or bring in my own studies on the matter.'"`UNIQ--ref-00006746-QINU`"' It will be devoted to one tiny but crucial issue: the fate of a key concept in the two "translations"—Paramārtha's original (AFM) and Śikṣānanda's version (AFMS for short). The concept is ''nien'' and ''wu-nien''. To state the conclusion here so as to simplify our discussion: the ''nien'' complex, in my opinion, cannot be understood without reference to a pre-Buddhist (Han Chinese) usage of the term. It is foreign or jarring enough to the person responsible for the AFMS that it has been systematically modified or outright substituted so as to bring the AFM in line with the Yogācāra (Wei-shih,<sup>i</sup> Vijñaptimātratā) philosophy. By showing the sinitic character of the ''nien'' ideology, its centrality in the AFM, and the redaction of it by the AFMS, we can come one step closer to resolving the long controversy over the authorship of the AFM. From the limited evidence in this one short study, it would appear that the AFM was authored in China and the AFMS was a conscious redaction of the AFM in China (or Korea?'"`UNIQ--ref-00006747-QINU`"') to bring this work into line with the demands of Hsüan-tsang's<sup>j</sup> Wei-shih philosophy.<br> We will begin with a survey of modern Sanskritists' attempts at identifying ''nien'' and why such attempts have ultimately failed. Then we will look at a similar attempt by the AFMS to edit off the ''nien'' ideology and how by so doing it violated the integrity of the original AFM message. The sinitic meaning of the term ''nien'' and ''wu-nien'' will be demonstrated with precedents in Han thought, usages in the Six Dynasties and in Ch'an.<sup>k</sup> I will conclude with a word on why AFMS was produced. (Lai, "A Clue to the Authorship of the ''Awakening of Faith''," 34–35)
Articles/A Eulogy of Mind’s Connate Qualities, Zhwa dmar Chos grags ye shes on the Hidden Meaning of Luminosity +
The Fourth Zhwa dmar pa Chos grags ye shes (1453–1524) as well as being a prominent student and biographer of the famous ’Gos Lo tsā ba, also established himself as a scholar, a central Tibetan ruler, and a monk. His collected works discuss among much else the topic of luminosity as it is developed in the Bka’ brgyud pa Mahāmudrā tradition.<br>
This paper focuses on his writings on the “hidden meaning of luminosity”. According to Chos grags ye shes the nonaffirming negation in the second cycle of the Buddha’s teaching is of not fully perfected definitive meaning while the affirming negation of the third wheel, the inseparability of mind’s emptiness and luminosity, in other words ''mahāmudrā'', constitutes the fully perfected definitive meaning. (Draszczyk, introduction, 1) +
Articles/A Preliminary Report on Newly Identified Text Fragments in Śāradā Script from Źwa lu Monastery in the Tucci Collection +
In the summer of 2007 I had the opportunity to participate in Francesco Sferra’s course on Kamalaśīla’s First ''Bhāvanākrama'' at the University of Hamburg. For his lectures Sferra kindly provided us with digital images of Tucci’s photographs of the Sanskrit manuscript of this text. The 27 extant folios of the ''Bhāvanākrama'' (fols. 2–28), which were used by Tucci for the ''editio princeps'' of the text,'"`UNIQ--ref-000066F2-QINU`"' have been photographed in three successive multi-folio images together with nine extra folios that appear in two photos only, namely those labelled MT 41 II/01 and MT 42 II/02. My attention was caught by these folios since while the ''Bhāvanākrama'' manuscript is written in Magadhi script, these nine folios are written in Śāradā script — a rather rare phenomenon among the corpus of Sanskrit manuscripts preserved in Tibet. They and the rest of the ''Bhāvanākrama'' manuscript were originally preserved at Zwa lu Ri phug.'"`UNIQ--ref-000066F3-QINU`"' The manuscripts preserved there were probably taken to Beijing (The Cultural Palace of Nationalities) in the 1960s, but were returned to Lhasa sometime after 1990 (first to Nor bu gliṅ ka and then to the Tibetan Museum).'"`UNIQ--ref-000066F4-QINU`"'<br> Of the nine folios, Tucci photographed both sides of seven of them, while he photographed only one side of the remaining two (here labelled 7.2 and 9.2). The two sides not filmed were probably blank or contained title pages (unfortunately, Tucci did not photograph title pages). Some images are out of focus and barely legible, and thus a complete diplomatic transcription is almost impossible. If Rāhula Sāṅkṛtyāyana photographed the same folios, this would be very helpful in deciphering them; however, I have yet to find evidence that he did. Therefore, I have only been able to go through the folios haltingly, and so identify a limited number of them. (Kano, introductory remarks, 381–82)<br><br> +
This article introduces 45 Tibetan commentaries on the ''Ratnagotravibhāga'' (RGV), better known in Tibet as the ''Mahayanūttaratantrāśāstra'', ''Theg pa chen po rgyud bla ma bstan bcos'' or ''Rgyud bla ma'' and is an attempt at charting all Tibetan RGV commentaries. A short presentation of their authors and their bibliographical references are given. The listing is in chronological order and the key data are provided in a chart in the appendix representing the result of research into various catalogues, hand lists, and other accounts. +
Articles/A Re-examination of the Relationship between the Awakening of Faith and Dilun School Thought, Focusing on the Works of Huiyuan +
Ching Keng’s paper challenges the prevalent assumption that the ''Awakening of Faith'' was composed under the influence of the Dilun School. Keng aims to show that in the representative works of Huiyuan, arguably the most important Dilun master, we do not find the essential doctrinal feature of the ''Awakening of Faith'', namely, the compromise or even the total obliteration of the distinction between unconditioned (''asaṃskṛta'') and conditioned (''saṃskṛta'') dharmas. Keng observes that almost all available studies of Huiyuan focus on a small piece entitled "Bashi yi" (八識義, "On the Meaning of the Eight Consciousnesses"), which shows strong influence from the "Awakening of Faith"; but that other works of Huiyuan outline a very different conceptual scheme. Taking these other works as representing Huiyuan's earlier thought, and therefore Dilun thought, Keng argues that the hallmark of Huiyuan's thought is a dualist scheme, in which the inherently pure aspect is unambiguously unconditioned, with no blending with conditioned dharmas; this inherently pure aspect can adjust to falsity (''suiwang'' 隨妄) and give rise to misconception, but without compromising its unconditioned nature. Upon this basis, Keng contends that the compromise between unconditioned and conditioned in the ''Awakening of Faith'' should be regarded as an innovation, rather than a direct outgrowth from Dilun thought. An important broader implication of Keng's argument is that Huiyuan’s thought, Dilun thought, and even the thought of the ''Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra'' has been anachronistically misinterpreted through the later, typically Chinese lens of the ''Awakening of Faith''. This suggests the sobering possibility that typically "sinitic" (or even "sinified") developments became so pervasive in the later East Asian tradition that their stamp may still lie heavy upon parts of modern Buddhology itself, and that we might therefore overlook both evidence and products of "sinifying" processes, and even the actual features of Indic materials. (Radich and Lin, introduction to ''A Distant Mirror'', 25–26)
The reign of the King Ṭhi-sroṅ-deu-tsen (Khri-sroṅ-Idehu-btsan, VII century) represents a period of the greatest importance in the early history of Tibet in general and of the spread of Buddhism in that country in particular. The activity of the great Śāntirakṣita ("Ācārya Bodhisattva") and of Padma-sambhava. the selection of the first seven Buddhist monks of Tibetan origin (''sad-mi mi bdun''), the foundation of numerous sites of Buddhist learning in Tibet, and the intense literary activity of the Tibetan learned translators (''lo-tsa-ba'')—Pal-tseg (dPal-brtsegs) and others by whom a great number of Buddhist canonical and scientific works were rendered into Tibetan,—all this has been described by Bu-ston in his History of Buddhism and in other Tibetan historical works<br> There is, however, one subject relating to the spread of Buddhism in Ṭhi-sroṅ-deu-tsen's reign, to which the Tibetan historian devotes his special attention and on which he dwells in detail. This is the strife between two parties into which the Buddhists of Tibet were at that time split. One of these parties consisted of the pupils and followers of Ācārya Śāntirakṣita who professed that form of Mahāyāna Buddhism which was generally acknowledged in India and Nepal, ''viz''. the teaching of the Path to Enlightenment through the practice of meditation connected with the dialectical analysis peculiar to the Mādhyamika school of the Buddhists and with the practice of the six Transcendental Virtues (''pāramitā'').<br> The leader of the other party was a Chinese teacher (''hwa-śaṅ'' or ''ho-shang'') known by the Sanskrit name Mahāyānadeva, who preached a doctrine of complete quietism and inactivity. According to him every kind of religious practice, the meditative exercises and all virtuous deeds as well were completely useless and even undesirable: the liberation from the bonds of phenomenal existence was to be attained merely through the complete cessation of every kind of thought and mental activity,—by abiding perpetually in a state analogous to sleep. Bu-ston'"`UNIQ--ref-00000035-QINU`"' relates how this party grew very powerful and found numerous adherents among the Tibetans, how the followers of Śāntirakṣita suffered oppression from it, and how the king who was an adherent of Śāntirakṣita's system, invited Śāntirakṣita's pupil, the teacher Kamalaśīla in order to refute the incorrect teachings of the Chinese party. The dispute between Kamalaśīla and the Chinese Ho-shang in which the latter was defeated is described by Bu-ston'"`UNIQ--ref-00000036-QINU`"' in detail. We read that the leading men of the two parties'"`UNIQ--ref-00000037-QINU`"' assembled in the presence of the king, that the Ho-shang was the first to speak in favour of his theory of quietism and inactivity and was answered by Kamalaśīla who demonstrated all the absurdity of the theses maintained by the Ho-shang and showed that the teachings of such a kind were in conflict with the main principles of Buddhism and were conducive to the depreciation and rejection of the most essential features of the Buddhist Path to Enlightenment. We read further on how the chief adherents of Kamalaśīla'"`UNIQ--ref-00000038-QINU`"' likewise refuted the theories of the Ho-shang, how the latter and his party acknowledged themselves vanquished and were expelled from Tibet by order of the king who prescribed to follow henceforth the Buddhist doctrines that were generally admitted,—the teaching of the six Virtues as regards religious practice and the Mādhvamika system of Nāgārjuna as regards the theory.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000039-QINU`"'<br> Thus the influence of the Chinese Ho-shang’s teachings over the minds of the Tibetans suffered a complete defeat and with it perhaps some political influence of China.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000003A-QINU`"' This is certainly a most important event in the history of Tibetan Buddhism which has been duly appreciated by Bu-ston. It is therefore quite natural that we should be interested in finding out the sources of Bu-ston's historical record. But the text of Bu-ston's History which, as a rule, contains references to the works on the foundation of which it has been compiled, does not give us any information here. At the first glance the account of the controversy looks like the reproduction of an oral tradition and there is nothing that could make us conjecture the presence of a literary work upon which the record could have been founded- The following will show that it has now become possible to trace out this work, to compare with it the account given by Bu-ston and to ascertain its historical importance. (Obermiller, "A Sanskrit MS. from Tibet," 1–3)<br><br>
[https://ia801608.us.archive.org/2/items/in.ernet.dli.2015.277506/2015.277506.1105_W_O_text.pdf Read more here . . .]
Articles/A Study on the Ratnagotravibhāga (Uttaratantra): Being a Treatise on the Tathāgatagarbha Theory of Mahāyāna Buddhism-Review by de Jong +
For several reasons the ''Ratnagotravibhāga'' deserves our attention. It is the only text on the ''tathāgatagarbha'' which has been preserved in Sanskrit. There are many problems connected with its place in the history of Mahāyāna philosophy and with its authorship. The Tibetan tradition attributes the verses to Maitreya and the prose commentary to Asaṅga. This text is held in high regard as one of the five treatises composed by Maitreya. However, the Chinese tradition attributes the whole work to Sāramati. This tradition is mentioned by Yüan-ts'e (613-696) in his commentary on the ''Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra'''"`UNIQ--ref-000001DE-QINU`"' and by Fa-tsang (643-712) in his commentary on the ''Dharmadhātvaviśeṣaśāstra''.'"`UNIQ--ref-000001DF-QINU`"' Probably the earliest reference to Sāramati as author of the ''Ratnagotravibhāga'' is to be found in Chih-i's ''Mo-ho chih-kuan'' (''Taishō'', Vol. XLVI, Nr. 1911, p. 31b18-26) which has been dictated by him in 594 (cf. p. 125 of Tsukinowa's article mentioned in note 8). The identity of Sāramati raises many problems. Some scholars have identified him with Sthiramati,'"`UNIQ--ref-000001E0-QINU`"' others have distinguished two Sāramati's.'"`UNIQ--ref-000001E1-QINU`"' There are also many obscurities in the Chinese traditions concerning the translator of the Chinese version. Chinese catalogues mention two translations, one by Ratnamati and the other by Bodhiruci.<br> In 1931 E. Obermiller published a translation of the ''Ratnagotravibhāga'' from the Tibetan: "The Sublime Science of the Great Vehicle to Salvation", ''Acta Orientalia'', Vol. IX, Part II.III, pp. 81-306.'"`UNIQ--ref-000001E2-QINU`"' His interpretation of the text is based upon a commentary by Tsoṅ-kha-pa's pupil and successor rGyal-tshab Dar-ma rin-chen (1364–1432)'"`UNIQ--ref-000001E3-QINU`"' The Sanskrit text has been edited by E. H. Johnston and published by T. Chowdhury: ''The Ratnagotravibhāga Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra'' (Patna, 1950). This edition is based upon two manuscripts found in Tibet by Rāhula Sāṁkṛtyāyana. The edition of the Sanskrit text has given a new impulse to the study of the ''Ratnagotravibhāga''. Several passages of the ''Ratnagotravibhāga'' have been translated by E. Conze (''Buddhist Texts through the Ages'', Oxford, 1954, pp. 130-131, 181-184 and 216-217). In ''Die Philosophie des Buddhismus'' (Berlin, 1956, pp. 255-264) E. Frauwallner has given a summary of the ideas contained in this text and a translation of several verses.'"`UNIQ--ref-000001E4-QINU`"' In 1959 Ui Hakuju published a detailed study on the ''Ratnagotravibhāga'' (''Hōshōron Kenkyū'') which contains a complete translation (pp. 471-648), together with a Sanskrit-Japanese glossary (pp. 1-60 with separate pagination).'"`UNIQ--ref-000001E5-QINU`"' Professor Takasaki's translation was undertaken during his stay in India (1954-1957) and continued afterwards. Apart from this book he has published between 1958 and 1964 ten articles relating to the ''Ratnagotravibhāga'' (a list is given on pp. xii-xiii).'"`UNIQ--ref-000001E6-QINU`"' . . .<br> The translation of the ''Ratnagotravibhāga'' by Professor Takasaki is the first to be based on the Sanskrit text and the Chinese and Tibetan translations. Obermiller utilized only the Tibetan version and his translation, excellent as it is, contains a number of mistakes which are obvious in the light of the Sanskrit text. Ui utilized both the Sanskrit text and the Chinese translation, but he was unable to consult the Tibetan translation directly. His knowledge of it was based upon a Japanese translation, made for him by Tada Tōkan, and upon Obermiller's English translation. It is clear from many indications that the Chinese translation is closer to the original than both the Sanskrit text and the Tibetan translation. However, as concerns the interpretation of the text, the Chinese translation is now always a reliable guide. There are several places where Professor Takasaki has been too much influenced by it but in general he indicates very well the wrong interpretations which are to be found in the Chinese translation. For the Tibetan translation Professor Takasaki has consulted only the Derge edition. A comparison of the passages quoted in the notes with the corresponding passages in the Peking edition (the only one at my disposal) shows that the Derge edition does not always give a satisfactory text. An edition of the Tibetan translation based on the Derge, Peking and Narthang editions would be highly desirable. In view of the importance of the vocabulary of the ''Ratnagotravibhāga'' for both Buddhist Sanskrit and Mahāyāna terminology, it would also be very useful to have indexes, on the lines of those compiled by Professor Nagao for the ''Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra''.<br><br>
[https://www.jstor.org/stable/24650390?seq=1 Read more here . . .]<br><br>
Articles/A Syntactic Analysis of the Term Tathāgatagarbha in Sanskrit Fragments and Multiple Meanings of Garbha in the Mahāparinirvāṇamahāsūtra +
The current of ''tathāgatagarbha'' thought that was born in Indian Mahayana Buddhism spread throughout the cultural sphere of Mahayana Buddhism in Asia and has also long held a fascination for people far beyond its geographical confines. The academic foundations for the study of ''tathāgatagarbha'' thought in India were laid by Takasaki Jikido, and the task left to us is to repeatedly reexamine each of Takasaki's findings on the basis of existing and newly discovered materials and corroborate or emend them. <br> Takasaki argued that the first extant text to use the word ''tathāgatagarbha'' was the ''Tathāgatagarbhasūtra''. Since Takasaki's research was published, there have been some remarkable advances in research on the ''Mahāparinirvāṇamahāsūtra'', and in recent years scholars such as S. Hodge and M. Radich have begun to argue that it was the ''Mahāparinirvāṇamahāsūtra'' that was the first Buddhist text to use the word ''tathāgatagarbha''. The question of which of these two sūtras came first has not yet been definitively resolved, but it may be generally accepted that both belong to the oldest stratum of Buddhist texts dealing with ''tathāgatagarbha''.<br> On a previous occasion (Kano 2017), focusing on this point, I collected Sanskrit fragments of both texts containing the word ''tathāgatagarbha'' and discussed differences in the expressions in which it is used. In particular, taking into account the findings of Shimoda Masahiro, I argued that if the word ''tathāgatagarbha'' appearing in the ''Mahāparinirvāṇamahāsūtra'' is interpreted as a ''bahuvrīhi'' compound qualifying ''stūpa'', this would accord with the word's usage in this sūtra and with the gist of the chapter "Element of the Tathāgata" (Habata 2013: §§ 375–418). This does not mean, however, that this understanding needs to be applied uniformly to every example of its use in the ''Mahāparinirvāṇamahāsūtra''. Because in this earlier article I focused somewhat unduly on the interpretation of ''tathāgatagarbha'' as a ''bahuvrīhi'' compound, the fact that there are instances of wordplay making use of the multiple meanings of ''garbha'' in the ''Mahāparinirvāṇamahāsūtra'' needs to be added, together with some concrete examples. (In the passages of this sūtra, it is natural to understand the term ''tathāgatagarbha'' as a substantive in the sense of "''garbha'' of ''tathāgata''" or "''garbha'' that is ''tathāgata''," namely, ''tatpuruṣa'' or ''karmadhāraya'', and I do not exclude this possibility as discussed in Kano 2017: 39–42.) In addition, there were some redundant aspects in the structure of my earlier article. In this article I rework these aspects so as to sharpen the focus on the points at issue and add some supplementary points. In the first half I clarify some grammatical characteristics to be observed in examples of the use of ''tathāgatagarbha'' in Sanskrit fragments of the ''Mahāparinirvāṇamahāsūtra'', while in the second half I ascertain the polysemy of the word ''garbha'' on the basis of some concrete examples. (Kano, "A Syntactic Analysis," 17–18)
Jamie Hubbard explores some specifically Chinese materials in his contribution "Perfect Buddhahood, Absolute Delusion—The Universal Buddha of the San-chieh-chiao". [''sic''] The San-chieh-chiao wanted to hold together a radically pessimistic view of the capacities of human persons for religious practice with a strong assertion of a fundamental identity between living beings and Buddha. The subtle scholastic discussion by the San-chieh-chiao of how these two affirmations were to be held together focused upon the theoretical question of the relations between pure, undefiled Suchness (''tathatā'') and the realm of ordinary living beings—for the assertion of a fundamental identity between the two cannot be allowed to call into question the pressing apparent reality of defilements in this degenerate age. The central soteriological affirmation running through these discussions is that all beings will inevitably realize Buddhahood; the metaphysical problem is to show how this can be the case; and the practical problem is to delineate the kind of religious practice that is appropriate if it is the case. All these challenges the San-chieh-chiao attempted to meet, and it is the burden of Hubbard's careful exegesis to detail the subtle metaphysical and exegetical distinctions they constructed to do so. (Griffiths and Keenan, introduction to ''Buddha Nature'', 4–5) +
The ''Awakening of Faith in Mahāyāna'' (''Dasheng qixinlun'') is one of the most influential philosophical texts in East Asian Buddhism. It is most important for developing the Indian Buddhist doctrine of an inherent potentiality for Buddhahood (''tathāgatagarbha'') into a monistic ontology based on the mind as the ultimate ground of all experience. Its most significant contribution to East Asian Buddhist thought is its formulation of the idea of original enlightenment (''benjue'', or in Japanese, ''hongaku''). ([https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/awakening-of-faith-in-mahayana/v-1 Source Accessed Jun 3, 2020]) +
B
It has recently been alleged by scholars of the Tibetan "Ancient" (rnying ma) tradition that although buddha-nature theory was well known in Tibet from as early as the eighth century, it played quite an insignificant role in early Nyingma exegesis.'"`UNIQ--ref-00006412-QINU`"' I intend in this chapter to challenge this assertion by demonstrating that buddha-nature concepts played a highly significant part in Dzokchen thought during the so-called early diffusion (''snga dar'') period, albeit mostly in the form of autochthonous *''bodhigarbha'' (''byang chub snying po'') or bodhi-nature concepts rather than their well-known Indian counterpart ''tathāgatagarbha'''"`UNIQ--ref-00006413-QINU`"' (''de bzhin gshegs pa'i snying po''), as well as the as yet unattested but virtually synonymous *''sugatagarbha'''"`UNIQ--ref-00006414-QINU`"' (''bde bar gshegs pa'i snying po''), which are both usually translated as buddha-nature. Although this family of terms is widespread in preclassical Dzokchen exegesis and therefore of inestimable importance for understanding the early development of buddha-nature theories in Tibet, it has hitherto received no attention in contemporary Buddhist studies. In determining the reasons for the obvious predilection for this indigenous family of buddha-nature concepts from the eighth to eleventh centuries, my aim is to clarify how bodhi-nature was understood by early Dzokchen authors, why it was distinguished from mainstream Mahāyāna-based buddha-nature concepts, and how it eventually became overshadowed by these latter during the classical period (13th–14th c.) as Indian non-tantric buddha-nature theories and controversies took center stage.'"`UNIQ--ref-00006415-QINU`"' It is hoped that this short survey of Dzokchen bodhi-nature ideas and their cultural milieu will fill some gaps in our still fragmentary understanding of the origins of Tathāgatagarbha theory in Tibet. At the very least, it will show that a decidedly affirmative indigenous current of buddha-nature teachings flourished in Tibet several centuries prior to the ascendancy of the New (''gsar ma'') traditions and their polemically heated debates over rangtong (''rang stong'') and zhentong (''gzhan stong'') interpretations of buddha-nature. (Higgins, "*Bodhigarbha," 29)
Sallie B. King, in her essay "Buddha Nature Thought and Mysticism", offers a characterization of the phenomenon of mysticism and analyzes three Buddha Nature texts to see whether and to what extent the thought of those texts may properly be called 'mystical'. All three of the texts she discusses are extant only in Chinese. Two of them—the ''Buddha Nature Treatise'' (''Fo hsing lun'') and the ''Supreme Basis Sūtra'' (''Fo shuo wu shang i ching'')—are translations made by Paramārtha in the sixth century CE; and there is some question as to whether he may have actually composed them rather than simply translated them. The third, the ''No Increase, No Decrease Sutra'', was also translated into Chinese in the sixth century CE (by Bodhiruci), and there almost certainly was an Indic original for this text. Each of these texts belongs, more or less, to the Tathāgatagarbha tradition, but King wishes to classify only the Buddha Nature Treatise and the ''No Increase, No Decrease Sūtra'' as properly mystical texts. The ''Supreme Basis Sūtra'', she argues, endorses devotionalism rather than direct mystical experience for the practitioner; it cannot therefore be classified as a mystical text. King therefore distinguishes different threads or emphases within the Buddha Nature thought of the period with which she deals. (Griffiths and Keenan, introduction to ''Buddha Nature'', 5–6) +
William G. Grosnick, in his essay "Buddha Nature as Myth", makes a distinction between "empirically verifiable propositions", statements that make claims about the nature of reality whose truth both is and is expected to be capable of clear articulation and demonstration, and "mythic views of reality" that provide a nonverifiable framework of great religious power for the expression of fundamentally important religious orientations. He then argues that Buddha Nature thought—at least as expressed in the early Indic sūtras devoted to it—is of the latter kind. Its function, he suggests, is to provide a mythic orientation toward the world and the religious potential of the individual Buddhist, and so to make the practice of Buddhism possible. It is just because "all beings universally possess Buddha
Nature" that the practice of the path is possible. (Griffiths and Keenan, introduction to ''Buddha Nature'', 4) +
Buddha-nature (''tathāgatagarbha'') is a central topic the in Mahāyāna Buddhist thought. As the pure nature of mind and reality, it conveys the nature of being and the relationship between the buddha(s) and sentient beings. Buddha-nature is that which allows for sentient beings to become buddhas. It is the living potential for awakening.<br>
In this chapter I will look into interpretations of buddha-nature starting with the ''Sublime Continuum'' (''Uttaratantra'', ca. fourth century), the first commentarial treatise focused on this subject. I will then present its role(s) in Mahāyāna Buddhism in general, and in the interpretations of Yogācāra and Madhyamaka in particular. Next I will discuss the role of buddha-nature as a key element in the theory and practice of Buddhist tantra, which will lead into a discussion of this doctrine in light of ''pantheism'' ("all is God"). Thinking of buddha-nature in terms of pantheism can help bring to light significant dimensions of this strand of Buddhist thought. (Duckworth, introduction, 235) +
This encyclopedia entry discusses the historical origins and dissemination of the idea that Buddha-nature exists not only in sentient beings but also in insentient things. This doctrine emerged in various ways in medieval China with thinkers such as [[Jingying Huiyuan]] (523-592), [[Jiaxiang Jizang]] (549-623), and most prominently with [[Jingxi Zhanran]] (711-782) of the Tiantai school. This position later spread to Japan, being advocated by figures such as [[Kūkai]] and [[Dōgen]]. The underlying rationale for this position is generally grounded on the principle of nonduality and the idea of the Buddha’s all-pervading and embracing nature. The notion of the Buddha-nature of insentient beings is not only a doctrinal matter but also functions as a meditation technique whereby one learns to view phenomena as direct expressions of ultimate reality and to see oneself and the “outside” world as identical. +
In the original of its so-called Mahāyāna version the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra bears the Sanskrit title Mahāparinirvāṇa-mahāsūtra.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000CBD-QINU`"' The Sanskrit original of this text has come down to us only in fragments. For the reconstruction of the Sanskrit text from these fragments, it is essential to compare the text with the word-for-word Tibetan translation completed at the beginning of the 9th century by Jinamitra, Jñānagarbha and Devacandra. Fǎxiǎn 法顯 translated it into Chinese under the title ''Dà bānnihuán jīng'' 大般泥洹經 in 6 fascicles (''juàn'' 卷), and Dharmakṣema 曇無讖 translated it as ''Dà bānnièpán jīng'' 大般涅槃經 in 40 fascicles. Both translations were completed at the beginning of the 5th century. The Chinese translations of this sūtra played an important role in the history of Chinese and Japanese Buddhism. The sūtra is famous especially for the formula "切眾生西有佛性 ''yíqiè zhongshēng xī yǒu fóxìng''," "Every living being has the Buddha-nature." The skill of the Chinese translators is evident from their use of the word ''fóxing'' 佛性, which is commonly translated into English as "Buddha-nature." While the underlying Sanskrit term and its intended meaning poses difficulties, as will be shown below, the Chinese term ''fóxing'', although not resulting from a very literal translation, has been accepted in dogmatical and philosophical interpretations in China and Japan.
Comparing the Sanskrit fragments and the ''Ratnagotravibhāga'', which quotes the ''Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra'' (that is the ''Mahāparinirvāṇa-mahāsūtra''), the original Sanskrit word ''fóxìng'' is ''buddhadhātu'', ''tathāgatadhātu'' or ''tathāgatagarbha''. Takasaki Jikidō's research on the tathāgatagarbha theory led him to conclude that the ''Mahāparinirvāṇa-mahāsūtra'' is the first known text in which the word ''buddhadhātu'' is used in this meaning.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000CBE-QINU`"'
I have been studying the original text of the ''Mahāparinirvāṇa-mahāsūtra'' for some time, analyzing the Sanskrit fragments in comparison with the Tibetan and Chinese translations. From the viewpoint of the original text, the meaning of the formula "Every living being has the Buddha-nature" reveals nuances slightly different from the interpretations adopted in Chinese and Japanese Buddhism. (Habata, introduction, 176–77)
When Buddhism first entered China from India and Central Asia two thousand years ago, Chinese favourably disposed towards it tended to view it as a part or companion school of the native Chinese Huang–Lao Daoist tradition, a form of Daoism rooted in texts and practices attributed to Huangdi (the Yellow Emperor) and Laozi. Others, less accepting of this ‘foreign’ incursion from the ‘barbarous’ Western Countries, viewed Buddhism as an exotic and dangerous challenge to the social and ethical Chinese civil order. For several centuries, these two attitudes formed the crucible within which the Chinese understanding of Buddhism was fashioned, even as more and more missionaries arrived (predominantly from Central Asia) bringing additional texts, concepts, rituals, meditative disciplines and other practices. Buddhists and Daoists borrowed ideas, terminology, disciplines, cosmologies, institutional structures, literary genres and soteric models from each other, sometimes so profusely that today it can be difficult if not impossible at times to determine who was first to introduce a certain idea. Simultaneously, polemical and political attacks from hostile Chinese quarters forced Buddhists to respond with apologia and ultimately reshape Buddhism into something the Chinese would find not only inoffensive, but attractive.
In the fifth century A.D., Buddhism began to extricate itself from its quasi-Daoist pigeonhole by clarifying definitive differences between Buddhist and Daoist thought, shedding Daoist vocabulary and literary styles while developing new distinctively Buddhist terminology and genres. Curiously, despite the fact that Mahāyāna Buddhism had few adherents in Central Asia and was outnumbered by other Buddhist schools in India as well, in China Mahāyāna became the dominant form of Buddhism, so much so that few pejoratives were as stinging to a fellow Buddhist as labelling him ‘Hīnayāna’ (literally ‘Little Vehicle,’ a polemical term for non-Mahāyānic forms of Buddhism). By the sixth century, the Chinese had been introduced to a vast array of Buddhist theories and practices representing a wide range of Indian Buddhist schools. As the Chinese struggled to master these doctrines it became evident that, despite the fact that these schools were all supposed to express the One Dharma (Buddha’s Teaching), their teachings were not homogenous, and were frequently incommensurate.
By the end of the sixth century, the most pressing issue facing Chinese Buddhists was how to harmonize the disparities between the various teachings. Responses to this issue produced the Sinitic Mahāyāna schools, that is, Buddhist schools that originated in China rather than India. The four Sinitic schools are Tiantai, Huayan, Chan and Pure Land (Jingtu). Issues these schools share in common include Buddha-nature, mind, emptiness, ''tathāgatagarbha'', expedient means (''upāya''), overcoming birth and death (''saṃsāra''), and enlightenment. (Source: [https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/overview/buddhist-philosophy-chinese/v-1 Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Vol. 1])
C
Articles/Can We Speak of Kadam Gzhan Stong? Tracing the Sources for Other-Emptiness in Early-Fourteenth-Century Tibet +
It has become the norm for scholars familiar with the self-emptiness (''rang stong'') and other-emptiness (''gzhan stong'')'"`UNIQ--ref-00006647-QINU`"' in the history of Tibetan Buddhist scholastic tradition to associate the latter doctrine with Dolpopa (dol po pa shes rab rgyal mtshan, 1292–1361), the foremost synthesizer of the Jonang (''jo nang'') School of Tibetan Buddhism. He developed a systematic,
distinctive view of ultimate truth (''don dam bden pa''; ''paramārthasatya'') and propagated this view widely and earned much scorn for it, leading to one of the most controversial doctrinal-sectarian disputes in Tibetan Buddhist history. His explication of other-emptiness, which he equates with the ultimate truth, is deemed radical and wholly unacceptable by many of his contemporaries and later Tibetan scholars because it stands in sharp contrast to the mainstream fourteenth-century and early-fifteenth-century Tibetan interpretations of self-emptiness, the notion that all phenomena including ultimate truth do not exist inherently. The self-emptiness interpretations are based primarily on Indie sources such as the ''Prajñāpāramitāsūtras'', Nāgārjuna's (c. 200) ''Madhyamakakārikā'', and Candrakīrti's (c. 570-640) ''Madhyamakāvatāra''. In contrast, Dolpopa generally does not claim that middle wheel treatises (''’khor lo bar pa’i gzhung'') such as the ''Prajñāpāramitāsūtras'' are the fundamental sources for his presentation of an other-emptiness view. Rather, he bases his formulation of other-emptiness on tantric sources such as the ''Kālacakra'','"`UNIQ--ref-00006648-QINU`"' last wheel sūtras {'''khor lo tha ma’i mdo'') such as ''Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra'','"`UNIQ--ref-00006649-QINU`"' and Indic commentarial sources'"`UNIQ--ref-0000664A-QINU`"' traditionally credited to figures such as Maitreya, Asaṅga (c. 300), and Vasubandhu (c. 300).<br> As a prominent fourteenth-century Tibetan doxographer, Dolpopa, however, does not repudiate self-emptiness per se; rather, he speaks of two types of emptiness'"`UNIQ--ref-0000664B-QINU`"' that have separate referent points. For him, self-emptiness refers only to conventional phenomena such as tables, chairs, and negative defilements that do not inherently exist'"`UNIQ--ref-0000664C-QINU`"' or that are empty of their own entities. Dolpopa argues that since conventional phenomena cannot withstand analysis, in that their individual entities are essentially empty or deconstructed, as the existence of their nature is thoroughly investigated, they are empty of inherent existence. Therefore, he claims that self-emptiness is not ultimate truth.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000664D-QINU`"'<br> On the other hand, he passionately demonstrates that other-emptiness exists inherently and ultimately. Furthermore, it is identified with the ''tathāgata''-essence (''de bzhin gshegs pa’i snying po'', ''tathāgatagarbha'' or buddha-nature (''sangs rgyas kyi rigs''; ''buddhagotra'') endowed with enlightened qualities that exists in all beings. Dolpopa argues that this form of emptiness is not empty of its own entity, since it ultimately and permanently exists. Also, ultimate truth is empty of all conventional phenomena that are antithetical to ultimately existent other-emptiness. So, while self-emptiness, which he refers to as "empty-emptiness" (''stong pa’i stong pa''), is primarily taught in the ''Prajñāpāramitāsūtras'' of the middle wheel teachings, it is not ultimate truth, as it is empty of its own entity and it is not free from conceptual thought. On the other hand, other-emptiness, which he dubs "non-empty-emptiness" (''mi stong pa’i stong pa''), while not primarily taught in the Prajñāpāramitāsūtras, is delineated in last wheel teachings of the Buddha, such as ''Tathāgatagarbhasūtra'', ''Śrīmālādevīsūtra'', and others to refer to the naturally enlightened buddha-nature that is empty of all conventional phenomena. This is Dolpopa’s position on the two types of emptiness and the hierarchy of Mahāyāna literature in a nutshell and much of the discourse that follows on other-emptiness in the history of Tibetan Buddhist scholasticism has its roots in Dolpopa’s doctrinal formulation of other-emptiness vis-à-vis self-emptiness.<br> While Dolpopa certainly gets the well-deserved credit for making other-emptiness "a place of fundamental importance in the expression of his philosophy"'"`UNIQ--ref-0000664E-QINU`"' in Tibet, his controversial interpretation of Mahāyāna texts and the relative early availability of his writings to international scholars has perhaps led some to assume that Dolpopa’s thought is more original than it really was. Fortunately, the recent release of dozens of Kadam (''bka’ gdams'') volumes of previously unknown philosophical texts that predate Dolpopa allows us to reconsider this issue. Among the new texts that might be pertinent to a reconstruction of the early history of other-emptiness discourse in Tibet is the writing of Rinchen (''rin chen ye shes'', 13th-14th c.) in conjunction with the previously available Buton’s (''bu ston rin chen grub'', 1290-1364) ''Precious Garland of Rebuttals'' (''’phrin yig gi lan rin po che’i phreng ba'').'"`UNIQ--ref-0000664F-QINU`"' I argue that Dolpopa’s unique doctrinal views with respect to ultimate truth and their related Indie sources are found in Rinchen’s doctrinal formulation of Mahāyāna literature. Furthermore, there is a good reason to argue that Dolpopa’s unique views were directly influenced by the Kadam scholar.'"`UNIQ--ref-00006650-QINU`"' Therefore, in this article, I analyze their points of convergence and divergence on the issues of buddha-nature, textual authority, and doxographical strategy, and suggest that Kadam influence on Dolpopa needs to be recognized more than we do in modern scholarship on Dolpopa’s works. (Wangchuk, introduction, 9–11)
