Primary Sources: Difference between revisions

From Buddha-Nature
((by SublimeText.Mediawiker))
((by SublimeText.Mediawiker))
Line 4: Line 4:
<div class="bnw-panel depth-1 rounded my-4 p-0">
<div class="bnw-panel depth-1 rounded my-4 p-0">
<div class="row m-0">
<div class="row m-0">
<div class="col-lg-9 p-4 pt-0">
<div class="col-lg-9 pb-3 pt-0 px-5">
<div class="bnw-heading-3">A note about source texts</div>In relation to source literature, on this site, we generally divide these into the two broad categories of sūtras and commentaries. While traditionally both of these categories entail a wide range of internal divisions and classifications, here these two can be simply understood to demarcate the difference between scriptures orated by the Buddha, or his attendant Bodhisattvas, and authored works, which draw upon those discourses in order to elucidate a particular aspect of the Buddhist teachings. In terms of the former, these texts are traditionally referred to as “buddhavacana,’’ literally “the speech of the Buddha,’’ and are considered to represent actual discourses that were recalled and passed down through oral lineages until they were eventually set into writing in the ensuing centuries. And though much has been written about these works in academic literature, especially in terms of the potential dates and locals of their composition, little is known of the actual authorship of these works and thus they are generally considered to be anonymous compositions. On the other hand, what we are referring to here as commentaries are generally signed by their authors, even if the contents of these compositions are credited to earlier figures. Though again, exact authorship of a particular text might still be uncertain or contested, in either traditional or academic circles, these types of texts, as opposed to sūtras, are universally considered to have been intentionally composed.
<div class="bnw-heading-3">A note about source texts</div>In relation to source literature, on this site, we generally divide these into the two broad categories of sūtras and commentaries. While traditionally both of these categories entail a wide range of internal divisions and classifications, here these two can be simply understood to demarcate the difference between scriptures orated by the Buddha, or his attendant Bodhisattvas, and authored works, which draw upon those discourses in order to elucidate a particular aspect of the Buddhist teachings. In terms of the former, these texts are traditionally referred to as “buddhavacana,’’ literally “the speech of the Buddha,’’ and are considered to represent actual discourses that were recalled and passed down through oral lineages until they were eventually set into writing in the ensuing centuries. And though much has been written about these works in academic literature, especially in terms of the potential dates and locals of their composition, little is known of the actual authorship of these works and thus they are generally considered to be anonymous compositions. On the other hand, what we are referring to here as commentaries are generally signed by their authors, even if the contents of these compositions are credited to earlier figures. Though again, exact authorship of a particular text might still be uncertain or contested, in either traditional or academic circles, these types of texts, as opposed to sūtras, are universally considered to have been intentionally composed.
</div>
</div>

Revision as of 10:57, 2 October 2018

The Source Texts


A note about source texts
In relation to source literature, on this site, we generally divide these into the two broad categories of sūtras and commentaries. While traditionally both of these categories entail a wide range of internal divisions and classifications, here these two can be simply understood to demarcate the difference between scriptures orated by the Buddha, or his attendant Bodhisattvas, and authored works, which draw upon those discourses in order to elucidate a particular aspect of the Buddhist teachings. In terms of the former, these texts are traditionally referred to as “buddhavacana,’’ literally “the speech of the Buddha,’’ and are considered to represent actual discourses that were recalled and passed down through oral lineages until they were eventually set into writing in the ensuing centuries. And though much has been written about these works in academic literature, especially in terms of the potential dates and locals of their composition, little is known of the actual authorship of these works and thus they are generally considered to be anonymous compositions. On the other hand, what we are referring to here as commentaries are generally signed by their authors, even if the contents of these compositions are credited to earlier figures. Though again, exact authorship of a particular text might still be uncertain or contested, in either traditional or academic circles, these types of texts, as opposed to sūtras, are universally considered to have been intentionally composed.


The titles of the Gyu Lama

The title Ratnagotravibhāga Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra[1] is attested in the surviving Sanskrit manuscripts. It roughly translates as “The Superior Continuum (uttaratantra) of the Mahāyāna, A Treatise (śāstra) Analyzing (vibhāga) the Source (gotra) of the Three Jewels (ratna).” One surviving Sanskrit reference, Abhayākaragupta’s Munimatālaṃkāra, gives the name as Mahāyānottara: [Treatise] on the Superior Mahāyāna [Doctrine].[2] Western scholars only became aware of Sanskrit versions in the 1930s (see below); prior to this, they knew the text only in Chinese or Tibetan translation, and this was complicated by the fact that both the Chinese and the Tibetan traditions divide the text into two. Where in India the Ratnagotravibhāga was a single work comprised of root verses, explanatory verses, and prose commentary, the Chinese and Tibetan translators and commentators considered the root and explanatory verses to be one text and the complete text, including the prose commentary, to be a second. Thus not only do we have multiple names in multiple languages for the treatise, but multiple names in Chinese and Tibetan for its different parts.... Read the whole essay here

Sources for buddha-nature Teachings

Sutra Sources

Ratnagotravibhāga Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra
ཐེག་པ་ཆེན་པོ་རྒྱུད་བླ་མའི་བསྟན་བཅོས།

Sanskrit Texts

Tibetan Texts

Chinese Texts

  • Ratnamati 勒那摩提 (508 A.D.), 究竟一乘寶性論 (Chinese translation of Rgvbh), in T 1611. Attributed author is Sāramati.

Commentaries

Indian Commentaries

Tibetan Commentaries

Select Tibetan Texts[4]

English Translations

French Translations

German Translations

  1. According to the Sanskrit grammatical rules associated with sandhi, the word boundaries of the “a” of Mahāyāna and the “u” of Uttaratantra combine as “o.” The title could just as easily be rendered “Mahāyāna Uttaratantra Śāstra.”
  2. Kano, Buddha-Nature and Emptiness, 27, note #41.
  3. Besides this text, the only other two known Indian “commentaries” on the Uttaratantra are Vairocanarakṣita’s (eleventh century) very brief ahāyānottaratantraṭippaṇī (eight folios) and Sajjana’s (eleventh/twelfth century) Mahāyānottaratantraśāstropadeśa (a summary in thirty-seven verses). Brunnholzl, K. Luminous Heart pg 403 note 24
  4. For an extensive list of Tibetan Commentaries, see A List of the Commentaries on the Ratnagotravibhāga


The Texts

Sutras

Commentaries


Old Test Page Content