On the Ratnagotravibhāga

From Buddha-Nature
No edit summary
m (Text replacement - "commons.tsadra.org/images-commons" to "commons.tsadra.org/images")
 
(244 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Article
{{Article
|ArticleLayout=Original Content
|ArticleLayout=Original Content
|ArticleParentPage=Three_Trainings/Study
|ArticleTitle=On the Ratnagotravibhāga
|ArticleTitle=On the Ratnagotravibhāga
|AuthorName=Alexander Gardner
|TileDescription=The ''Ratnagotravibhāga Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra'' is one of the main sources for buddha-nature theory in Indian and Tibetan Buddhism (in China, the Awakening of Faith was of much greater importance). This article summarizes what is known about the textual tradition, author, and date of its composition and translations.
|AuthorPage=Gardner, A.
|AuthorPage=People/Gardner, A.
|AuthorAffiliation=Treasury of Lives
|PubDate=2018/09/12
|PubDate=2018/09/12
|ArticleSummary=The Indian treatise that this website identifies as the ''Ratnagotravibhāga Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra'' is also known by a handful of other titles in multiple languages. It is fairly common for ancient works of literature to be known by many names, especially if, like the ''Ratnāgotravibhāga'' (to give it its abbreviated name) it has been translated into many languages. This essay will explain the multiple names, discuss what is known of its authorship, and briefly survey the existing recensions and translations.
|ArticleContent=The ''Ratnagotravibhāga Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra'' is one of the main sources for buddha-nature theory in Indian and Tibetan Buddhism (in China, the ''Awakening of Faith'' was of much greater importance). This article summarizes what is known about the textual tradition, author, and date of its composition and translations.
|ArticleContent=The ''Ratnagotravibhāga Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra'' is one of the main sources for buddha-nature theory in Indian and Tibetan Buddhism (in China the "Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra" was of much greater importance). This article summarizes what is known about the textual tradition, author, and date of its composition and translations.
<div class="border-top-redfade mt-4 py-3 d-flex justify-content-center flex-wrap no-drop-cap">
{{FloatingTile
|page=Texts/Ratnagotravibhāga_Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra
|col-classes=col-sm-6
}}
</div>


===The Titles===
=== The Titles ===
The title ''Ratnagotravibhāga Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra''<ref>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''.”</ref> is attested in the surviving Sanskrit manuscripts. It roughly translates as “The Highest Teaching (''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]''.<ref>[[Kano]], ''[[Buddha-Nature and Emptiness]]'', 27, note #41.</ref> 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.


The Chinese title of the combined verses and prose is ''Jiu jing yi cheng bao xing lun''<ref>究竟一乘寶性論</ref>, which [[Takasaki]] has reconstructed as ''Uttara-ekayāna-ratnagotra-śāstra''<ref>[[Takasaki]], ''[[A Study on the Ratnagotravibhāga]]'', 7.</ref> and which translates to something like “Treatise on the Superior Jewel Family of the Single-Vehicle.”<ref>[[Brunnhölzl]] (''[[When the Clouds Part]]'', 93) gives the Chinese title as ''Ratnagotraśāstra'', which comes from the common abbreviation of 寶性論.</ref> [[Kano]], however, suspects that the ''yicheng'' 一乘 is a mistake for ''[[dacheng]]'' [[大乘]], or [[Mahāyāna]].<ref>[[Kano]], ''[[Buddha-Nature and Emptiness]]'', 27 note #40.</ref> If this is the case then the title would back translate to a more familiar form (note that the Chinese does not contain the word "tantra.") In the standard edition of the Chinese canon, the extracted verses come first, after which the complete text is given (see below for references), without a new title. Both translations are credited to Ratnamati in the early sixth century.<ref>This date is not universally accepted. See [[Kano]], ''[[Buddha-Nature and Emptiness]]'', 20-21.</ref> It is not known why he—or someone else—separated the text into two, although one might speculate that it was done to make memorization easier.
The title ''Ratnagotravibhāga Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra''<ref>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''.”</ref> is attested in the surviving Sanskrit manuscripts. It roughly translates as “The Ultimate Teaching (''uttaratantra'')<ref>See [[Articles/Continuum_vs._Teachings|the more detailed discussion of the translation of this term]] here.</ref> of the Mahāyāna, A Treatise (''śāstra'') Analyzing (''vibhāga'') the Jewel (''ratna'') Disposition (''gotra'').” One surviving Sanskrit reference, [[Abhayākaragupta]]’s ''Munimatālaṃkāra'', gives the name as ''Mahāyānottara: [Treatise] on the Ultimate Mahāyāna [Doctrine]''.<ref>[[Kano]], ''[[Buddha-Nature and Emptiness]]'', 27, note #41.</ref> 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. Whereas 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.  
<div class="border-tb-redfade my-4 py-3 d-flex justify-content-center flex-wrap no-drop-cap">
{{FloatingTermBox
|size=col-sm-6 col-md-4 mr-3
|term=Uttaratantra
}}
{{FloatingTermBox
|size=col-sm-6 col-md-4
|term=gotra
}}
</div>


The Tibetan tradition names the extracted verses ''Theg pa chen po rgyud bla ma'i bstan bcos'', which back-translates into Sanskrit as ''Mahāyāna-uttaratantra-śāstra'', and might be rendered in English as something like “Treatise on the Superior Mahāyāna Tantra.” The complete text, however, is titled ''Theg pa chen po rgyud bla ma'i bstan bcos rnam par bshad pa'', which reconstructs as ''Mahāyāna-uttaratantra-śāstra-vyākhyā'', and translates to “A Commentary on the Treatise on the Ultimate Continuum of the Mahāyāna.” It is important to note that the title ''Ratnagotravibhāgavyākhyā''—or any version with "vyākhyā"—is not attested in any surviving Sanskrit manuscript. [[Kano]] surmised that the root verses were extracted by a disciple of the Tibetan translator and given the title of the work, at which point the entire text was deemed to be a commentary and therefore given the title of “vyākhyā.”<ref>[[Kano]], ''[[Buddha-Nature and Emptiness]]'', 18</ref> Note that the Tibetan tradition dispensed with the phrase “''Ratnagotravibhāga''” in the title; it is commonly known as the ''Uttaratantra''. Western scholars on the ''Ratnagotravibhāga'' have largely followed Tibetan tradition and divided the text in two, abbreviating the root verses as [[RGV]] and the entire text as [[RGVV]].  
{{FloatingBox
|side=right
|size=col-lg-6
|header=Takasaki & Kano
|content=
{{FloatingTile
|page=Books/A_Study_on_the_Ratnagotravibhaga
|col-classes=col-12 p-0
}}{{FloatingTile
|page=Books/Buddha-Nature_and_Emptiness
|col-classes=col-12 p-0
}}
}} The Chinese title of the combined verses and prose is ''Jiu jing yi cheng bao xing lun'',<ref>究竟一乘寶性論</ref> which {{InlinePersonTag
|page=People/Kano,_K.
|text=Kano
}}, however, suspects that the ''yicheng'' 一乘 is a mistake for ''dacheng'' 大乘, or Mahāyāna.<ref>Kano, ''[[Buddha-Nature and Emptiness]]'', 27 note #40.</ref> If this is the case, then the title would back translate to a more familiar form (note that the Chinese does not contain the word "tantra.") In the standard edition of the Chinese canon, the extracted verses come first, after which the complete text is given (see below for references) without a new title. Both translations are credited to {{InlinePersonTag
|page=People/Ratnamati
|text=Ratnamati
}} in the early sixth century.<ref>This date is not universally accepted. See Kano, ''[[Buddha-Nature and Emptiness]]'', 20-21.</ref> It is not known why he—or someone else—separated the text into two, although one might speculate that it was done to make memorization easier.
{{PB}}
 
{{FloatingBox
|side=left
|size=col-lg-6
|style=bnw-panel
|header=Continuum vs. Teachings
|content=When it comes to translating the title of the text Ratnagotravibhāga Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra, often referred to simply as the Uttaratantra or rgyud bla ma in Tibetan, there is a clear discrepancy between those that render the term tantra (rgyud) as a 'teaching' or 'doctrine' and those that translate it as 'continuum'...
<center>{{RelatedButton
|link=/index.php/Articles/Continuum_vs._Teachings
|image=https://commons.tsadra.org/images/7/79/Mortphoto.JPG
|text=Continuum vs. Teachings: Discrepancies in the Translation of the Term Tantra (rgyud) in the Subtitle of the Ratnagotravibhāga
|label=Keep reading...
|label-right=<i class="ml-1 fal fa-arrow-up rotate45"></i>
|target=_blank
|wrapperclasses=depth-0
}}</center>
}} The Tibetan tradition names the extracted verses ''Theg pa chen po rgyud bla ma'i bstan bcos'', which back translates into Sanskrit as ''Mahāyāna-uttaratantra-śāstra'', and might be rendered in English as something like "Treatise on the Ultimate Mahāyāna Tantra." The complete text, however, is titled ''Theg pa chen po rgyud bla ma'i bstan bcos rnam par bshad pa'', which reconstructs as ''Mahāyāna-uttaratantra-śāstra-vyākhyā'', and translates to "A Commentary on the Treatise on the Ultimate Continuum of the Mahāyāna." It is important to note that the title ''Ratnagotravibhāgavyākhyā''—or any version with "vyākhyā"—is not attested in any surviving Sanskrit manuscript. Kano has surmised that the root verses were extracted by a disciple of the Tibetan translator and given the title of the work, at which point the entire text was deemed to be a commentary and therefore given the title of "vyākhyā."<ref>Kano, ''[[Buddha-Nature and Emptiness]]'', 18</ref> Note that the Tibetan tradition dispensed with the phrase "''Ratnagotravibhāga''" in the title;<ref>This only refers to the main bibliographical title of the work. However, the phrase "''ratnagotravibhāga''", translated as ''dkon mchog gi rigs rnam par dbye ba '', does appear in the Tibetan translation, though only when the full title of the work is repeated at the end of each chapter. </ref> it is commonly known as the ''Uttaratantra''. {{RelatedButton
|link=/index.php/Texts/Ratnagotravibhāgavyākhyā
|image=https://commons.tsadra.org/images/c/c6/Asanga_(detail).jpg
|text=For more on this
|label=Ratnagotravibhāgavyākhyā
|label-right=<i class="ml-1 fal fa-arrow-up rotate45"></i>
|target=_blank
|wrapperclasses=float-right mt-2 ml-3 mb-2 mr-0
}} Western scholars on the ''Ratnagotravibhāga'' have largely followed Tibetan tradition and divided the text in two, abbreviating the root verses as RGV and the entire text as RGVV.  
          
          
===Authorship<ref>This section is based on the scholarship of [[Silk]], ''[[Buddhist Cosmic Unity]]'', Appendix A; [[Kano]], ''[[Buddha-Nature and Emptiness]]'', 20-31; [[Takasaki]], ''[[A Study of the Ratnagotravibhāga]]'', 6-9; [[Brunnhölzl]], ''[[When the Clouds Part]]'', 94. For a chart of modern scholars’ positions on the authorship of the ''Ratnagotravibhāga'', see [[Kano]], ''[[Buddha-Nature and Emptiness]]'', 29.</ref>===
=== Authorship<ref>This section is based on the scholarship of Silk, ''[[Buddhist Cosmic Unity]]'', appendix A; Kano, ''[[Buddha-Nature and Emptiness]]'', 20-31; Takasaki, ''[[A Study on the Ratnagotravibhāga]]'', 6-9; Brunnhölzl, ''[[When the Clouds Part]]'', 94. For a chart of modern scholars' positions on the authorship of the ''Ratnagotravibhāga'', see Kano, ''[[Buddha-Nature and Emptiness]]'', 29.</ref> ===
 
The identity of the author of the ''Ratnagotravibhāga'' is not known. We have names, but the Indian, Chinese, and Tibetan traditions differ so radically that scholars have been unable to reach a consensus. The Sanskrit manuscripts found in Tibetan libraries in the 1930s do not identify an author, nor do the Chinese translations, which date to the early sixth century; only later catalogs provide a name. In brief, the Chinese tradition points to a man named [[Sāramati]], a member of the kṣatriya clan from Central or Northern India. The later Indian and Central Asian traditions point to {{InlinePersonTag
|page=People/Maitreya
|text=Maitreya
}} as the author of the entire text, while Tibetan tradition credits the verses to the bodhisattva Maitreya and the prose commentary to {{InlinePersonTag
|page=People/Asaṅga
|text=Ārya Asaṅga
}}.<ref> It should be noted that in contemporary Tibetan monastic circles some scholars have suggested that the commentary section of the ''Ratnagotravibhāga'' might have been composed by [[Asaṅga]]'s brother [[Vasubandhu]]. This claim was also put forth by Japanese scholar Nakamura Zuiryū in 1961. See Kano, ''[[Buddha-Nature and Emptiness]]'', 20-31. However, Kano considers the assertion to be "weak on evidence."</ref>
 
The earliest Chinese attribution comes from the important treatise ''Mohe zhiguan'' 摩訶止觀, written in 594 by the Tiantai patriarch [[Zhiyi]] 智顗 (538–597), who identifies the author of the ''Ratnagotravibhāga'' as [[Jianyi]] 堅意. Two texts from the seventh century both name the author as Jianhui 堅惠.<ref>These are a commentary on the ''[[Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra]]'' (''Jieshenmi jingshu'' 解深密經疏) by the Korean monk Wǒnch'ǔk 圓測 (613-696) and the Huayan patriarch [[Fazang]]'s 法藏 (643–712) treatise ''Dacheng fajie wuchabie lunshu'' 大乘法界無差別論疏. Kano, ''[[Buddha-Nature and Emptiness]]'', 22.</ref> [[Jianyi]] and Jianhui can both be rendered as {{InlinePersonTag
|page=People/Sāramati
|text=Sāramati
}} or {{InlinePersonTag
|page=People/Sthiramati
|text=Sthiramati
}}; ''yi'' 意 and ''hui'' 惠, which both mean "wisdom," were used at the time to render ''mati''.<ref>Kano, ''[[Buddha-Nature and Emptiness]]'', 22</ref> The issue is over the ''jian'' 堅, meaning "firm," and whether it transcribes ''sāra'' or ''sthira;'' both ''sthira'' and ''sāra'' can have the meaning of "strong" or "firm."


The identity of the author of the ''Ratnagotravibhāga'' is not known. We have names, but the Indian, Chinese, and Tibetan traditions differ so radically that scholars have been unable to reach a consensus. The Sanskrit manuscripts found in Tibetan libraries in the 1930s do not identify an author, nor do the Chinese translations, which date to the early sixth century; only later catalogs provide a name. In brief, the Chinese tradition points to a man named Sāramati, a member of the kṣatriya clan from Central or Northern India. The later Indian and Central Asian traditions point to [[Maitreya]] as the author of the entire text, while Tibetan tradition credits the verses to the Bodhisattva [[Maitreya]] and the prose commentary to [[Ārya Asaṅga]].<ref> It should be noted that in contemporary Tibetan communities some teachers assert that the commentary section of the Ratnagotravibhāga was composed by Vasubhandu. This claim was noted by Japanese scholar Nakamura Zuiryū in 1961. See Kano, Buddha-nature and Emptiness, 20-31. Kano considers the assertion to be "weak on evidence."</ref>
<div class="border-tb-redfade my-4 pt-3 d-flex justify-content-center flex-wrap no-drop-cap">{{#arraymap: Maitreya;Asaṅga;Ratnamati;Sāramati;Sthiramati
| ;
| @@@
| {{PeopleMentionedMedia|@@@}}
|
}}
</div>


The earliest Chinese attribution comes from the important treatise ''Mohe zhiguan'' 摩訶止觀 written in 594 by the Tiantai patriarch [[Zhiyi]] 智顗 (538-597), who identifies the author of the ''Ratnagotravibhāga'' as [[Jianyi]] 堅意. Two texts from the seventh century both name the author [[Jianhui]] 堅惠.<ref>These are a commentary on the ''[[Sandhinirmocanasūtra]]'' (''jieshenmi jingshu'' 解深密經疏) by the Korean monk [[Wǒnch’ǔuk]] 圓測 (613-696) and the Huayan patriarch [[Fāzàng]]’s 法藏 (643-712) treatise ''Dacheng fajie wuchabie lunshu'' 大乘法界無差別論疏. [[Kano]], ''[[Buddha-Nature and Emptiness]]'', 22.</ref> [[Jianyi]] and [[Jianhui]] can both be rendered as [[Sāramati]] or [[Sthiramati]]; ''yi'' 意 and ''hui'' 惠, which both mean "wisdom," were used at the time to render ''mati''.<ref>[[Kano]], ''[[Buddha-Nature and Emptiness]]'', 22</ref> The issue is over the ''jian'' 堅, meaning "firm," and whether it transcribes ''sāra'' or ''sthira;'' both ''sthira'' and ''sāra'' can have the meaning of "strong" or "firm."
In his 1950 edition of the Sanskrit text of the ''Ratnagotravibhāga'', {{InlinePersonTag
|page=People/Johnston,_E.
|text=Johnston
}} asserted that the author was Sthiramati, the author of several Yogācāra-inflected commentaries on Abhidharma literature known in both China and Tibet (by the name Slob dpon blo gros brtan pa, which translates to "firm wisdom").<ref>Silk (''[[Buddhist Cosmic Unity]]'', 150) points out that in China, Sthiramati's name was usually translated as Anhui 安慧 and transliterated (in contemporary pronunciation) as either ''xichiluomodi'' 悉恥羅末底 or ''xidiluomodi'' 悉地羅末底. Pronunciation of Chinese characters has changed radically over the centuries, and while scholars have made valiant attempts at reconstructing previous pronunciations, it is an imperfect art.</ref> Multiple Japanese and European scholars have also taken this position. {{FloatingTile
|page=Books/Buddhist_Cosmic_Unity
|col-classes=col-md-6
|side=left
}}{{InlinePersonTag
|page=People/Silk,_J.
|text=Jonathan Silk
}}, however, convincingly argues against this view, although he is more careful than others, placing an asterisk before the name (*Sāramati) to indicate that it is nowhere attested in surviving Sanskrit literature. He points out that Jianyi/*Sāramati is credited with another composition, the *''Mahāyānadharmadhātunirviśeṣa'' (''Dasheng fajie wuchabie lun'' 大乘法界無差別論), which Silk finds to be so closely related to the ''Ratnagotravibhāga'' to assure him that they were written by the same person. (Note the asterisk, meaning that all we have is a Chinese-language version.) Additional evidence comes from a passage in [[Fazang]]'s commentary to his teacher *Devendraprajña's translation of the above text, in which he gives the author's name as Jianhui and also as Suoluomodi 娑囉末底, which [[Fazang]] glosses as "firm wisdom," and which points to "sthira" rather than "sāra."<ref>Silk, ''[[Buddhist Cosmic Unity]]'', 152-153.</ref> As {{InlinePersonTag
|page=People/Kano,_K.
|text=Kano
}} has noted, Chinese tradition after Zhiyi settled on this individual, Sāramati, as the author of the ''Ratnagotravibhāga''.<ref>Kano, ''[[Buddha-Nature and Emptiness]]'', 24.</ref>  


In his 1950 edition of the Sanskrit text of the ''Ratnagotravibhāga'', [[Johnson]] asserted that the author was [[Sthiramati]], the author of several Yogācara-inflected commentaries on Abhidharma literature known in both China and Tibet (by the name Slob dpon blo gros brtan pa, which translates to "firm wisdom").<ref>[[Silk]] (''[[Buddhist Cosmic Unity]]'', 150) points out that in China, [[Sthiramati]]’s name was usually translated as [[Anhui]] [[安慧]] and transliterated (in contemporary pronunciation) as either ''[[xichiluomodi]]'' [[悉恥羅末底]] or ''[[xidiluomodi]]'' [[悉地羅末底]]. Pronunciation of Chinese characters has changed radically over the centuries, and while scholars have made valiant attempts at reconstructing previous pronunciations, it is an imperfect art.</ref> Multiple Japanese and European scholars have also taken this position. [[Jonathan Silk]], however, convincingly argues against this view, although he is more careful than others, placing an asterisk before the name (*[[Sāramati]]) to indicate that it is nowhere attested in surviving Sanskrit literature. He points out that [[Jianyi]]/*[[Sāramati]] is credited with another composition, the *''[[Mahāyānadharmadhātunirviśeṣa]]'' (''Dasheng fajie wuchabie lun'' 大乘法界無差別論), which [[Silk]] finds to be so closely related to the ''Ratnagotravibhāga'' to assure him that they were written by the same person. (Note the asterisk, meaning that all we have is a Chinese-language version.) Additional evidence comes from a passage in [[Fāzàng]]'s commentary to his teacher *[[Devendraprajña]]'s translation of the above text, in which he gives the author's name as Jianhui and also as ''[[Suoluomodi]]'' [[娑囉末底]], which [[Fāzàng]] glosses as “firm wisdom,." and which points to "sthira" rather than "sāra."<ref>[[Silk]], ''[[Buddhist Cosmic Unity']]', 152-153.</ref> As [[Kano]] has noted, Chinese tradition after [[Zhiyi]] settled on this individual, [[Sāramati]], as the author of the ''Ratnagotravibhāga''.<ref>[[Kano]], ''[[Buddha-Nature and Emptiness]]'', 24.</ref>  
<div class="border-tb-redfade my-4 py-3 d-flex justify-content-center flex-wrap no-drop-cap">
{{FloatingTile
|page=Articles/On_the_Awakening_of_Faith_in_the_Mahāyāna
|col-classes=col-sm-6 mb-0
}}
</div>


Central Asian tradition, on the other hand, credited the treatise to the Bodhisattva [[Maitreya]]. The earliest surviving example of this is a fragment of a Khotanese Hybrid Sanskrit discovered in the library cave at Dunhuang in the early twentieth century that quotes the “''Ratnagotravibhāgaśāstra''” and credits it to “the bodhisattva Ārya [[Maitreya]].” The fragment quotes both root verses and commentarial verses without suggesting different authorship. [[Kano]] dates this fragment to the 840s based on the Chinese text written on the front side of the paper.<ref>[[Kano]], ''[[Buddha-Nature and Emptiness]]'', 25. [[Kano]] also suggests (page 27) that this text was unlikely to have had any impact on the Tibetan tradition of the treatise, as Tibetans universally name the text ''Mahāyānottaratantra''. He also points to the curious fact that [[Devendraprajñā]], the translator of the *''[[Mahāyānadharmadhātunirviśeṣa]]'', was himself Khotanese and yet ascribed both that text and the ''Ratnagotravibhāga'' to [[Sāramati]] rather than [[Maitreya]].</ref>  
Central Asian tradition, on the other hand, credited the treatise to the bodhisattva {{InlinePersonTag
|page=People/Maitreya
|text=Maitreya
}}. The earliest surviving example of this is a fragment of a Khotanese hybrid Sanskrit discovered in the library cave at Dunhuang in the early twentieth century that quotes the "''Ratnagotravibhāgaśāstra''" and credits it to "the bodhisattva Ārya Maitreya." The fragment quotes both the root verses and the commentarial verses without suggesting different authorship. {{InlinePersonTag
|page=People/Kano, K.
|text=Kano
}} dates this fragment to the 840s based on the Chinese text written on the front side of the paper.<ref>Kano, ''[[Buddha-Nature and Emptiness]]'', 25. Kano also suggests (page 27) that this text was unlikely to have had any impact on the Tibetan tradition of the treatise, as Tibetans universally name the text ''Mahāyānottaratantra''. He also points to the curious fact that Devendraprajñā, the translator of the *''Mahāyānadharmadhātunirviśeṣa'', was himself Khotanese and yet ascribed both that text and the ''Ratnagotravibhāga'' to Sāramati rather than Maitreya.</ref>  
{{PB}}


While the Central Asian and late Indian tradition of the ''Ratnagotravibhāga'' credits [[Maitreya]] as the sole author of the text, the Tibetan tradition splits the authorship of the work between [[Maitreya]] (the basic and explanatory verses) and [[Asaṅga]] (prose commentary). This split dates to the very beginning of the text's history in Tibet; the colophon to [[Ngok]]'s translation credits [[Maitreya]] with the verses and [[Asaṅga]] with the prose.<ref>[[Kano,]] ''[[Buddha-Nature and Emptiness]]'', 28.</ref> This continued to be the Tibetan tradition and is followed by most scholars who work from the Tibetan side. A few scholars have proposed that perhaps [[Sāramati]] was given the epithet "[[Maitreya]]," which would thereby unite the Chinese and Tibetan traditions, but [[Kano]] points out that there is no evidence to support this conjecture.<ref>[[Kano]], ''[[Buddha-Nature and Emptiness]]'', 30.</ref> Why [[Ngok]] gave credit to [[Asaṅga]] for the prose commentary section of the text is not yet understood. As [[Kano]] points out, the Kashmiri tradition in which [[Ngok]] trained does not appear to have ascribed authorship to [[Asaṅga]].<ref>[[Kano]], ''[[Buddha-Nature and Emptiness]]'', 28.</ref> One might speculate that a Tibetan scribe separated the verses from the prose to make a more easily memorized text; if this occurred around the time that [[Asaṅga]]'s star was rising in Tibet with the translation of his Yogācāra treatises, then the scribe may have felt there would be value in linking [[Asaṅga]]'s name to the ''Ratnagotravibhāga''.  
While the Central Asian and late Indian tradition of the ''Ratnagotravibhāga'' credits Maitreya as the sole author of the text, the Tibetan tradition splits the authorship of the work between Maitreya (the basic and explanatory verses) and {{InlinePersonTag
|page=People/Asaṅga
|text=Asaṅga
}} (prose commentary). This split dates to the very beginning of the text's history in Tibet; the colophon to {{InlinePersonTag
|page=People/Rngog_blo_ldan_shes_rab
|text=Ngok
}}'s translation credits Maitreya with the verses and Asaṅga with the prose.<ref>Kano, ''[[Buddha-Nature and Emptiness]]'', 28.</ref> This continued to be the Tibetan tradition and is followed by most scholars who work from the Tibetan side. A few scholars have proposed that perhaps {{InlinePersonTag
|page=People/Sāramati
|text=Sāramati
}} was given the epithet "Maitreya," which would thereby unite the Chinese and Tibetan traditions, but Kano points out that there is no evidence to support this conjecture.<ref>Kano, ''[[Buddha-Nature and Emptiness]]'', 30.</ref> Why Ngok gave credit to Asaṅga for the prose commentary section of the text is not yet understood. As Kano points out, the Kashmiri tradition in which Ngok trained does not appear to have ascribed authorship to Asaṅga.<ref>Kano, ''[[Buddha-Nature and Emptiness]]'', 28.</ref> One might speculate that a Tibetan scribe separated the verses from the prose to make a more easily memorized text; if this occurred around the time that Asaṅga's star was rising in Tibet with the translation of his Yogācāra treatises, then the scribe may have felt there would be value in linking Asaṅga's name to the ''Ratnagotravibhāga''.  


=== Surviving recensions of the text in Sanskrit, Chinese, and Tibetan ===


===Surviving recensions of the text in Sanskrit, Chinese, and Tibetan===
There are three surviving manuscripts of the ''Ratnagotravibhāga'' in Sanskrit, all incomplete. All of these were located only in the middle of the twentieth century. The first, in eleven folios,<ref>These are folios 7, 9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 25, and 26.</ref> dates to the tenth or eleventh centuries. It was discovered and photographed in the library of {{InlineExtPlaceTag
There are three surviving manuscripts of the ''Ratnagotravibhāga'' in Sanskrit, all incomplete. All of these were located only in the middle of the twentieth century. The first, in eleven folia<ref>These are folia 7, 9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 25, and 26.</ref>, dates to the tenth or eleventh centuries. It was discovered and photographed in the library of Ngor Monastery in the early 1930s by a Bengali scholar named [[Sāṅkṛtyāyana]].<ref>[[Sāṅkṛtyāyana]], ''[[Sanskrit Palm-leag Mss. in Tibet]],'' 33. The great twentieth-century Tibetan scholar [[Gendun Chopel]] noted the existence of this manuscript in 1934. See [[Jinpa]] and [[Lopez]], ''[[Grains of Gold]]'', 42.</ref> This manuscript is currently stored in the Potala Palace in Lhasa. A second manuscript of Nepalese provenance and dating to around the twelfth century was located at Zhalu Monastery, again by [[Sāṅkṛtyāyana]].<ref>[[Sāṅkṛtyāyana]], "[[Second Search of Sanskrit Palm-leaf Mss. in Tibet]]," 34; [[Sferra]], "[[Sanskrit Manuscripts]]," 47. </ref> [[Kano]] does not indicate where this manuscript is currently located. The third, also from Zhalu, was brought to the China Ethnic Library in Beijing sometime between the 1960s and 1990s and is now housed at the Tibet Museum in Lhasa. On the basis of the first two, [[Johnson]] prepared an edited version which was published posthumously in 1950 and continues to serve as the standard (with slight corrections) Sanskrit version.  
|url=https://treasuryoflives.org/institution/Ngor-Ewam-Choden
|label=Ngor Monastery
|imageurl=https://treasuryoflives.org/uploads/communities/743b7-ngor.jpg
|description=Ngor Ewaṃ Choden near Shigatse in Tsang was founded in 1429 by Ngorchen Kunga Zangpo. Ngor is part of the Sakya tradition, following the same doctrinal and ritual tradition, but it maintains administrative independence from Sakya Monastery.
}} in the early 1930s by a Bengali scholar named {{InlinePersonTag
|page=People/Sāṅkṛtyāyana, R.
|text=Sāṅkṛtyāyana
}}.<ref>Sāṅkṛtyāyana, ''[[Sanskrit Palm-leaf Mss. in Tibet]],'' 33. The great twentieth-century Tibetan scholar [[Gendun Chopel]] noted the existence of this manuscript in 1934. See [[People/Jinpa,_Thupten|Jinpa]] and [[People/Lopez, D.|Lopez]], ''[[Grains of Gold]]'', 42.</ref> This manuscript is currently stored in the {{InlineExtPlaceTag
|url=https://treasuryoflives.org/institution/Potala
|label=Potala Palace
|imageurl=https://treasuryoflives.org/uploads/communities/8bf27-potalapalace.jpg
|description=The Potala Palace, named after the mountain home of the bodhisattva Avalokiteśvara, looms high above the city of Lhasa on Marpori (red mountain) to the northwest of the Jokhang.
}} in {{InlineExtPlaceTag
|url=https://treasuryoflives.org/map#11.83/29.65593/91.14762
|label=Lhasa
|imageurl=https://treasuryoflives.org/uploads/communities/2c04d-tsuklhakhang.jpg?w=373&h=200
}}. A second manuscript of Nepalese provenance and dating to around the twelfth century was located at {{InlineExtPlaceTag
|url=https://treasuryoflives.org/institution/Zhalu
|label=Zhalu Monastery
|imageurl=https://treasuryoflives.org/uploads/communities/8b810-zhalugon.jpg
|description=Zhalu Monastery in Tsang is one of the oldest monasteries in Tibet. The Serkhang Tramo temple was built originally in 1027 by Chetsun Sherab Jungne of the Che clan, and located close to the Gyengong Lhakhang, built in 997 by Loton Dorje Wangchuk. Buton Rinchen Drub established the Ripuk hermitage in caves above the monastery and retired there. Zhalu is loosely associated with the Sakya school, maintaining its own tradition based on the Sakya and Kadam teachings of Buton.
}}, again by Sāṅkṛtyāyana.<ref>Sāṅkṛtyāyana, "[[Second Search of Sanskrit Palm-leaf Mss. in Tibet]]," 34; Sferra, "[[Sanskrit Manuscripts and Photographs of Sanskrit Manuscripts]]," 47. </ref> {{InlinePersonTag
|page=People/Kano,_K.
|text=Kano
}} does not indicate where this manuscript is currently located. The third, also from Zhalu, was brought to the China Ethnic Library in Beijing sometime between the 1960s and 1990s and is now housed at the {{InlineExtPlaceTag
|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibet_Museum_(Lhasa)
|label=Tibet Museum in Lhasa
|imageurl=https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9a/Tibet_Museum1.jpg
}}. On the basis of the first two, {{InlinePersonTag
|page=People/Johnston,_E.
|text=Johnston
}} prepared an edited version which was published posthumously in 1950 and continues to serve as the standard (with slight corrections) Sanskrit version.  
{{PB}}


The ''Ratnagotravibhāga'' was translated into Chinese by [[Ratnamati]] ([[Lenamoti]] [[勒那摩提]]). It is preserved in the Chinese canon under the title of ''[[Jiujing yicheng baoxinglun]]'' [[究竟一乘寶性論]], Taishō no. 1611, vol 31. The first sections (lines 813a8-820c20) consists of eighteen opening verses that are not found in Sanskrit or Tibetan translation; their origin is not explained. The treatise itself is lines 820c21-848a27 complete with root verses, commentarial verses, and prose commentary.  
The ''Ratnagotravibhāga'' was translated into Chinese by {{InlinePersonTag
|page=People/Ratnamati
|text=Ratnamati
}} (Lenamoti 勒那摩提). It is preserved in the Chinese canon under the title of ''[[Jiujing yicheng baoxinglun]]'' [[究竟一乘寶性論]], Taishō no. 1611, vol 31. The Chinese edition is significantly different from the Sanskrit and Tibetan, suggesting that very different versions were circulating in India. The first section (lines 813a8-820c20) consists of eighteen opening verses that are not found in Sanskrit or Tibetan translation; Takasaki suggested that these were composed by the translator.<ref>Takasaki, ''[[A Study on the Ratnagotravibhāga]]'', 9-14.</ref> The treatise itself is lines 820c21-848a27 complete with root verses, commentarial verses, and prose commentary.  
{{PB}}


[[Ratnamati]] is said to have come to China from Madhyadeśa (zhongtianzhu 中天竺) between 498 and 508 and translated the ''Ratnagotravibhāga'' between 511 and around 520 in Luoyang.<ref>[[Kano]], ''[[Buddha-Nature and Emptiness]]'', 21.</ref> He may or may not have brought the manuscript with him, and may have been assisted by [[Bodhiruci]].<ref>[[Silk]], ''[[Buddhist Cosmic Unity]]'', 7-8.</ref>
Ratnamati is said to have come to China from Madhyadeśa (Zhongtianzhu 中天竺) between 498 and 508 and to have translated the ''Ratnagotravibhāga'' between 511 and 520 in Luoyang.<ref>Kano, ''[[Buddha-Nature and Emptiness]]'', 21.</ref> He may or may not have brought the manuscript with him, and he may have been assisted by {{InlinePersonTag
|page=People/Bodhiruci
|text=Bodhiruci
}}.<ref>Silk, ''[[Buddhist Cosmic Unity]]'', 7-8.</ref>
{{PB}}


According to Tibetan histories, the ''Ratnagotravibhāga'' was translated into Tibetan six times. Only that of [[Sajjana]] and [[Ngok Lotsāwa Loden Sherab]] (rngog lo tsA ba blo ldan shes rab, 1059-1109) survives. The extracted verses are Derge 4024/Peking 5525, titled ''Theg pa chen po rgyud bla ma’i bstan bcos''. The full text is Derge 4025/Peking 5526, under the title ''Theg pa chen po rgyud bla ma’i bstan bcos kyi rnam par bshad pa''. There exist multiple manuscripts and prints of this full translation, many of which the Nepal-German Manuscript Preservation Project has microfilmed.<ref>See [[Kano]], ''[[Buddha-Nature and Emptiness]]'', 19 note #4; he points out that these have yet to be studied.</ref>  
According to Tibetan histories, the ''Ratnagotravibhāga'' was translated into Tibetan six times. Only that of {{InlinePersonTag
|page=People/Sajjana
|text=Sajjana
}} and {{InlinePersonTag
|page=People/Rngog_blo_ldan_shes_rab
|text=Ngok Lotsāwa Loden Sherab
}} (1059–1109) survives. The extracted verses are Derge 4024/Peking 5525, titled ''Theg pa chen po rgyud bla ma'i bstan bcos''. The full text is Derge 4025/Peking 5526, under the title ''Theg pa chen po rgyud bla ma'i bstan bcos kyi rnam par bshad pa''. There exist multiple manuscripts and prints of this full translation, many of which the Nepal-German Manuscript Preservation Project has microfilmed.<ref>See Kano, ''[[Buddha-Nature and Emptiness]]'', 19 note #4; he points out that these have yet to be studied.</ref>  
{{PB}}


[[Sajjana]] and [[Ngok Lotsāwa]] were the second team to translate the ''Ratnagotravibhāga''; before them [[Atiśa Dīpaṃkara]]<ref>His dates are 982-c. 1055</ref> and [[Naktsho Tsultrim Gyelwa]]<ref>Nag tsho tshul khrims rgyal ba, 1011-1064</ref> had done so. Translations after [[Ngok]] were made by [[Patsab Nyima Drak]],<ref>Pa tshab nyi ma grags, born 1055</ref> [[Marpa Dopa Chokyi Wangchuk]],<ref>Mar pa do pa chos kyi dbang phyug, 1042-1136</ref> [[Jonang Lotsawa Lodro Pel]] (the basic verses only),<ref>jo nang lo tsA ba blo gros dpal, 1299/1300-1353/1364</ref> and [[Yarlung Lotsāwa]].<ref>Yar klung lo tsA ba, dates unknown</ref> Alongside that of [[Sajjana]] and [[Ngok]], at least the translations by [[Atiśa]] and [[Naksho]] and by [[Patsab]] survived into the sixteenth century, as [[Go Lotsāwa Zhonnu Pel]]<ref>’Go lo tsA ba gzhon nu dpal, 1392-1481</ref> consulted them for his famous commentary.<ref>See Kano, ''Buddha-Nature and Emptiness'' Chapter 6 for a survey of these six translations, including surviving passages of the five that have been lost.</ref>  
Sajjana and Ngok Lotsāwa were the second team to translate the ''Ratnagotravibhāga''; before them {{InlinePersonTag
|page=People/Atīśa
|text=Atiśa Dīpaṃkara
}} and {{InlinePersonTag
|page=People/Nag 'tsho lo tsA ba tshul khrims rgyal ba
|text=Naktso Lotsāwa Tsultrim Gyelwa
}} had done so. Translations after Ngok were made by {{InlinePersonTag
|page=People/Pa tshab lo tsA ba nyi ma grags pa
|text=Patsab Lotsāwa Nyima Drakpa
}}, {{InlinePersonTag
|page=People/Mar pa do pa chos kyi dbang phyug
|text=Marpa Dopa Chokyi Wangchuk
}}, {{InlinePersonTag
|page=People/Jo nang lo tsA ba blo gros dpal
|text=Jonang Lotsawa Lodro Pel
}} (the basic verses only), and {{InlinePersonTag
|page=People/Yar lung lo tsA ba grags pa rgyal mtshan
|text=Yarlung Lotsāwa
}}. Alongside that of Sajjana and Ngok, at least the translations by Atiśa and Naktso and by Patsab survived into the sixteenth century, as {{InlinePersonTag
|page=People/'gos lo tsA ba gzhon nu dpal
|text=Gö Lotsāwa Zhönu Pal
}} consulted them for his famous commentary.<ref>See Kano, ''Buddha-Nature and Emptiness'' Chapter 6 for a survey of these six translations, including surviving passages of the five that have been lost.</ref>  


===Translations into European Languages===
===Translations into European Languages===


The ''Ratnagotravibhāga'' was first translated into a European language in 1931 by the Russian Buddhologist [[Eugène Obermiller]], who worked from the Tibetan. It was published under the title ''[[The Sublime Science of the Great Vehicle to Salvation Being a Manual of Buddhist Monism]]''.<ref>[[Obermiller, Eugène]], "[[The Sublime Science of the Great Vehicle to Salvation Being a Manual of Buddhist Monism]]."</ref> Following [[Sāṅkṛtyāyana]]’s discovery of the Sanskrit manuscripts and [[Johnson]]’s edition, Japanese scholar [[Takasaki Jikidō]] published a second English translation, ''[[A Study on the Ratnagotravibhāga (Uttaratantra) Being a Treatise on the Tathāgatagarbha Theory of Mahāyāna Buddhism]].'' He worked primarily from the Sanskrit, but also consulted the Chinese and Tibetan translations.<ref>[[Takasaki]], ''[[A Study on the Ratnagotravibhāga]]''.</ref> [[Holmes, Ken|Ken]] and [[Holmes, Katia|Katia Holmes]], students of [[Thrangu Rinpoche]] (b. 1933), translated the basic verses from the Tibetan in the 1970s, publishing it first in 1979 as [[Changeless Nature]],<ref>[[Maitreya]], [[Changeless Nature]], 1979.</ref> which they revised in 1989 as ''[[The Uttara Tantra: A Treatise on Buddha Nature]]''<ref>[[Maitreya]], [[The Uttara Tantra: A Treatise on Buddha Nature]].</ref> and again in 1999 as ''[[Maitreya on Buddha Nature]]''.<ref>[[Maitreya]], ''[[Maitreya on Buddha Nature]]''. </ref> In 2014 [[Karl Brunnhölzl]] translated the ''Ratnagotravibhāga'' from the Tibetan in ''[[When the Clouds Part]]''.<ref>[[Brunnhölzl]], ''[[When the Clouds Part]]''.</ref>
{{FloatingBox
|PostStatus=Needs Final Review
|side=right
|size=col-lg-5
|content=
{{FloatingTile
|page=Books/Maitreya_on_Buddha_Nature:_A_New_Translation_of_Asaṅga's_mahāyāna_uttara_tantra_śāstra
|col-classes=col-12 p-0
}}{{FloatingTile
|page=Books/When_the_Clouds_Part
|col-classes=col-12 p-0
}}
{{FloatingTile
|page=Books/Traité_de_la_Continuité_suprême_du_Grand_Véhicule
|col-classes=col-12 p-0
}}
}}
The ''Ratnagotravibhāga'' was first translated into a European language in 1931 by the Russian Buddhologist {{InlinePersonTag
|page=People/Obermiller,_E.
|text=Eugène Obermiller
}}, who worked from the Tibetan. It was published under the title ''[[The Sublime Science of the Great Vehicle to Salvation, Being a Manual of Buddhist Monism]]''. Following {{InlinePersonTag
|page=People/Sāṅkṛtyāyana, R.
|text=Sāṅkṛtyāyana
}}'s discovery of the Sanskrit manuscripts and {{InlinePersonTag
|page=People/Johnston,_E.
|text=Johnston
}}'s edition, Japanese scholar {{InlinePersonTag
|page=People/Takasaki,_J.
|text=Takasaki Jikidō
}} published a second English translation, ''[[Books/A_Study_on_the_Ratnagotravibhaga|A Study on the Ratnagotravibhāga (Uttaratantra) Being a Treatise on the Tathāgatagarbha Theory of Mahāyāna Buddhism]].'' He worked primarily from the Sanskrit, but he also consulted the Chinese and Tibetan translations. {{InlinePersonTag
|page=People/Holmes, Ken
|text=Ken
}} and {{InlinePersonTag
|page=People/Holmes, Katia
|text=Katia Holmes
}}, students of {{InlinePersonTag
|page=People/Thrangu Rinpoche
|text=Thrangu Rinpoche
}} (b. 1933), translated the basic verses from the Tibetan in the 1970s, publishing it first in 1979 as ''[[The Changeless Nature]]'',<ref>Maitreya, ''[[The Changeless Nature]]'', 1979.</ref> which they revised in 1989 as ''[[The Uttara Tantra: A Treatise on Buddha Nature]]''<ref>Maitreya, ''[[The Uttara Tantra: A Treatise on Buddha Nature]]''.</ref> and again in 1999 as ''[[Maitreya on Buddha Nature]]''.<ref>Maitreya, ''[[Maitreya on Buddha Nature]]''. </ref> In 2014 {{InlinePersonTag
|page=People/Brunnhölzl,_K.
|text=Karl Brunnhölzl
}} translated the ''Ratnagotravibhāga'' from the Tibetan in ''[[When the Clouds Part]]''.<ref>Brunnhölzl, ''[[When the Clouds Part]]''.</ref> [[Christian Charrier]] and [[Patrick Carré]] translated the ''Ratnagotravibhāga'' into French in 2019, together with [[Jamgon Kongtrul]]'s commentary, in ''[[Traité de la Continuité suprême du Grand Véhicule]]''.
 
<div class="border-top-redfade mt-4 py-3 d-flex justify-content-center flex-wrap no-drop-cap">
{{FloatingBox
|size=col-md-8
|style=bnw-panel
|header=Further reading: Outline of Western Scholarship on Buddha-Nature
|content=Scholars of Buddhism writing in European languages have celebrated, derided, and frequently misinterpreted the doctrine of tathāgatagarbha for well over a hundred years. While some have seen it as a crucial theoretical step to explain how deluded, impure sentient beings can become buddhas, others have dismissed the entire idea as non-Buddhist. Following Chinese and Tibetan scholiasts, Western scholars have labeled tathāgatagarbha as either Yogācāra or Madhyamaka, although most now understand that the doctrine arose independently of either of these main Mahāyāna schools...
<center>{{RelatedButton
|link=/index.php/Articles/Outline_of_Western_Scholarship_on_Buddha-Nature
|image=https://commons.tsadra.org/images/5/50/Alexander_Gardner.jpg
|text=Outline of Western Scholarship on Buddha-Nature
|label=continue reading
|label-right=<i class="ml-1 fal fa-arrow-up rotate45"></i>
|target=_blank
|wrapperclasses=depth-0
}}</center>
}}
</div>
|DisableDropcap=No
|PostStatus=Approved
|ArticleParentPage=Three_Trainings/Study
|AuthorName=Alexander Gardner
|AuthorAffiliation=Treasury of Lives
}}
}}

Latest revision as of 10:58, 31 January 2023

On the Ratnagotravibhāga
Alexander Gardner
2018/09/12
Original content written for the Buddha-Nature Project.
Article
Article
Citation:
Gardner, Alex. "On the Ratnagotravibhāga." Buddha-Nature: A Tsadra Foundation Initiative, September 12, 2018. https://buddhanature.tsadra.org/index.php/Articles/On_the_Ratnagotravibh%C4%81ga.

Abstract

The Indian treatise that this website identifies as the Ratnagotravibhāga Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra is also known by a handful of other titles in multiple languages. It is fairly common for ancient works of literature to be known by many names, especially if, like the Ratnagotravibhāga (to give it its abbreviated name), it has been translated into many languages. This essay will explain the multiple names, discuss what is known of its authorship, and briefly survey the existing recensions and translations.

The Ratnagotravibhāga Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra is one of the main sources for buddha-nature theory in Indian and Tibetan Buddhism (in China, the Awakening of Faith was of much greater importance). This article summarizes what is known about the textual tradition, author, and date of its composition and translations.

Text
Maitreya, Asaṅga: Ratnagotravibhāga Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra
The Ratnagotravibhāga, commonly known as the Uttaratantra, or Gyu Lama in Tibetan, is one of the main Indian scriptural sources for buddha-nature theory. It was likely composed during the fifth century, by whom we do not know. Comprised of verses interspersed with prose commentary, it systematizes the buddha-nature teachings that were circulating in multiple sūtras such as the Tathāgatagarbhasūtra, the Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra, and the Śrīmaladevisūtra. The Tibetan tradition attributes the verses to the Bodhisattva Maitreya and the commentary to Asaṅga, and treats the two as separate texts, although this division is not attested to in surviving Indian versions. The Chinese tradition attributes the text to *Sāramati (娑囉末底), but the translation itself does not include the name of the author, and the matter remains unsettled. It was translated into Chinese in the early sixth century by Ratnamati and first translated into Tibetan by Atiśa, although this text is not known to survive. Ngok Loden Sherab translated it a second time based on teachings from the Kashmiri Pandita Sajjana, and theirs remains the standard translation. It has been translated into English several times, and recently into French. See the Ratnagotravibhāgavyākhyā, read more about the Ratnagotravibhāga, or take a look at the most complete English translation in When the Clouds Part by Karl Brunnholzl.

The Titles

The title Ratnagotravibhāga Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra[1] is attested in the surviving Sanskrit manuscripts. It roughly translates as “The Ultimate Teaching (uttaratantra)[2] of the Mahāyāna, A Treatise (śāstra) Analyzing (vibhāga) the Jewel (ratna) Disposition (gotra).” One surviving Sanskrit reference, Abhayākaragupta’s Munimatālaṃkāra, gives the name as Mahāyānottara: [Treatise] on the Ultimate Mahāyāna [Doctrine].[3] 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. Whereas 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.

Uttaratantra
The Ultimate Continuum, or Gyü Lama, is often used as a short title in the Tibetan tradition for the key source text of buddha-nature teachings called the Ratnagotravibhāga of Maitreya/Asaṅga, also known as the Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra.
term page
gotra
Disposition, lineage, or class; an individual's gotra determines the type of enlightenment one is destined to attain.
term page

Takasaki & Kano

Book
A Study on the Ratnagotravibhāga (Uttaratantra)
A classic translation and study of the Sanskrit and Tibetan versions of the Ratnagotravibhāga, with reference to the Chinese.
Takasaki, Jikidō. A Study on the Ratnagotravibhāga (Uttaratantra): Being a Treatise on the Tathāgatagarbha Theory of Mahāyāna Buddhism. Serie Orientale Roma XXXIII. Rome: Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente (IsMEO), 1966. https://archive.org/details/bdrc-W1KG1582/page/n1/mode/2up.
Book
Buddha-Nature and Emptiness
An essential study of a key text that presents buddha-nature theory and its transmission from India to Tibet, this book is the most thorough history of buddha-nature thought in Tibet and is exceptional in its level of detail and scholarly apparatus. It serves as a scholarly encyclopedia of sorts with extensive appendices listing every existent commentary on the Ratnagotravibhāga (Uttaratantraśāstra), as well as covering Ngok Lotsawa's commentarial text and his philosophical positions related with other Tibetan thinkers.
Kano, Kazuo. Buddha-Nature and Emptiness: rNgog Blo-ldan-shes-rab and A Transmission of the Ratnagotravibhāga from India to Tibet. Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde 91. Vienna: Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien Universität Wien, 2016.
The Chinese title of the combined verses and prose is Jiu jing yi cheng bao xing lun,[4] which
Kano
, however, suspects that the yicheng 一乘 is a mistake for dacheng 大乘, or Mahāyāna.[5] If this is the case, then the title would back translate to a more familiar form (note that the Chinese does not contain the word "tantra.") In the standard edition of the Chinese canon, the extracted verses come first, after which the complete text is given (see below for references) without a new title. Both translations are credited to
Ratnamati
in the early sixth century.[6] It is not known why he—or someone else—separated the text into two, although one might speculate that it was done to make memorization easier.

Continuum vs. Teachings

When it comes to translating the title of the text Ratnagotravibhāga Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra, often referred to simply as the Uttaratantra or rgyud bla ma in Tibetan, there is a clear discrepancy between those that render the term tantra (rgyud) as a 'teaching' or 'doctrine' and those that translate it as 'continuum'...

Continuum vs. Teachings: Discrepancies in the Translation of the Term Tantra (rgyud) in the Subtitle of the Ratnagotravibhāga

Keep reading...
The Tibetan tradition names the extracted verses Theg pa chen po rgyud bla ma'i bstan bcos, which back translates into Sanskrit as Mahāyāna-uttaratantra-śāstra, and might be rendered in English as something like "Treatise on the Ultimate Mahāyāna Tantra." The complete text, however, is titled Theg pa chen po rgyud bla ma'i bstan bcos rnam par bshad pa, which reconstructs as Mahāyāna-uttaratantra-śāstra-vyākhyā, and translates to "A Commentary on the Treatise on the Ultimate Continuum of the Mahāyāna." It is important to note that the title Ratnagotravibhāgavyākhyā—or any version with "vyākhyā"—is not attested in any surviving Sanskrit manuscript. Kano has surmised that the root verses were extracted by a disciple of the Tibetan translator and given the title of the work, at which point the entire text was deemed to be a commentary and therefore given the title of "vyākhyā."[7] Note that the Tibetan tradition dispensed with the phrase "Ratnagotravibhāga" in the title;[8] it is commonly known as the Uttaratantra.

For more on this

Ratnagotravibhāgavyākhyā
Western scholars on the Ratnagotravibhāga have largely followed Tibetan tradition and divided the text in two, abbreviating the root verses as RGV and the entire text as RGVV.

Authorship[9]

The identity of the author of the Ratnagotravibhāga is not known. We have names, but the Indian, Chinese, and Tibetan traditions differ so radically that scholars have been unable to reach a consensus. The Sanskrit manuscripts found in Tibetan libraries in the 1930s do not identify an author, nor do the Chinese translations, which date to the early sixth century; only later catalogs provide a name. In brief, the Chinese tradition points to a man named Sāramati, a member of the kṣatriya clan from Central or Northern India. The later Indian and Central Asian traditions point to
Maitreya
as the author of the entire text, while Tibetan tradition credits the verses to the bodhisattva Maitreya and the prose commentary to
Ārya Asaṅga
.[10] The earliest Chinese attribution comes from the important treatise Mohe zhiguan 摩訶止觀, written in 594 by the Tiantai patriarch Zhiyi 智顗 (538–597), who identifies the author of the Ratnagotravibhāga as Jianyi 堅意. Two texts from the seventh century both name the author as Jianhui 堅惠.[11] Jianyi and Jianhui can both be rendered as
Sāramati
or
Sthiramati
; yi 意 and hui 惠, which both mean "wisdom," were used at the time to render mati.[12] The issue is over the jian 堅, meaning "firm," and whether it transcribes sāra or sthira; both sthira and sāra can have the meaning of "strong" or "firm."
Maitreya
Asaṅga
4th century
Ratnamati
5th Century ~ 6th Century
Sāramati
Sthiramati
475 ~ 555
In his 1950 edition of the Sanskrit text of the Ratnagotravibhāga,
Johnston
asserted that the author was Sthiramati, the author of several Yogācāra-inflected commentaries on Abhidharma literature known in both China and Tibet (by the name Slob dpon blo gros brtan pa, which translates to "firm wisdom").[13] Multiple Japanese and European scholars have also taken this position.
Book
Buddhist Cosmic Unity
The Anūnatvāpūrṇatvanirdeśaparivart is a short Mahāyāna sūtra extant in its entirety only in Chinese translation. To judge from its use as a proof-text in the seminal philosophical treatise Ratnagotravibhāga, which quotes roughly half of the sūtra, it is a fundamental scripture expressing ideas about the unitary nature of saṁsāra and nirvāṇa, and each individual’s innate capacity for awakening, called in this text and elsewhere ‘tathāgatagarbha,’ ‘embryo of the tathāgatas.’
      Although the text has hitherto drawn the attention primarily of Japanese scholars, this is the first critical edition of the sūtra, aligning its Chinese text with the available Sanskrit, offering a richly annotated English translation, a detailed introduction which places the work in its historical and doctrinal context, and a number of appendices exploring key notions, providing a reading text shorn of annotation, and enumerating the prolific quotations of the work found in Chinese Buddhist literature. This volume is thus an important contribution to studies of developing Mahāyāna Buddhism, Buddhist doctrine and the textual history of scriptures.
(Source: Hamburg University Press)
Silk, Jonathan, A. Buddhist Cosmic Unity: An Edition, Translation and Study of the Anūnatvāpūrṇatvanirdeśaparivarta. Hamburg Buddhist Studies Series 4. Hamburg: Hamburg University Press, 2015. https://hup.sub.uni-hamburg.de/volltexte/2015/154/pdf/HamburgUP_HBS4_Silk_Unity.pdf.
Jonathan Silk
, however, convincingly argues against this view, although he is more careful than others, placing an asterisk before the name (*Sāramati) to indicate that it is nowhere attested in surviving Sanskrit literature. He points out that Jianyi/*Sāramati is credited with another composition, the *Mahāyānadharmadhātunirviśeṣa (Dasheng fajie wuchabie lun 大乘法界無差別論), which Silk finds to be so closely related to the Ratnagotravibhāga to assure him that they were written by the same person. (Note the asterisk, meaning that all we have is a Chinese-language version.) Additional evidence comes from a passage in Fazang's commentary to his teacher *Devendraprajña's translation of the above text, in which he gives the author's name as Jianhui and also as Suoluomodi 娑囉末底, which Fazang glosses as "firm wisdom," and which points to "sthira" rather than "sāra."[14] As
Kano
has noted, Chinese tradition after Zhiyi settled on this individual, Sāramati, as the author of the Ratnagotravibhāga.[15]
Article
On the Awakening of Faith in the Mahāyāna
An introduction to the Awakening of Faith
Gardner, Alex. "On the Awakening of Faith in the Mahāyāna." Buddha-Nature: A Tsadra Foundation Initiative, October 9, 2019. https://buddhanature.tsadra.org/index.php/Articles/On_the_Awakening_of_Faith_in_the_Mah%C4%81y%C4%81na
Central Asian tradition, on the other hand, credited the treatise to the bodhisattva
Maitreya
. The earliest surviving example of this is a fragment of a Khotanese hybrid Sanskrit discovered in the library cave at Dunhuang in the early twentieth century that quotes the "Ratnagotravibhāgaśāstra" and credits it to "the bodhisattva Ārya Maitreya." The fragment quotes both the root verses and the commentarial verses without suggesting different authorship.
Kano
dates this fragment to the 840s based on the Chinese text written on the front side of the paper.[16]
While the Central Asian and late Indian tradition of the Ratnagotravibhāga credits Maitreya as the sole author of the text, the Tibetan tradition splits the authorship of the work between Maitreya (the basic and explanatory verses) and
Asaṅga
(prose commentary). This split dates to the very beginning of the text's history in Tibet; the colophon to
Ngok
's translation credits Maitreya with the verses and Asaṅga with the prose.[17] This continued to be the Tibetan tradition and is followed by most scholars who work from the Tibetan side. A few scholars have proposed that perhaps
Sāramati
was given the epithet "Maitreya," which would thereby unite the Chinese and Tibetan traditions, but Kano points out that there is no evidence to support this conjecture.[18] Why Ngok gave credit to Asaṅga for the prose commentary section of the text is not yet understood. As Kano points out, the Kashmiri tradition in which Ngok trained does not appear to have ascribed authorship to Asaṅga.[19] One might speculate that a Tibetan scribe separated the verses from the prose to make a more easily memorized text; if this occurred around the time that Asaṅga's star was rising in Tibet with the translation of his Yogācāra treatises, then the scribe may have felt there would be value in linking Asaṅga's name to the Ratnagotravibhāga.

Surviving recensions of the text in Sanskrit, Chinese, and Tibetan

There are three surviving manuscripts of the Ratnagotravibhāga in Sanskrit, all incomplete. All of these were located only in the middle of the twentieth century. The first, in eleven folios,[20] dates to the tenth or eleventh centuries. It was discovered and photographed in the library of
Ngor Monastery
Ngor Ewaṃ Choden near Shigatse in Tsang was founded in 1429 by Ngorchen Kunga Zangpo. Ngor is part of the Sakya tradition, following the same doctrinal and ritual tradition, but it maintains administrative independence from Sakya Monastery.
in the early 1930s by a Bengali scholar named
Sāṅkṛtyāyana
.[21] This manuscript is currently stored in the
Potala Palace
The Potala Palace, named after the mountain home of the bodhisattva Avalokiteśvara, looms high above the city of Lhasa on Marpori (red mountain) to the northwest of the Jokhang.
in
Lhasa
. A second manuscript of Nepalese provenance and dating to around the twelfth century was located at
Zhalu Monastery
Zhalu Monastery in Tsang is one of the oldest monasteries in Tibet. The Serkhang Tramo temple was built originally in 1027 by Chetsun Sherab Jungne of the Che clan, and located close to the Gyengong Lhakhang, built in 997 by Loton Dorje Wangchuk. Buton Rinchen Drub established the Ripuk hermitage in caves above the monastery and retired there. Zhalu is loosely associated with the Sakya school, maintaining its own tradition based on the Sakya and Kadam teachings of Buton.
, again by Sāṅkṛtyāyana.[22]
Kano
does not indicate where this manuscript is currently located. The third, also from Zhalu, was brought to the China Ethnic Library in Beijing sometime between the 1960s and 1990s and is now housed at the
Tibet Museum in Lhasa
. On the basis of the first two,
Johnston
prepared an edited version which was published posthumously in 1950 and continues to serve as the standard (with slight corrections) Sanskrit version.
The Ratnagotravibhāga was translated into Chinese by
Ratnamati
(Lenamoti 勒那摩提). It is preserved in the Chinese canon under the title of Jiujing yicheng baoxinglun 究竟一乘寶性論, Taishō no. 1611, vol 31. The Chinese edition is significantly different from the Sanskrit and Tibetan, suggesting that very different versions were circulating in India. The first section (lines 813a8-820c20) consists of eighteen opening verses that are not found in Sanskrit or Tibetan translation; Takasaki suggested that these were composed by the translator.[23] The treatise itself is lines 820c21-848a27 complete with root verses, commentarial verses, and prose commentary.
Ratnamati is said to have come to China from Madhyadeśa (Zhongtianzhu 中天竺) between 498 and 508 and to have translated the Ratnagotravibhāga between 511 and 520 in Luoyang.[24] He may or may not have brought the manuscript with him, and he may have been assisted by
Bodhiruci
.[25]
According to Tibetan histories, the Ratnagotravibhāga was translated into Tibetan six times. Only that of
Sajjana
and
Ngok Lotsāwa Loden Sherab
(1059–1109) survives. The extracted verses are Derge 4024/Peking 5525, titled Theg pa chen po rgyud bla ma'i bstan bcos. The full text is Derge 4025/Peking 5526, under the title Theg pa chen po rgyud bla ma'i bstan bcos kyi rnam par bshad pa. There exist multiple manuscripts and prints of this full translation, many of which the Nepal-German Manuscript Preservation Project has microfilmed.[26]
Sajjana and Ngok Lotsāwa were the second team to translate the Ratnagotravibhāga; before them
Atiśa Dīpaṃkara
and
Naktso Lotsāwa Tsultrim Gyelwa
had done so. Translations after Ngok were made by
Patsab Lotsāwa Nyima Drakpa
,
Marpa Dopa Chokyi Wangchuk
,
Jonang Lotsawa Lodro Pel
(the basic verses only), and
Yarlung Lotsāwa
. Alongside that of Sajjana and Ngok, at least the translations by Atiśa and Naktso and by Patsab survived into the sixteenth century, as
Gö Lotsāwa Zhönu Pal
consulted them for his famous commentary.[27]

Translations into European Languages

Book
Maitreya on Buddha Nature: A New Translation of Asaṅga's Mahāyāna Uttara Tantra Śāstra
During the last years of his life, Buddha Sakyamuni revealed the deepest of his teachings, in what we now call the Third Turning of the Wheel of Dharma. These show the heart nature of every one and every thing to be the sublime perfection of enlightenment. This unrecognized inner essence is known as buddha nature. To discover it completely is to become a Buddha, with all a Buddha's qualities and power to help others. But what, really and truly, is a Buddha? What lies at the heart of the Buddha's teachings, the dharma? What is it that illuminates the Buddhist saints of the sangha? These and many other questions are answered in precise and beautiful poetry by Asanga, in his great classic, the Mahayana Uttara Tantra, which has become one of the most important doctrinal texts of Tibetan Buddhism.

This new and refreshingly accessible translation is accompanied by a commentary based on the explanations of the most learned contemporary masters of the Kagy Tradition. It provides an introduction for those new to buddha nature as well as a major and essential reference work, to which one can return again and again for inspiration and guidance.

(Source: back cover)
Holmes, Ken, and Katia Holmes, trans. Maitreya on Buddha Nature: A New Translation of Asaṅga’s Mahāyāna Uttara Tantra Śāstra. Forres, Scotland: Altea, 1999.
Book
When the Clouds Part
"Buddha nature" (tathāgatagarbha) is the innate potential in all living beings to become a fully awakened buddha. This book discusses a wide range of topics connected with the notion of buddha nature as presented in Indo-Tibetan Buddhism and includes an overview of the sūtra sources of the tathāgatagarbha teachings and the different ways of explaining the meaning of this term. It includes new translations of the Maitreya treatise Mahāyānottaratantra (Ratnagotravibhāga), the primary Indian text on the subject, its Indian commentaries, and two (hitherto untranslated) commentaries from the Tibetan Kagyü tradition. Most important, the translator’s introduction investigates in detail the meditative tradition of using the Mahāyānottaratantra as a basis for Mahāmudrā instructions and the Shentong approach. This is supplemented by translations of a number of short Tibetan meditation manuals from the Kadampa, Kagyü, and Jonang schools that use the Mahāyānottaratantra as a work to contemplate and realize one’s own buddha nature. (Source: Shambhala Publications)
Brunnhölzl, Karl. When the Clouds Part: The Uttaratantra and Its Meditative Tradition as a Bridge between Sūtra and Tantra. Tsadra Foundation Series. Boston: Snow Lion Publications, 2014.
Book
Traité de la Continuité suprême du Grand Véhicule
This new translation of the famed Gyü Lama, or Ratnagotravibhāga Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra, represents a major step forward in providing access to key Buddhist literature for Francophones. The book includes a translation of the whole text with commentary by the nineteenth-century Tibetan master Jamgön Kongtrul and has a full bibliography, notes, glossaries, and appendixes covering the key Buddhist source texts and an outline of the Tibetan commentary, as well as specialized indexes.
Charrier, Christian, and Patrick Carré, trans. Traité de la Continuité suprême du Grand Véhicule (Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra). By Maitreya. Avec le commentaire de Jamgön Kongtrul Lodreu Thayé ('jam mgon kong sprul blo gros mtha' yas) L'Incontestable Rugissement du lion. Collection Tsadra. Plazac, France: Éditions Padmakara, 2019.
The Ratnagotravibhāga was first translated into a European language in 1931 by the Russian Buddhologist
Eugène Obermiller
, who worked from the Tibetan. It was published under the title The Sublime Science of the Great Vehicle to Salvation, Being a Manual of Buddhist Monism. Following
Sāṅkṛtyāyana
's discovery of the Sanskrit manuscripts and
Johnston
's edition, Japanese scholar
Takasaki Jikidō
published a second English translation, A Study on the Ratnagotravibhāga (Uttaratantra) Being a Treatise on the Tathāgatagarbha Theory of Mahāyāna Buddhism. He worked primarily from the Sanskrit, but he also consulted the Chinese and Tibetan translations.
Ken
and
Katia Holmes
, students of
Thrangu Rinpoche
(b. 1933), translated the basic verses from the Tibetan in the 1970s, publishing it first in 1979 as The Changeless Nature,[28] which they revised in 1989 as The Uttara Tantra: A Treatise on Buddha Nature[29] and again in 1999 as Maitreya on Buddha Nature.[30] In 2014
Karl Brunnhölzl
translated the Ratnagotravibhāga from the Tibetan in When the Clouds Part.[31] Christian Charrier and Patrick Carré translated the Ratnagotravibhāga into French in 2019, together with Jamgon Kongtrul's commentary, in Traité de la Continuité suprême du Grand Véhicule.

Further reading: Outline of Western Scholarship on Buddha-Nature

Scholars of Buddhism writing in European languages have celebrated, derided, and frequently misinterpreted the doctrine of tathāgatagarbha for well over a hundred years. While some have seen it as a crucial theoretical step to explain how deluded, impure sentient beings can become buddhas, others have dismissed the entire idea as non-Buddhist. Following Chinese and Tibetan scholiasts, Western scholars have labeled tathāgatagarbha as either Yogācāra or Madhyamaka, although most now understand that the doctrine arose independently of either of these main Mahāyāna schools...

Outline of Western Scholarship on Buddha-Nature

continue reading
  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. See the more detailed discussion of the translation of this term here.
  3. Kano, Buddha-Nature and Emptiness, 27, note #41.
  4. 究竟一乘寶性論
  5. Kano, Buddha-Nature and Emptiness, 27 note #40.
  6. This date is not universally accepted. See Kano, Buddha-Nature and Emptiness, 20-21.
  7. Kano, Buddha-Nature and Emptiness, 18
  8. This only refers to the main bibliographical title of the work. However, the phrase "ratnagotravibhāga", translated as dkon mchog gi rigs rnam par dbye ba , does appear in the Tibetan translation, though only when the full title of the work is repeated at the end of each chapter.
  9. This section is based on the scholarship of Silk, Buddhist Cosmic Unity, appendix A; Kano, Buddha-Nature and Emptiness, 20-31; Takasaki, A Study on the Ratnagotravibhāga, 6-9; Brunnhölzl, When the Clouds Part, 94. For a chart of modern scholars' positions on the authorship of the Ratnagotravibhāga, see Kano, Buddha-Nature and Emptiness, 29.
  10. It should be noted that in contemporary Tibetan monastic circles some scholars have suggested that the commentary section of the Ratnagotravibhāga might have been composed by Asaṅga's brother Vasubandhu. This claim was also put forth by Japanese scholar Nakamura Zuiryū in 1961. See Kano, Buddha-Nature and Emptiness, 20-31. However, Kano considers the assertion to be "weak on evidence."
  11. These are a commentary on the Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra (Jieshenmi jingshu 解深密經疏) by the Korean monk Wǒnch'ǔk 圓測 (613-696) and the Huayan patriarch Fazang's 法藏 (643–712) treatise Dacheng fajie wuchabie lunshu 大乘法界無差別論疏. Kano, Buddha-Nature and Emptiness, 22.
  12. Kano, Buddha-Nature and Emptiness, 22
  13. Silk (Buddhist Cosmic Unity, 150) points out that in China, Sthiramati's name was usually translated as Anhui 安慧 and transliterated (in contemporary pronunciation) as either xichiluomodi 悉恥羅末底 or xidiluomodi 悉地羅末底. Pronunciation of Chinese characters has changed radically over the centuries, and while scholars have made valiant attempts at reconstructing previous pronunciations, it is an imperfect art.
  14. Silk, Buddhist Cosmic Unity, 152-153.
  15. Kano, Buddha-Nature and Emptiness, 24.
  16. Kano, Buddha-Nature and Emptiness, 25. Kano also suggests (page 27) that this text was unlikely to have had any impact on the Tibetan tradition of the treatise, as Tibetans universally name the text Mahāyānottaratantra. He also points to the curious fact that Devendraprajñā, the translator of the *Mahāyānadharmadhātunirviśeṣa, was himself Khotanese and yet ascribed both that text and the Ratnagotravibhāga to Sāramati rather than Maitreya.
  17. Kano, Buddha-Nature and Emptiness, 28.
  18. Kano, Buddha-Nature and Emptiness, 30.
  19. Kano, Buddha-Nature and Emptiness, 28.
  20. These are folios 7, 9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 25, and 26.
  21. Sāṅkṛtyāyana, Sanskrit Palm-leaf Mss. in Tibet, 33. The great twentieth-century Tibetan scholar Gendun Chopel noted the existence of this manuscript in 1934. See Jinpa and Lopez, Grains of Gold, 42.
  22. Sāṅkṛtyāyana, "Second Search of Sanskrit Palm-leaf Mss. in Tibet," 34; Sferra, "Sanskrit Manuscripts and Photographs of Sanskrit Manuscripts," 47.
  23. Takasaki, A Study on the Ratnagotravibhāga, 9-14.
  24. Kano, Buddha-Nature and Emptiness, 21.
  25. Silk, Buddhist Cosmic Unity, 7-8.
  26. See Kano, Buddha-Nature and Emptiness, 19 note #4; he points out that these have yet to be studied.
  27. See Kano, Buddha-Nature and Emptiness Chapter 6 for a survey of these six translations, including surviving passages of the five that have been lost.
  28. Maitreya, The Changeless Nature, 1979.
  29. Maitreya, The Uttara Tantra: A Treatise on Buddha Nature.
  30. Maitreya, Maitreya on Buddha Nature.
  31. Brunnhölzl, When the Clouds Part.
Retrieved from "https://buddhanature-new2.tsadra.org/index.php?title=Articles/On_the_Ratnagotravibhāga&oldid=61648"
Buddha-Nature
A Tsadra Foundation Initiative
A multimedia resource hub for scripture, scholarship,
and teachings on tathāgatagarbha.
Join the Tsadra Foundation mailing list:

Tsadra Foundation
Translation & Transmission Conference
DharmaCloud Tibetan eBooks
Buddha-Nature
Śāntideva's Life and Works
Rinchen Terdzö Chenmo
Damngak Rinpoche Dzö
Khyentse Lineage
Dharma Dictionary

བོད་སྐད་
About
Site Guide
Read
Watch
Glossary
Login

Project Description

The purpose of the buddha-nature website is to provide a resource hub for trustworthy information for learning about and teaching the concept of buddha-nature, its associated texts, teachings, lineages, and relevant Buddhist ideas. Unique content will be shared here, but the site will primarily act as a broker for other projects and authors that have already created quality materials, which we will curate for a wide range of audiences.

About us ...
© Tsadra Foundation. Please feel free to use this website and its content in accordance with fair use policies for teaching, scholarship, education, and research.