Is "Buddha-Nature" Buddhist? Doctrinal Tensions in the Srimala Sutra: An Early Tathagatagarbha Text

From Buddha-Nature
(Created page with "{{Article |ArticleTitle=Is "Buddha-Nature" Buddhist? Doctrinal Tensions in the Srimala Sutra: An Early Tathagatagarbha Text }}")
 
No edit summary
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Article
{{Article
|ArticleLayout=Academic Layout
|ArticleTitle=Is "Buddha-Nature" Buddhist? Doctrinal Tensions in the Srimala Sutra: An Early Tathagatagarbha Text
|ArticleTitle=Is "Buddha-Nature" Buddhist? Doctrinal Tensions in the Srimala Sutra: An Early Tathagatagarbha Text
|AuthorPage=King, R.
}}
}}

Latest revision as of 13:23, 14 January 2020

Is "Buddha-Nature" Buddhist? Doctrinal Tensions in the Srimala Sutra: An Early Tathagatagarbha Text
Article
Article
Citation: King, Richard. "Is 'Buddha-Nature' Buddhist? Doctrinal Tensions in the Śrīmālā Sūtra: An Early Tathāgatagarbha Text." Numen 42, no. 1 (1995): 1–20.

Abstract

Recent controversies in Japanese Buddhist scholarship have focused upon the Mahayana notion of a "Buddha nature" within all sentient beings and whether or not the concept is compatible with traditional Buddhist teachings such as anātman (no-abiding-self). This controversy is not only relevant to Far Eastern Buddhism, for which the notion of a Buddha-nature is a central doctrinal theme, but also for the roots of this tradition in those Indian Mahāyāna sūtras which utilised the notion of tathāgatagarbha (Buddha-embryo or Buddha womb). One of the earliest Buddhist texts to discuss this notion is the Queen Śrīmālā Sūtra (Śrīmālādevīsūtra), which appears to display a transitional and revisionist attitude towards traditional Mahāyāna doctrines such as emptiness (śūnyatā) and no-abiding-self (anātman). These and related issues are examined as they occur in the Śrīmālā Sūtra and as they might relate to the issue of the place of Buddha-nature thought within the Buddhist tradition. Finally some concluding remarks are made about the quest for "true" Buddhism.