Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra
There are three translations in the Tibetan canon under this name:
The Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra is one of the main scriptural sources for buddha-nature in China and Tibet. Set around the time of Buddha's passing or Mahāparinirvāṇa, the sūtra contains teachings on buddha-nature equating it with the dharmakāya—that is, the complete enlightenment of a buddha. It also asserts that all sentient beings possess this nature as the buddhadhātu, or buddha-element, which thus acts as a cause, seed, or potential for all beings to attain enlightenment. Furthermore, the sūtra includes some salient features related to this concept, such as the single vehicle and the notion that the dharmakāya is endowed with the four pāramitās of permanence, bliss, purity, and a self.
It may be noted that there are three different texts with similar titles in the Chinese and Tibetan canons. Of the three Tibetan texts with Mahāparinirvāṇa in their title, a short one (Derge Kangyur, No. 121) called Āryamahāparinirvāṇasūtra contains prophecies of events in the centuries after the Buddha's Mahāparinirvāṇa but has nothing on buddha-nature. Thus, this is not the Mahāparinirvāṇāsūtra which is considered as a Tathāgatagarbhasūtra. The two which deal with buddha-nature are Mahāyānasūtras and contain detailed accounts of the final teachings of the Buddha. The first sūtra, the longer one covering two volumes of Derge Kangyur (mdo sde Nya and Ta) is a translation from Chinese, while the second one is a translation from Sanskrit. They appear to be two different recensions of the same original sūtra as they have similar titles and overlapping content. However, the one translated from Chinese is much longer and also contains information on the events after the Buddha entered Mahāparinirvāṇa.
Relevance to Buddha-nature
According to Karl Brunnhölzl, "This sūtra’s presentation of buddha nature became the main scriptural basis for the discussion of tathāgatagarbha in China." Furthermore, he states, "In sum, the Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra discusses three very different meanings of all sentient beings’ possessing buddha nature—(1) all are endowed with an intrinsic pure nature of which they will become fully aware once what obscures it has been removed, (2) all possess a seed or potential for buddhahood, which will grow into its full fruition in the future once all necessary conditions are present, and (3) the mahāyāna path to buddhahood is open for all, and its result is definite if one follows this path."
Access this text online
https://read.84000.co/translation/toh121.html The 84000 Project]
Scholarly notes
The Mahāparinirvāṇamahāsūtra survives in four main independent versions:
- 1. 35 identified Central Asian Sanskrit fragments (Habata, 2007, xxvi, xxxi);
- 2. the Dabannihuan jing (大般泥洹經; T. 376), translated circa 416–418 ce by Buddhabhadra and Faxian (法顯; 320?–420? ce);
- 3. the Dabanniepan jing (大般涅槃經; T. 374), translated circa 421–432 ce by *Dharmakṣema (曇無讖; 385–433 ce); and
- 4. the Yongs su mya ngan las 'das pa chen po'i theg pa chen po'i mdo (D 120/Q 788), translated by Jinamitra, Jñānagarbha, and Devacandra (9th cent. ce).
Dharmakṣema’s version of the Mahāparinirvāṇamahāsūtra is four times as long as all the other independent versions. Two additional versions are based in turn on Dharmakṣema’s Dabanniepan jing. The Dabanniepan jing (大般涅槃經 T. 375), by Zhiyan 慧嚴 et al., is not an independent translation at all but a revision of Dharmakṣema’s text. D 119/Q 787 is a Tibetan translation from Dharmakṣema’s Chinese version.
H. Habata (2007) has collected, edited, and studied the Sanskrit fragments, and critically edited the Tibetan translation (2013); a second volume of Sanskrit fragments is forthcoming. The first English translation by K. Yamamoto (1973–1975) – rough, sometimes incomprehensible, and often inaccurate – is presented as a translation of Dharmakṣema’s text (T. 374), but it was actually produced from Shimaji’s Kokuyaku issaikyō translation of T. 375, itself a mere recasting of the Chinese text in Japanese grammatical order (see Yuyama, 1981, 14). Shimoda Masahiro (1993) has published a Japanese translation of the first three chapters of the Tibetan text. M. Blum (2013) has published the first volume of a planned four-volume translation of Dharmakṣema’s Dabanniepan jing (T. 374). S. Hodge is preparing an English translation based on all four independent versions, while M. Radich (2015) has prepared a monograph on the relative dating of the Mahāparinirvāṇamahāsūtra
and aspects of its tathāgatagarbha doctrine.
The most significant study of the Mahāparinirvāṇamahāsūtra to date is by Shimoda (1997). Other significant scholarship includes works by Mochizuki Ryōkō (1988) and Qu Dacheng (1994). S. Karashima (2007) studied the key term icchantika. The main English-language studies are by M.-W. Liu (1982; 1984), Takasaki Jikidō (1971), and S. Hodge (2010; 2012). The history of interpretation of this text in China and East Asia generally is a vital and crucial chapter in the history of East Asian Buddhism, which requires its own treatment. Numerous commentaries were written and debates conducted about this scripture; particularly important in this
regard is the Dabanniepan jing ji jie (大般涅槃經集 解; T. 1763), compiled in 509 ce by Baoliang (寶亮; see also Fuse, 1942).
As in the latter parts of the mainstream
Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra, on which it is based, the mise-en-scène is the final hours of the Buddha’s (apparent) life, as a last chance to ask questions. A vast cosmic congregation assembles, bewailing the Buddha’s imminent death. After much competition for the honor, the Buddha deigns to accept the offering of the smith Cunda as his final meal. Against the mainstream text, the disciple Ānanda is depicted as entirely absent (he only reappears at the very end of the text, and then only in Dharmakṣema’s version), and against his traditional role as the best keeper of the Buddha’s teaching, the text stresses that Ānanda is in fact unworthy to be entrusted with safeguarding the dharma. Instead, the dharma is entrusted to the bodhisattva Mahākāśyapa. Remarkably, the Mahāparinirvāṇamahāsūtra (with the exception of the Dharmakṣema version) ends with the Buddha lying down upon his right side in the “lion’s pose” as if to die, but stops short of his actual parinirvāṇa, his cremation, the division of relics, and so forth.
The central claim of the first part of the text is that the Buddha’s impending parinirvāṇa is only a docetic show. In fact, in this text, his life is inordinately long, and his body (termed both dharmakāya and abhedavajrakāya [indivisible adamantine body]) is indestructible and made of adamant (Radich, 2011a). The second part of the text (excluding portions unique to the version of Dharmakṣema), which probably belongs to a different stratum of compositional history (Shimoda, 1997), concerns itself with a somewhat miscellaneous sequence of topics, including the following:
- the docetic reinterpretation of the worldly existence of the Buddha, both before his attainment of buddhahood (when he is a bodhisattva) and after;
- a secret teaching centering on tathāgatagarbha;
- creative reinterpretations of liberation and the four fruits of the monastic vocation (śrotāpanna [stream enterer], sakṛdāgāmin [once-returner], anāgāmin [nonreturner], and arhat);
- how best to observe the monastic rule (vinaya);
- doctrines of the end-times of the dharma (times in which the true dharma will fade from the world, attended by various calamities; Nattier, 1991), false monks, and false teachings;
- the “four inversions,” by which – in contrast to classical Buddhist doctrine, which denies the possibility of such things – the Tathāgata is permanent (nitya), blissful (sukha), (true) self (ātman), and pure (śuddha; comp. the Śrīmālādevīsiṃhanādasūtra);
- the magical virtues of Sanskrit letters; and
- various parables about the realization of tathāgatagarbha/buddha nature and the docetic parinirvāṇa.
The Mahāparinirvāṇamahāsūtra (again, excepting extra parts found in the Dharmakṣema translation) can be divided into two main chronological strata. The earliest layer reflects the practices and ideas of itinerant dharma preachers, who were semimonastic and engaged in frequent pilgrimages to stūpas through dangerous regions, accompanied by laypeople who did not observe the traditional five precepts and armed themselves to protect the preacher. In Shimoda Masahiro’s view, this layer is apparently opposed to relic worship and proposes that the Buddha’s dharmakāya is adamantine (vajrakāya; see Radich, 2011a); it also propounds the eternity of the Buddha, the docetic view of the parinirvāṇa, and the aforementioned four inversions (eternity, bliss, self, and purity); it separately propounds the idea that the Tathāgata is “self ” (ātman).
Only in the second layer does the term bodhisattva come to be used for proponents of the Mahāparinirvāṇamahāsūtra. Moreover, with few exceptions, tathāgatagarbha doctrine is only introduced in this second layer, which also propounds the idea that the true teachings are secret, types of samādhi (meditative states), docetism (lokānuvartanā; “conformity with the world”), the three jewels (the Buddha, the dharma, and the saṅgha, taken as “refuges”), and criticism of śrāvakas (adherents of “mainstream,” non-Mahāyāna doctrine); mentions sūtras as written books (as opposed to oral teachings); and teaches about icchantikas, beings who are forever unable to attain buddhahood. Shimoda Masahiro also sees here a renewed rigor in monastic discipline, corresponding to a shift to sedentary cenobiticism, linked to a new concern for the purity of the saṅgha, and vehement criticism of corrupt monks. The later very important and influential ban on eating meat also appears here.
As mentioned earlier, Dharmakṣema’s version of the Mahāparinirvāṇamahāsūtra is much longer than the other independent versions. Yijing (義淨; 635–713 ce) searched in India and Southeast Asia for Sanskrit texts corresponding to this large unique portion, without success (T. 2066 [LI] 4a8–12). Modern scholarship has paid surprisingly little attention to the question of the origin of the remaining unique three quarters of Dharmakṣema’s text (but see Chen, 2004; Hodge, 2010; 2012). However, it is clear that authors of parts of it must have known Indic texts otherwise unknown in China (Radich, 2011b, 49–50, 160–163; Granoff, 2012). These unique portions of Dharmakṣema’s text played a key role in the massive impact of the Mahāparinirvāṇamahāsūtra on Chinese Buddhism, including the controversy surrounding the icchantika doctrine, in which the important cleric Daosheng (道生; 355–434 ce) played a celebrated role.
(Source: Radich, Michael. "Tathāgatagarbha Scriptures." In Vol. 1, Brill's Encyclopedia of Buddhism: Literature and Languages, edited by Jonathan A. Silk, Oskar von Hinüber, and Vincent Eltschinger, 264-66. Leiden: Brill, 2015.)
Philosophical positions of this text
Text Metadata
| Other Titles | ~ ārya-mahāparinirvāṇa-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra |
|---|---|
| Text exists in | ~ Tibetan ~ Chinese |
| Canonical Genre | ~ Kangyur · Sūtra · mdo sde · Sūtranta |
| Literary Genre | ~ Sūtras - mdo |
Buddhabhadra
Devacandra
Gewai Lodrö
Dharmakṣema
Wangpabzhun
Gyatso De
Jinamitra
Jñānagarbha
Kamalagupta
Faxian
Xie Lingyun
Huiyan
Huiguan
Contents
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.
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)
This dissertation begins with definitions of the term "tathāgatagarbha" and some of its synonyms which are followed by a brief review of the historical development of the Tathāgatagarbha theory from India to China. With these as the background knowledge, it is easier to point out the fallacies of the two Japanese scholars' criticism on this theory. A key issue in their criticism is that they viewed the Tathāgatagarbha theory as the ātman of the Upaniṣads in disguise. It is therefore necessary to discuss not only the distinction between the ātman mentioned in the Tathāgatagarbha theory and that in the Upaniṣads but also the controversy over the issue of ātman versus anātman among the Buddhist scholars.
In the discussion to clarify the issue of ātman in the Tathāgatagarbha theory, it is demonstrated that the ātman in the Tathāgatagarbha theory is not only uncontradictory to the doctrine of anātman in Buddhism but very important to the Bodhisattva practices in the Mahāyāna Buddhism. It functions as a unity for the Bodhisattvas to voluntarily return to the world of saṃsāra again and again. Furthermore, the purport of the entire theory, that all sentient beings are endowed with the essence of the Buddha, supports various Bodhisattva practices such as the aspiration to save all beings in the world, the six perfections, etc. In a word, the Tathāgatagarbha theory is an excellent representative of the soteriology of the Mahāyāna Buddhism. Included in the end of this dissertation is an annotated translation of the Tathāgatagarbha-sūtra. (Source Accessed May 26, 2020)
Pabhassara Sutta
Kevaddha Sutta
Nibbana Sutta
Ashtasahasrika Prajnaparamita Sutra
Samdhinirmochana Sutra
Mahaparinirvana Sutra
Shrimaladevi Sutra
Tathagatagarbha Sutra
Lankavatara Sutra
Bodhidharma’s Breakthrough Sermon
Sengcan’s Song of the Trusting Mind
Hongren’s Treatise on the Supreme Vehicle
Huineng’s Platform Sutra
Yongjia’s Song of Realizing the Way
Shitou’s Record
Shitou’s Song of the Grass-Roof Hermitage
Dongshan’s Song of the Jewel Mirror Samadhi
Caoshan’s Verse
Guishan’s Record
Mazu’s Record
Baizhang’s Record
Huangbo’s Transmission of Mind
Linji’s Record
Nanquan’s Record
Changsha’s Record
Yunmen’s Record
Yuanwu’s Letters
Hongzhi’s Record
Dogen’s Treasury of the True Dharma Eye
Ejo’s Absorption in the Treasury of Light
Keizan’s Transmission of Light
32nd Ancestor Hongren
34th Ancestor Qingyuan
38th Ancestor Dongshan
40th Ancestor Dongan
46th Ancestor Tanxia
49th Ancestor Xuedou
52nd Ancestor Dogen
53rd Ancestor Ejo
Chinul’s Complete Sudden Attainment of Buddhahood
Chinul’s Secrets of Cultivating the Mind
Bassui’s One Mind
Bankei’s Record
Hakuin’s Four Cognitions
Menzan’s Self-Enjoyment Samadhi
Shunryu Suzuki’s Mind Waves (from "Zen Mind, Beginner’s Mind")
Shunryu Suzuki’s Resuming Big Mind (from "Not Always So")
Padmasambhava’s Self-Liberation through Seeing with Naked Awareness
Dakpo Tashi Namgyal’s Clarifying the Natural State
Karma Chagmey’s Union of Mahamudra and Dzogchen
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)In part 1 he has singled out those scriptures that use the term tathāgatagarbha as their principal term and identified three scriptures—Tathāgatagarbha-sūtra, Anūnatvāpurṇatvanirdeśa, and Śrīmālādevīnirdeśa—as the basis for the formation of the tathāgatagarbha theory. Next, he has placed the Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra, which uses the term buddhadhātu for the first time as a synonym of tathāgatagarbha, and associated scriptures in a second group, while in the third group we have the Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra and so on, in which the concept of tathāgatagarbha is identified with ālayavijñana, the basic concept of the Vijñānavāda.
In part 2, he has dealt with the prehistory of the tathāgatagarbha theory in Mahāyāna scriptures that use terms synonymous with tathāgatagarbha, such as gotra and dhātu, tathāgatagotra, tathāgatotpattisambhava, āryavaṃsa, buddhaputra, dharmadhātu and dharmakāya, cittaprakṛti, and so on. The main points made in this work are discussed in the papers that have now been brought together in the present volume.
This volume has for convenience' sake been divided into seven parts according to subject matter. Part 1 presents a textual study, namely, a critical edition of chapter 6 of the Laṅkāvatāra. Part 2 deals with subjects concerning scriptures such as the Laṅkāvatāra, part 3 with technical terms and basic concepts of the tathāgatagarbha theory, part 4 with tathāgatagarbha doctrine in general, and part 5 with Japanese Buddhism and Buddhism in East Asia (on the basis of scriptures translated into Chinese). Part 6 presents a historical survey of Japanese scholarship on Buddhism, and part 7 consists of several book reviews. (Source: Motilal Banarsidass)
The MPNS-G declares or suggests the non-emptiness of the tathāgata. This is reinterpretation of the pratītyasamutpāda and the śūnyatā idea, and follows the rule of the historical Buddhist hermeneutics. It is especially worthwhile to note that the MBhS, like the Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra in the Vijñāptimātra idea, devaluates the śūnyatā idea as imperfect. This quite negative attitude toward the śūnyatā idea does not appear in any other Indian texts on the tathāgatagarbha idea including the MPNS and the AMS. Aiming at establishing the theory that every sentient being is able to perform religious efforts and become buddha on account of the nonemptiness and the eternalness of the tathāgata, the MBhS must reject any sūtra concerning the śūnyatā idea as imperfect. Though the MPNS is a pioneer in reinterpretation of the the śúnyatā idea, the MPNS cannot devaluate it perfectly because the śūnyatā idea is one of the main backgrounds to the MPNS. The MBhS's decisive attitude toward the śūnyatā idea devaluation becomes possible by having the MPNS as its basis. (Source: UTokyo Repository)
There is no traditional rubric of tathāgatagarbha scriptures, though modem scholars (e.g. Takasaki, 1974) have treated several scriptures as belonging to a thematic class, namely the ;;Tathāgatagarbhasūtra, the Anūnatvāpūrṇatvanirdeśaparivarta, the Śrīmālādevīsiṃhanādasūtra, the (Mahāyāna) Mahaaparinirvāṇamahāsūtra, the Mahāmeghasūtra, the *Mahābherīhārakasūtra, and the Mahāyāna Aṅgulimālīya (or Aṅgulimālīyasūtra). This classification is based in the first instance on the use of these and related works as proof texts in the Indian treatise Ratnagotravibhāga (Mahāyānottaratantra). The category is thus in some sense conceptually coherent even in an Indian context. Moreover, many of these texts take on a very significant role in East Asia where, again, they are often appealed to in various groupings.
The notion of tathāgatagarbha (embryo of the tathāgatas), a Mahāyāna innovation, signifies the presence in every sentient being of the innate capacity for buddhahood. Although different traditions interpret it variously, the basic idea is either that all beings are already awakened, but simply do not recognize it, or that all beings possess the capacity, and for some the certainty, of attaining buddhahood, but adventitious defilements (āgantukakleśa) for the moment prevent the realization of this potential. (Radich, "Tathāgatagarbha Sūtras," 261)Humans have long grappled with the question of the nature of our Self, defined here as the ultimate reality inherent to our individual being. Religious traditions can be a great place to look when attempting to understand this aspect of our humanity. Broadly speaking, when contemplating ideas of Self in Buddhism and Hinduism, the relationship between the Buddhist notion of Buddha-nature (tathāgatagarbha) and the Hindu notion of Self (ātman), is an intriguing one: How can we understand them to be similar or different? How do the Buddhist concepts of emptiness (śūnyatā) and mind-only (cittamātra) relate to the concepts of tathāgatagarbha and ātman? Is emptiness contrary to these ideas? Are tathāgatagarbha and the Hindu teaching that ātman is equal to brahman (ultimate reality), both expressions of a non-dualistic state of mind? Although it is commonly taught that Hinduism and Buddhism differ in their understanding of Self, one thing that becomes apparent is that these are not simple questions, perhaps mainly because their answers are contextual. There are many answers that come from many different types of Hindus and Buddhists in various places. For this paper, I will be looking at commentary on the Buddhist text the Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa sūtra and its use of the concept of a permanent Self and how this relates to emptiness (śūnyatā) and skillful means (upāya). This paper seeks to support my claim that, through skillful means, ātman and anātman (no-Self) are both saying something quite similar—despite the apparent paradoxical nature of this statement—and will look at Buddha-nature in the Mahāparinirvāṇa sūtra as a way to understand and help articulate this thought. (Laughlin, "Tathāgatagarbha and Ātman," 57)
This dissertation examines the notion that not only sentient beings but also insentient
ones, e.g., flora, mountains, rivers, and manmade objects, have Buddha-nature. Employing an
exegetical approach, I investigate Jingxi Zhanran’s (711-782) theory of the Buddha-nature of
insentient beings. Emphasizing the all-pervasiveness of Buddha-nature and the nonduality of
mind and material, he eliminates the absolute distinction between sentient and insentient beings
and contends that Buddha-nature includes all beings. Additionally, insisting on the Tiantai notion
of mutual inclusion, which reveals a two-way relationship between sentience and insentience,
Zhanran reverses the positions of the subjective observer and the objective phenomenon,
subjectifying insentient beings.
In addition to examining the theoretical profundity of Zhanran’s theory, my study examines the issues of sentience versus insentience and Buddha-nature that took place before Zhanran and discusses the subsequent Tiantai concerns with the Buddha-nature of insentient beings. Through textual analysis, I reexamine the emergence of the Chinese thought that connects Buddha-nature to insentient things, initially presented by Jingying Huiyuan (523-592) and Jiaxiang Jizang (549-623). I also illustrate that the concept of the Buddha-nature of insentient beings is implied in Zhiyi’s (538-597) thought by interpreting Zhiyi’s teachings that inspired Zhanran’s advocacy. Furthermore, I analyze, on doctrinal grounds, Chinese Tiantai descendants’ endorsement of Zhanran’s theory, contrasting it with their Japanese counterparts’, the latter who found it difficult to conceptualize how insentient beings’ spiritual cultivation might occur.
Previous Buddhist scholarship has generally regarded the Mahāparinirvāṇa-mahāsūtra as a “side line” or “offshoot” from the “mainstream” group of tathāgatagarbha scriptural texts, such as the Tathāgatagarbha-sūtra. This view has been also supported by the presumed chronological order between the Mahāparinirvāṇa-mahāsūtra and the Tathāgatagarbha-sūtra: The Tathāgatagarbha-sūtra, which is also the putative earliest tathāgatagarbha text, has been considered to be an earlier text than the Mahāparinirvāṇa-mahāsūtra, on the basis of the supposed evidence that the Mahāparinirvāṇa-mahāsūtra refers to the Tathāgatagarbha-sūtra by its title on the one hand and borrows one simile from the Tathāgatagarbha-sūtra on the other. Michael Radich’s book, The Mahāparinirvāṇa-mahāsūtra and the Emergence of Tathāgatagarbha Doctrine, fundamentally challenges such previous scholarship on the Mahāparinirvāṇa-mahāsūtra. Employing meticulous analysis of vast range of primary-source materials, Radich convincingly demonstrates that the Mahāparinirvāṇa-mahāsūtra is most likely “our earliest” tathāgatagarbha text. More importantly, Radich, presents an insightful perspective on the matter of the origin of the tathāgatagarbha doctrine: He argues that the tathāgatagarbha/*buddhadhātu ideas of the Mahāparinirvāṇa-mahāsūtra constitutes part of a broader pattern of docetic Buddhology, the idea that the buddhas’ appearance is not the reality of their true nature.
The Mahāparinirvāṇa-mahāsūtra and the Emergence of Tathāgatagarbha Doctrine consists of two parts. Part I, which is divided into three chapters, mainly concerns chronological issues revolving around the Mahāparinirvāṇa-mahāsūtra, thereby arguing that the Mahāparinirvāṇa-mahāsūtra is the earliest tathāgatagarbha text available to us. In Chapter 1, Radich argues that the Mahāparinirvāṇa-mahāsūtra can be considered a tathāgatagarbha text proper, by questioning the scholarly presumption that the “Buddha nature” (*buddhadhātu) doctrine of the Mahāparinirvāṇa-mahāsūtra derives from the center of tathāgatagarbha doctrinal discourse. Through a careful comparative analysis of the text common to the four versions of the Mahāparinirvāṇa-mahāsūtra, Radich shows that the sūtra in fact speaks of tathāgatagarbha much more than it speaks of *buddhadhātu, and that even when it mentions *buddhadhātu, it is used in an interchangeable manner with tathāgatagarbha. In this way, Radich undermines the previous scholarly tendency to distinguish the concept of *buddhadhātu from tathāgatagarbha and to regard the Mahāparinirvāṇa-mahāsūtra as a side-line of the tathāgatagarbha doctrine. (Lee, "Review of The Mahāparinirvāṇa-mahāsūtra and the Emergence of Tathāgatagarbha Doctrine," 199–200)
One of the most popular sūtras in China is the Ta-pan nieh-pan ching, the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra translated by Dharmakṣema in 421 A.D. Its doctrine of "universal Buddha-nature" has endeared itself to the Orient so much that it became an axiom of sorts, and any challenge to this doctrine would be seen as a challenge against Mahayana itself. To this day, this sūtra, TPNPC for short, is well received by all major Buddhist schools. The Pali canon preserved its version of the teaching of the Buddha at his parinirvāṇa, great extinction, in the Dighanikaya. The Mahayana tradition's redaction is the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra, of which the Chinese translations alone survive. Prior to Dharmakṣema, Fa-hsien the pilgrim and Buddhabhadra translated a shorter Ta-pan ni-yüan ching in six chapters. This version was based on an earlier Sanskrit text that corresponds now to the first ten chapters of the forty-chaptered TPNC. The texts were unknown to Kumārajīva (d. 413) the Kuchan translator who produced the authoritative Miao-fa lien-hua ching, the Saddharma-puṇḍarīka or Lotus-sūtra. When the TPNPC was known to the Chinese, it was almost immediately crowned as the final, ultimate 'positive'—that is affirming the permanence of the Buddha-nature qua Dharmakāya qua mahā-nirvāṇa—teaching of the Buddha. Even the Lotus-sūtra was placed, both in time and in content, second to it. In the Sui dynasty, however, T'ien-t'ai master Chih'i, establishing the Lotus school, reversed the judgement somewhat.[2] It is in part to uncover the glory that once belonged to the TPNPC that the present essay tries to analyze the initial reception of this sūtra. (Lai, "The Mahāparinirvāṇa-Sūtra and Its Earliest Interpreters in China," 99)
Notes
- The placement of note #1 in the text is unclear in the original. Nevertheless it reads: On the impact of the TPNPC, see Kenneth Ch'en, Buddhism in China (Princeton: Princeton University, 1964), pp. 112-129 or Fuse Kōgaku, Nehanshū no kenkyū, I, II (Tokyo, Sōbun, 1942) and Tokiwa Daijō, Busshō no kenkyū (Tokyo, Meiji, 1944).
- On Chih-i's p'an-chiao, see Leon Hurvitz, "Chih-i," Melanges chinois et Bouddhiques, XII, (Brussells, 1960-62), esp. appendix on p'an-chiao.
Yet the significance of the MPNS goes well beyond that restricted topic, despite its interest to many. For example, when utilized to the fullest, the available textual materials for the MPNS allow unique insights into the creation, development & transmission of Mahāyāna texts in general. Additionally, I believe that the composition of the main elements of the MPNS can be reliably dated to a narrow period from the middle decades to the end years of the 1st century CE, when read in conjunction with the small group of associated texts (the Mahāmegha-sūtra, Mahā-bherī-sūtra and the Aṅgulimālīya-sūtra), due to the specific mention in them of the Sātavāhana ruler Gautamīputra Sātakarṇi in conjunction with the timetable of a dire eschatological prophesy. There would also seem to be biographical details of a certain individual who may have been the founder or author of the MPNS “movement”. In sum, this situation seems to be virtually unique among all Mahāyāna sutras and, if properly understood, should have far-reaching ramifications for the study of the early Mahāyāna movements, for the MPNS may now be taken as a fixed reference point for constructing a relative chronology for many other early Mahāyāna sutras, though with the usual caveats concerning interpolated material. (Hodge, introduction, 1)
Volume 12
The Nirvana Sutra deals with the teachings given by Śākyamuni shortly before his death (mahāparinirvāṇa). Nirvāṇa means "extinguishing the flames of passion and attaining the state of enlightenment." Since Śākyamuni attained enlightenment at the age of 35, he did in fact already enter nirvāṇa at this time. But because it was considered impossible to completely extinguish the passions while retaining a physical body, Śākyamuni’s death came to be called mahāparinirvāṇa, i.e. "the state of great serenity in which the flames of passion have been completely extinguished." The sūtra gives the teachings expounded by Śākyamuni immediately before his death. As it contains episodes relating to events before and after his death, it also has value as historical source material.
Source
Skt. Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra, translated into the Chinese by Dharmakṣema as Da banniepan jing (大般涅槃經). 40 fascicles. (Source: BDK America)It is the orthodox belief that the MNS teaches that all sentient beings possess the Buddha-nature. Since in the MNS "Buddha-nature" refers to "the nature of the Buddha" and "to possess" the Buddha-nature in the case of sentient beings usually indicates "to have in the future,"'"`UNIQ--ref-00005CCB-QINU`"' this belief amounts to the conviction that the MNS maintains that all sentient beings will achieve Buddhahood someday. This conviction is well attested by the text of the MNS. Thus, we find it clearly expressed in the MNS that "all three vehicles will eventually share the same Buddha-nature":
'"`UNIQ--poem-00005CCD-QINU`"'
If this thesis of the eventual enlightenment of all sentient beings does indeed constitute the central theme of the MNS, it is strongly qualified by the presence in the sutra of the concept of the icchantika. The term "icchantika" is derived from the Sanskrit root is meaning "to desire," "to wish" and "to long for." This explains the variant Chinese renderings of the term "icchantika" as "a being of many desires" (to-yü), "a being cherishing desires" (lo-yü) and "a being full of greed" (ta-t'an).'"`UNIQ--ref-00005CD4-QINU`"' But in the MNS, the failings attributed to the icchantikas far exceed those which are usually associated with people of such descriptions. In the sūtra, the icchantika is described as "devoid of good roots"'"`UNIQ--ref-00005CD5-QINU`"' and as "the most wicked being."'"`UNIQ--ref-00005CD6-QINU`"' He is depicted as "having no capacity for the [true] Dharma"'"`UNIQ--ref-00005CD7-QINU`"' such that he can never be rehabilitated by the instruction of the Buddha and so will never attain supreme enlightenment. Taken at its face value, this picture of a being condemned forever to spiritual darkness appears to contradict the proposition of the MNS that all sentient beings possess the Buddha-nature and so are destined for Buddhahood, and commentators of the MNS have been hard pressed to find a viable way out of this apparent dilemma.
The present article, which is the second of a two-part study on the problem of Buddha-nature in the MNS,'"`UNIQ--ref-00005CD8-QINU`"' is an attempt to unravel the various strands of thought present in the MNS regarding the character and fate of the icchantikas. It is hoped that our discussion, brief and sketchy as it is, will be of help in throwing light on this highly intricate question. (Liu, "The Problem of the Icchantika," 57–59)
4.1.1 The Nirvāṇa Sūtras. Like many other ancient cultures, the Chinese, too, have a concept of a soul or abiding entity that survives the person‘s death. The Chinese word for such an abiding entity is línghún 靈魂. One of ancient China‘s largest and wealthiest temple, built in 328 (Eastern Jin dynasty) by the Indian monk, Huìlǐ 慧理,'"`UNIQ--ref-0000110D-QINU`"' is called Língyǐn Sì 靈隐寺, the "Temple of the Soul‘s Retreat," belonging to the Chán school, located north-west of Hangzhou, Zhejiang province. In its heyday, during the kingdom of Wúyuè guó 吳越國 (907-978) [5.1.2.1], the temple boasted of 9 multi-storey buildings, 18 pavilions, 72 halls, more than 1300 dormitory rooms, inhabited by more than 3000 monks. Many of the rich Buddhist carvings in the Fēilái fēng 飛來峰 grottos and surrounding mountains also date from this era.
The Chinese word for anattā (P) or anātman (Skt) (non-self) is wúwǒ 無我, literally meaning "not-I." There is no Chinese word for not-linghun. As such, although a Chinese Buddhist would intellectually or verbally accept the notion that there is no I (that is, an agent in an action), he would probably unconsciously hold on to the idea of some sort of independent abiding entity or eternal identity, that is, the linghun, which is in effect the equivalent of the brahmanical ātman. The situation becomes more complicated with Mahāyāna discourses, such as the Nirvāṇa Sūtra, that speak of a transcendent Buddhanature as the true self.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000110E-QINU`"'
. . . We may conclude the characteristics of the TG [tathāgatagarbha] theory in this sūtra in the following way.
1) The biggest contribution of the MPS [Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra] to the history of the TG theory is the establishment of the concept of buddhadhātu as explaining the nature of tathāgatagarbha. This dhātu concept as showing the essence or nature common to sattvas and the Tathāgata seems to be introduced by the AAN [Anūnatvāpūrṇatvanirdeśa], but the MPS, succeeding the AAN, utilized it in its full scope, in which are involved various other meanings of the term dhātu developed in Buddhism, such as relic of the Buddha, the 18 component elements, the 4 gross elements, sphere of the dharma, the essence of dharmas (e.g. the tathāgatakāya is not (consisting) of elements of collected materials (bsags paḥi khams), but of the essence of the dharma (chos kyi khams) (L. 110a1–2). It suggests that 'dharmakāya' is 'dharmadhātu-kāya' ), the word root, etc.
2) The most unique expression of this sūtra with respect to the TG is the ātman, which is regarded as a sort of taboo in Buddhism*. Connotation of this term in the text is completely identical with dhātu.
3) Inspite of the use of such an abstract concept, the MPS is far from systematization of the theory, in comparison with the AAN and the ŚMS [Śrītmalasūtra]. Especially the relationship between tathāgatagarbha and dharmakāya, problem of the pure mind and the defilements, etc. are not discussed explicitly as in the SMS. In this respect, I hesitate a bit to suppose the date of the MPS as coming after the ŚMS.
4) Inspite of frequent references to the icchantika, the term agotra is not used. In general, the gotra concept is lacking in the MPS. This point is common to the AAN, and the ŚMS. (Takasaki, section 6, 9–10)
Read more here . . .Buddhism, as a religion arose in ancient India and developed in various parts of the world, aims at the unique goal that is providing welfare and happiness for human beings. The real happiness brought to mankind by Buddhism is not a satisfaction of self-requirement, but a spiritual benefit
coming from enlightenment of the absolute truth, emancipation of the ego of things and persons, and free from the hindrances of passion and ignorance. Buddhism that is mainly based on teachings of the Buddha delivered at different places on different occasions continues to develop and adapt to the new challenges in the form of thought, different cultures, religions, customs and tradition of the people wherever it went. However, all the Buddha’s teachings originate in the enlightenment of the Buddha.
All traditions of Buddhism accept that the Buddha attained enlightenment through stages of meditation that led to the Buddhahood endowed with transcendent wisdom and compassion. According to some Mahāyāna scriptures, the Buddhahood is nothing other than the Buddhanature which is the inherent essence within all beings. The doctrine of the Buddha-nature presented in several Mahāyāna scriptures of the so-called Tathāgatagarbha literature was formed in about the third century CE. There is no evidence that the doctrine of Buddha-nature formed a school in India like the Śūnyatā (Emptiness) of the Mādhyamika or the Vijñaptimātratā (Consciousness-only) of the Yogācāra School, but the Buddha-nature plays an important role in the religious life of Mahāyāna Buddhism in the East and Southeast Asian countries because it provides a faith of the permanence and immortality due to a declaration that all sentient beings possess the innate Buddha-nature and have a potentiality of becoming the Buddhas.
Although most of the followers of Mahāyāna Buddhism believe the doctrine of the Buddha-nature and constantly try their best endeavor to attain the goal of Buddhahood, there were a lot of opinions that criticize the doctrine of the Buddha-nature by asserting that it is not Buddhist because this idea of the Buddha-nature seems to be akin to the permanent Self
(ātman/brahman) presented in the Vedānta of Brahmanism. Conversely, according to some other scholars, the Buddha nature or Tathāgatagarbha referred in some Mahāyāna Sūtras does not represent a substantial self or ego; it is rather a positive language to express the thought of śūnyatā and to represent the potentiality of realizing the Buddhahood through Buddhist
practices. Modern scholars today fall into an unending discussion about the similarity or difference between the Buddha-nature and Brahman but no one compares the date of these doctrines. Therefore, the purpose of this thesis is an attempt to clarify the Buddhist orthodoxy of the doctrine of the Buddha-nature through chronological comparison of the date of Buddha-nature with that of Brahman. Based on the Laṅkāvatārasūtra and other scriptures, the work attempt to elucidate that the Buddhist thought of the Buddha-nature had existed prior the Vedāntic thought of Brahman. Indeed, the thesis shows that while the doctrine of the Buddha-nature had come into existence in the third century CE in the Tathāgatagarbha literature, the
Vedāntic doctrine of Brahman appeared for the first time in the sixth century CE. Consequently, although the Buddha-nature is closely akin to Brahman/ātman of the Vedānta, the doctrine of the Buddha-nature is originally a thought of Buddhism. For this reason, the writer chose the topic
entitled “Thought of Buddha-nature as Depicted in the LaṅkāvatāraSūtra” for the Ph.D. thesis.
Study on the Buddha-nature is a task which cannot be carried out without the important texts, teachings, practices and historical movements of Buddhism. This study is mainly based upon the Laṅkāvatārasūtra, a Buddhist text of the later period of the Tathāgatagarbha literature, in which
the thought of the Buddha-nature is depicted in relationship with most of the Mahāyāna concepts such as the Buddhatā, Tathāgatagarbha, Ālayavijñāna, Dharmakāya, Mind-only, etc. Especially, the Laṅkāvatārasūtra emphasizes the practice of self-realization and sudden enlightenment of the Buddha-nature. It is also said that the Sūtra was handed down by Bodhidharma to his heir disciple Hui-ke 慧可 as the proof of enlightenment in Chan (Zen) Buddhism.
This thesis is an attempt to investigate and criticize the philosophical and religious thought of the Buddha-nature as depicted in the Laṅkāvatārasūtra. In so doing, we have taken into consideration the following principle themes:
1. Evolution of the Buddha-nature Concept
2. The Buddha-nature in the Tathāgatagarbha Literature
3. The Laṅkāvatārasūtra and Hindu Philosophy
4. The Thought of Buddha-nature in the Laṅkāvatārasūtra
5. The Practice of Buddha-Nature in the Laṅkāvatārasūtra
6. Further Development of the Concept of Buddha-nature in
China
According to the Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra, an icchantika (Tib. 'dod chen pa), therefore, is a monk who, claiming (or fancies; icchanti, Tib. 'dod pa) himself to be an Arhat, rejects the teaching of the Vaipulya — namely the Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra itself— as told by Māra. Judging from the above-cited descriptions: "he ... also looks like a Mahāsattva," "'The Blessed One is impermanent. The Dharma and the Saṅgha will also become extinct. Such signs of the extinction of the Good Dharma are also evident.' — this is explained clearly in the (true) Mahāyāna (scriptures)," we may assume that icchantikas were monks who, following the traditional Mahāyāna teachings, did not approve (icchanti) of the then emerging theory of the eternity of the Tathāgata — which is the main theme of the Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra.
The word icchantika is either formed from the present active participle icchant- with the suffix -ka, as Edgerton suggested, or derived from icchā + anta. As we have seen above, the word icchant-( 'dod pa) has the meanings "fancying; claiming, maintaining; admitting, approving of" in addition to its usual definition "desiring." Accordingly, the noun icchā has the meaning "assertion, claim" in addition to "desire." What is meant by icchantika is, then, probably "one who claims." When a monk—who claimed (icchati) to be an "Arhat" also was revered as an "Arhat" or a "Mahasattva" by his followers and thus, was an authority and spiritual leader of the Buddhist community—did not recognise (nêchanti) new ideas such as the eternity of the Tathāgata and the tathāgatagarbha theory as the Buddha's teachings, then the newly-risen, would-be "Vaipulya teachings" (probably the older stratum of the Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra) may have been branded as unorthodox. That is what was meant by the word "rejection" (pratikṣepa; Tib. spong ba). If a simple, common monk rejects a new theory, his voice may not reach anybody. Being rejected and condemned by none other than the authorities of the Buddhist communities, those who advocated new ideas and their followers must have faced a crisis. Then, they may have condemned the authoritative monks repeatedly as being "arrogant," "evil" and "irredeemable," as well as calling them, in a derogatory term, icchantika ("one who claims [to be an authority]") in the newly-added chapters of the Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra. However, if one looks at the descriptions cited above from a different point of view, those monks, who were condemned as icchantikas in the "Sutra," might have been respected conservative monks who stayed with the traditional (Mahāyāna) Buddhist teachings, while opposing new ideas concerning Buddhahood. They might have been so-called "fundamentalists" but never "evil monks."
Those, who composed the later stratum of the Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra, were probably the first to label those monks, who did not approve of the eternity of the Tathāgata and the tathāgatagarbha theory, as icchantikas. Following in the wake of the Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra, the composers of later Buddhist texts, putting forth the same tathāgatagarbha theory, continued to condemn those who did not approve of their theory, regarding them as icchantika. Claiming that their texts were part of the "true Mahāyāna" tradition, the former condemned the latter as rejecters of the "Mahāyāna" teachings.
However, much later, the word icchantika seems to have come to be interpreted, not as meaning "one who claims" but "one who desires (transmigration)." This is clearly seen in the Ratnagotravibhāga:
p. 28, l. 14f. ye nâpi saṃsāram icchanti yathêcchantikā ( "They are not seeking for the
Phenomenal Life as the Icchantikas do, ... ")
p. 29, l. 1f. tatra ye sattvā bhavâbhilāṣiṇa icchantikās tanniyatipatitā ihadhārmikā evôcyante
mithyātvaniyataḥ satttvarāśir iti ("And here, those people who cling to this worldly life,
i.e. the Icchantikas and those who, though belonging to this Our Religion, have
definitely fallen into the former's way are called the group of people who confirm in
the wrong way.")
p. 31, l. 8f. tatra mahāyānadharmapratihatānām icchantikānām aśucisamsārâbhirati-
viparyayeṇa bodhisattvānāṃ mahāyānadharmâdhimuktibhāvanāyāḥ śubhapāramitâdhigamaḥ
phalaṃ draṣṭavyam ("Here, being opposite to the taking of delight in the 'impure'
Phenomenal Life by the Icchantikas who have hatred against the Doctrine of Great
Vehicle, it should be understood that the acquisition of the Supreme Purity is the
result of 'Practice of the Faith in the Doctrine of Great Vehicle' by the Bodhisattvas.")
The shift in meanings of the word icchantika from "one who claims" to "one who desires (transmigration)," may indicate the actual disappearance of those, who had disapproved of the tathāgatagarbha theory, at least from the vicinity. It may further suggest that followers of the theory might have increased in number, making them much more self-confident of their theory; or that the theory itself might have come to be fully recognised as a genuine Mahāyāna teaching. (Karashima, "Who Were the Icchantikas?", 76–79)
- Author's notes have been omitted
This Text on Adarsha - If it doesn't load here, refresh your browser.
The wikipage input value is empty (e.g. <code>, [[]]</code>) and therefore it cannot be used as a name or as part of a query condition.
