References
The Gzhan stong Model of Reality: Some More Material on Its Origin, Transmission, and Interpretation
From Buddha-Nature
< Articles
The Gzhan stong Model of Reality: Some More Material on Its Origin, Transmission, and Interpretation
Article
Article
| Citation: | Mathes, Klaus-Dieter. "The Gzhan stong Model of Reality: Some More Material on Its Origin, Transmission, and Interpretation." Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 34, no. 1–2 (2011): 187–223. https://journals.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/index.php/jiabs/article/view/10602/4454. |
|---|
Abstract
No abstract given. Here are the first relevant paragraphs:
By the time Tibetans inherited Indian Buddhism, it had already witnessed two major doctrinal developments, namely the notion of the Prajñāpāramitāsūtras that all factors of existence (dharmas) lack an own-being (emptiness), and the Yogācāra interpretation of this emptiness based on the imagined (parikalpita-), dependent (paratantra-) and perfect natures (pariniṣpanna svabhāva).[2] Closely related to this threefold distinction was the Tathāgatagarbha restriction of emptiness to adventitious stains which cover over an ultimate nature of buddha-qualities. There can be, of course, only one true reality towards which the Buddha awakened, so that exegetes were eventually forced to explain the canonical sources (i.e., Mahāyāna Sūtras) which contain mutually competing models of reality. This set the stage for the well-known hermeneutic strategies of the Tibetan schools. The main issue at stake was whether or not one needs to distinguish two modes of emptiness: being "empty of an own-being (Tib. rang stong), and being "empty of other" (Tib. gzhan stong). (Mathes, preliminary remarks, 187)
Notes
- (For the title) This is an enlarged version of my paper read at the 2008 IABS Conference in Atlanta, where it had the title: "Was the Third Karmapa Rang byung rdo rje (1284–1339) a Proponent of Gzhan stong? Some More Material from Rje Bkra shis 'od zer's (15th/16th cent.) Ratnagotravibhāga Commentary."
- This threefold distinction is related to the three niḥsvabhāvatās of the Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra: the lack of essence in terms of characteristics (lakṣaṇaniḥsvabhāvatā), arising (utpatti-n.) and the ultimate (paramārtha-n.). See Mathes 1996: 161.
- This threefold distinction is related to the three niḥsvabhāvatās of the Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra: the lack of essence in terms of characteristics (lakṣaṇa-niḥsvabhāvatā), arising (utpatti-n.) and the ultimate (paramārtha-n.). See Mathes 1996: 161.
