- Foreword - Michael Zimmermann9
- Acknowledgements11
- Introduction13
- Outline13
- Contributions of this study16
- Part I: Is the Mahāparinirvāṇa-mahāsūtra "Our Earliest" Tathāgatagarbha Text?
- Introduction19
- The portion of MPNMS under consideration ("MPNMS-tg")20
- 1 MPNMS-tg as a "Tathāgatagarbha Text"23
- 1.1 MPNMS-tg as a veritable "tathāgatagarbha text"23
- 1.2 The Tathāgatagarbha-sūtra as a "tathāgatagarbha text"32
- 2 The Date of MPNMS-tg, Relative to Other Tathāgatagarbha Texts35
- 2.1 Does MPNMS-tg refer to (our present) TGS by title?35
- 2.1.1 References to a/the (this?) Tathāgatagarbha-sūtra within
MPNMS-tg37 - 2.1.2 Reference to other titles and texts in MPNMS40
- 2.1.3 MPNMS references to other Mahāyāna texts by title50
- 2.1.4 Relations to other texts without mention of their title53
- 2.1.1 References to a/the (this?) Tathāgatagarbha-sūtra within
- 2.2 Similarity of one simile between MPNMS-tg and TGS56
- 2.3 Summary57
- 2.1 Does MPNMS-tg refer to (our present) TGS by title?35
- 3 Evidence for the Absolute Dates of MPNMS-tg and Other Tathāgatagarbha Scriptures59
- 3.1 Evidence for the absolute date of MPNMS-tg59
- 3.2 Independent evidence for the absolute dates of TGS83
- 3.3 Summary85
- 3.4 Takasaki’s chronology: The Anūnatvāpūrṇatva-nirdeśa and Śrīmālādevīsiṃhanāda-sūtra85
- 3.5 Chronological relations between MPNMS-tg and other texts in the MPNMS group97
- 3.6 Conclusions99
- Part II: The Mahāparinirvāṇa-mahāsūtra and the Origins of Tathāgatagarbha
Doctrine- Introduction101
- Schmithausen’s criteria for a "scenario of origin" for Buddhist concepts102
- 4 Tathāgatagarbha, the Problem of Maternity, and Positive Corollaries to
Docetic Buddhology105- 4.1 Terms105
- 4.2 Docetism as a corporeal issue107
- 4.3 The extension of docetism beyond death and birth110
- 4.4 Negatively-framed docetism about the Buddha’s conception,
gestation and birth115 - 4.5 "Material-miraculous" positive corollaries of docetism about the
Buddha’s conception, gestation and birth118 - 4.6 The material-miraculous, "docetic" womb124
- 4.7 Dharmakāya and vajrakāya as positive corollaries of corporeal
docetism129 - 4.8 Tathāgatagarbha as a "soteriological-transcendent" positive corollary
to docetism about the Buddha’s conception, gestation and birth132 - 4.9 Docetism and the problem of the Buddha’s mother(s)143
- 4.10 Docetic reinterpretations of other branches of kinship154
- 4.11 Summary155
- 5 Garbha and Dhātu159
- 6 Conclusions169
- 6.1 Summary169
- 6.2 Directions for future research171
- Appendix 1 Terms related to "tathāgatagarbha" in MPNMS175
- Appendix 2 Chinese zang 藏 (esp. in DhKṣ) and "secret teachings"193
- Appendix 3 Further apparent historical detail in the MPNMS group prophecy complex199
- 1 *Sarvalokapriyadarśana199
- 2 A "*cakravartinī"202
- 3 Trials and tribulations of the espousers of the MPNMS group205
- Appendix 4 "MPNMS-dhk" and "MPNMS-tg"207
- Appendix 5 "Kataphatic gnostic docetism"211
- Abbreviations215
- Bibliography219
- Index247
The Mahāparinirvāṇa-mahāsūtra and the Emergence of Tathāgatagarbha Doctrine
Book
Book
Famously, tathāgatagarbha doctrine holds that every sentient being has within the body a womb for Buddhas, or an embryonic Buddha – the potential for full buddhahood. Previous scholars have seen this doctrine as originating in the Tathāgatagarbha-sūtra. In this book, Michael Radich argues that rather, the Mahāparinirvāṇa-mahāsūtra is most likely our earliest extant tathāgatagarbha text. Radich then argues that tathāgatagarbha ideas originated as part of a wider pattern of docetic Buddhology – ideas holding that Buddhas are not really as they appear. Buddhist docetic texts are clearly troubled by the notion that Buddhas could have flesh-and-blood human mothers. The Mahāparinirvāṇa-mahāsūtra is one such text, and tathāgatagarbha functions as a better substitute for imperfect human maternity: rather than a putrid, painful human womb, buddhahood springs from a “womb” inherent in every sentient being, which promises final liberation from flesh altogether. This book should interest readers concerned with the history of Buddhist ideas, gender in Buddhism, the early Mahāyāna, the cult of the Buddha’s relics, and relations between Buddhist ideas and practice. (Source: Hamburg University Press)
| Citation | Radich, Michael. The Mahāparinirvāṇa-mahāsūtra and the Emergence of Tathāgatagarbha Doctrine. Hamburg Buddhist Studies 5. Hamburg: Hamburg University Press, 2015. https://d-nb.info/1069352969/34. |
|---|---|
Michael Radich argues that the Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra was the first appearance of the term tathāgatagarbha. Previous scholars have assumed that the term first appeared in the Tathāgatagarbhasūtra, although as Radich's thesis advisor Michael Zimmermann has argued, the term was possibly added to the scripture that uses it in its title only in later versions. Radich's argument in this way buttresses Zimmerman's, which has been disputed by other scholars. His thesis rests partly on the Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra's unique exposition of the term, one that was not repeated elsewhere. In this scripture, tathāgatagarbha is not an exhortation to practice, or a means to soothe fears of nihilism. Instead, it is an explanation of how a perfectly pure being such as a buddha could arise out of a polluted and degraded human being. It would seem that early Mahāyāna Buddhists had a misogynistic crisis similar to that of early Christians: an inability to accept that their divine hero could have been born from a woman. Radich places this intellectual struggle within a context of "docetic Buddhism," meaning the attempt to explain that what one sees—the Buddha in a body—is not what is ultimately real; appearances are always deceiving. Similar to the way Yogācāra built on emptiness-theory with positive descriptions of the ultimate, the Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra, Radich argues, offered a positive solution to the origin of buddhahood: because buddhas could not be generated out of a human womb, they were given metaphorical wombs—garbha —that are present in all sentient beings. Radich presents his argument alongside meticulous and extensive textual analysis to support his dating of the Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra to earlier than the Tathāgatagarbhasūtra.
