David Higgins at the 2019 Tathāgatagarbha Symposium
< Media
Abstract from the Author
Sources Mentioned
The first, made up entirely of the so-called root verses, corresponds to the Sanskrit title Ratnagotravibhāga Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra, though it is usually referenced in this tradition by the Tibetan equivalent of the latter subtitle, Theg pa chen po rgyud bla ma'i bstan bcos, which is commonly rendered into English as the Treatise on the Ultimate Continuum of the Great Vehicle and is abbreviated as RGV. However, the full title, Theg pa chen po rgyud bla ma'i bstan bcos dkon mchog gi rigs rnam par dbye ba, does appear at the end of each chapter of the canonical Tibetan recensions. Nevertheless, this version is likely a Tibetan redaction, in that thus far there is no evidence of a Sanskrit version written entirely in verse that excludes the commentarial sections that explain them.
The second, which combines the verses with their accompanying prose commentary, corresponds to the *Ratnagotravibhāgavyākhyā as it has become known in academic circles where it is referenced with the abbreviation RGVV. However, in Tibetan the subtitle is merely appended with the equivalent of vyākhyā, i.e. Theg pa chen po rgyud bla ma'i bstan bcos rnam par bshad pa, and thus a translation of the Tibetan title of the complete text would be something akin to the Explanatory Commentary on the Treatise on the Ultimate Continuum of the Great Vehicle. However, the extant Sanskrit recension of the Ratnagotravibhāga Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra directly corresponds to the Tibetan version known as the *Ratnagotravibhāgavyākhyā, in that it contains both the root verses and the prose commentary. Though, again, lacking a Sanskrit work entitled the Ratnagotravibhāgavyākhyā, we can surmise that its corresponding Tibetan title was likely manufactured in order to delineate it from the streamlined verse redaction, while the Sanskrit title *Ratnagotravibhāgavyākhyā was in turn a product of modern scholars. On the surface it would seem that this title is a combination of the Chinese title back translated into Sanskrit as the Ratnagotraśāstra and the one found in the Tibetan editions, which state the Sanskrit title as the Mahāyānottaratantraśāstravyākhya. Nevertheless, in terms of content, the Sanskrit RGV corresponds to the Tibetan RGVV, in that the Ratnagotravibhāga Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra is the same text as Theg pa chen po rgyud bla ma'i bstan bcos rnam par bshad pa.
Also, see the Ratnagotravibhāga Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra and for a recent essay on the text: On the Ratnagotravibhāga by Alexander Gardner.Secondary Publications Mentioned
The tathāgatagarbha doctrine of Mahāyāna Buddhism affirms the existence of some permanent, significant content of sentient beings that is of the same character as a Buddha. While this alone was an important innovation within Buddhist thought, some of its authors ventured further to deem this significant content an ātman: a ‘self’, in apparent contradiction to the central Buddhist teaching of the absence of self (anātman) in the constitution of all beings.
The aims of this thesis are two. Firstly, to examine usage of the term ātman in the Indian tathāgatagarbha sources which develop use of this expression. This entails a close reading of relevant sources (primarily Mahāyāna sūtra literature), and attention to how this term is used in the context of each. These sources present different perspectives on the tathāgatagarbha and its designation as a self; this study aims to examine significant differences between, and similarities across, these texts and their respective doctrines.
The second aim is to attempt an account of why authors of these texts ventured to designate the tathāgatagarbha with the term ātman, especially when some of our sources suggest that this innovation received some opposition, while others deem it in requirement of strong qualification, or to be simply inappropriate. It is not my objective to account for whether or not the tathāgatagarbha is or is not implicitly what we may deem ‘a self’ on the terms of Buddhist tradition; rather, I am concerned with the manner in which this expression itself was adopted, and – in light of clear difficulties raised by it – what may have motivated those authors responsible.
I argue not only that we can trace the development of this designation across the tathāgatagarbha literature, but also that those authors responsible for its earliest usage adopted an attitude towards non-Buddhist discourses on the self that requires special attention. This, I believe, had its roots in an account of the Buddha and his influence that advances our understanding of one tradition of Mahāyāna Buddhology, and its ambition to affirm its superiority over other Indian religious traditions. (Source Accessed October 29, 2019)People Mentioned
About the video
| Featuring | David Higgins |
|---|---|
| Creator | University of Vienna, Tsadra Foundation |
| Event | Tathāgatagarbha Across Asia (17 July 2019, University of Vienna, Austria) |
| Related Website | Buddha-Nature Project |
| Video Web Location | Tathāgatagarbha Across Asia |
| Creation Date | 17 July 2019 |
| Citation | Higgins, David. "Buddha-Nature and Selfhood." Paper presented at the University of Vienna Symposium, Tathāgatagarbha Across Asia, Vienna, Austria, July 2019. Video, 41:28. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHzI1PxptpI. |
