Kano, K.
From Buddha-Nature
< People
Kazuo Kano
Dr. Kano is an associate professor at Komazawa University in Japan and a specialist of Sanskrit and Tibetan tathāgatagarbha literature. His particular research interests focus on philosophical interpretations of the Ratnagotravibhāga. (Source Accessed July 22, 2020)
Library Items
'Gos Lo tsā ba gZhon nu dpal's Commentary on the Ratnagotravibhāgavyākhyā-Review by Kano
No abstract given. Here are the first relevant paragraphs:
’Gos Lo-tsa-ba gZhon-nu-dpal (1392-1481) was one of the most brilliant scholars in Tibet and is famous for his religious history, the Blue Annals {Deb thersngon po). He is also known as a translator (lo tsa ba) and for his contributions to Buddhist doctrine and philosophy. However, except for the Blue Annals his own work has not been available until now. For this reason this first publication of a doctrinal commentary, Theg pa chen po rgyud bla ma’i bstan bcos kyi ’grel bshad de kho na nyid rab tu gsal ba’i me long (ZhP), is most welcome. In this commentary he presents a unique interpretation of the teaching of the Buddha-nature (tathagatagarbha) in the Ratnagotravibhaga/vyakhya (RGV/V) following the mahāmudrā tradition. Of more than fifty commentaries on the RGV known to have been written in Tibet, the ZhP is one of the most extensive and remarkable.
The editor, Klaus-Dieter Mathes, has previously contributed to the study of the Tibetan hermeneutical traditions of Yogācāra works such as the Dharmadharmatāvibhāga. He has already published a survey of this RGV commentary (p. xviii), and has also studied this commentary for his Habilitation, currently being prepared for publication (p. xi). In the introduction to the book under review, Mathes presents a brief biography of gZhon-nu-dpal and sketches his general philosophical position (pp. ix-xi). He then discusses the sources on which his edition is based (pp. xi-xiv), selected particular features of the ZhP (pp. xiv-xv), and his editorial method (pp. xv-xvi), ending with technical notes (pp. xvi-xvii) and bibliography (pp. xviii-xix).
The main part of this book consists of a critical edition of the ZhP in 576 pages, based on a manuscript in dbu-med script (A) and a block print (B). The block print was completed in 1479, soon after the composition of the ZhP in 1473 (pp. xii-xiii). Regarding the relationship between the manuscript and block print, Mathes states: "This leaves us with the probable case that A and B share a common source" (p. xii). As to the editorial method, he states, "My editing policy has been to compare gZhon nu dpal’s quotations with the Derge and Peking editions of the Kanjur and Tanjur, but to leave the original reading wherever possible." He also states, "Unusual or wrong spellings have been adapted to the usage of modern Tibetan," and he provides a list of emended spellings (pp. xv-xvi). Mathes has thus "corrected" the old orthography found in the two manuscripts into modern spellings. Though this allows a smoother reading for modern Tibetan readers, it might have been better to retain as much as possible the spellings current in the late fifteenth century, if they can be identified as such. (Kano, "Review of 'Gos Lo tsā ba gZhon nu dpal's Commentary on the Ratnagotravibhāgavyākhyā," 143)
Read more here . . .
’Gos Lo-tsa-ba gZhon-nu-dpal (1392-1481) was one of the most brilliant scholars in Tibet and is famous for his religious history, the Blue Annals {Deb thersngon po). He is also known as a translator (lo tsa ba) and for his contributions to Buddhist doctrine and philosophy. However, except for the Blue Annals his own work has not been available until now. For this reason this first publication of a doctrinal commentary, Theg pa chen po rgyud bla ma’i bstan bcos kyi ’grel bshad de kho na nyid rab tu gsal ba’i me long (ZhP), is most welcome. In this commentary he presents a unique interpretation of the teaching of the Buddha-nature (tathagatagarbha) in the Ratnagotravibhaga/vyakhya (RGV/V) following the mahāmudrā tradition. Of more than fifty commentaries on the RGV known to have been written in Tibet, the ZhP is one of the most extensive and remarkable.
The editor, Klaus-Dieter Mathes, has previously contributed to the study of the Tibetan hermeneutical traditions of Yogācāra works such as the Dharmadharmatāvibhāga. He has already published a survey of this RGV commentary (p. xviii), and has also studied this commentary for his Habilitation, currently being prepared for publication (p. xi). In the introduction to the book under review, Mathes presents a brief biography of gZhon-nu-dpal and sketches his general philosophical position (pp. ix-xi). He then discusses the sources on which his edition is based (pp. xi-xiv), selected particular features of the ZhP (pp. xiv-xv), and his editorial method (pp. xv-xvi), ending with technical notes (pp. xvi-xvii) and bibliography (pp. xviii-xix).
The main part of this book consists of a critical edition of the ZhP in 576 pages, based on a manuscript in dbu-med script (A) and a block print (B). The block print was completed in 1479, soon after the composition of the ZhP in 1473 (pp. xii-xiii). Regarding the relationship between the manuscript and block print, Mathes states: "This leaves us with the probable case that A and B share a common source" (p. xii). As to the editorial method, he states, "My editing policy has been to compare gZhon nu dpal’s quotations with the Derge and Peking editions of the Kanjur and Tanjur, but to leave the original reading wherever possible." He also states, "Unusual or wrong spellings have been adapted to the usage of modern Tibetan," and he provides a list of emended spellings (pp. xv-xvi). Mathes has thus "corrected" the old orthography found in the two manuscripts into modern spellings. Though this allows a smoother reading for modern Tibetan readers, it might have been better to retain as much as possible the spellings current in the late fifteenth century, if they can be identified as such. (Kano, "Review of 'Gos Lo tsā ba gZhon nu dpal's Commentary on the Ratnagotravibhāgavyākhyā," 143)
Read more here . . .
Kano, Kazuo. Review of 'Gos Lo tsā ba gZhon nu dpal's Commentary on the Ratnagotravibhāgavyākhyā (Theg pa chen po rgyud bla ma'i bstan bcos kyi 'grel bshad de kho na nyid rab tu gsal ba'i me long), edited by Klaus-Dieter Mathes. Journal of the American Oriental Society 125, no. 1 (2005) 143–45.
Kano, Kazuo. Review of 'Gos Lo tsā ba gZhon nu dpal's Commentary on the Ratnagotravibhāgavyākhyā (Theg pa chen po rgyud bla ma'i bstan bcos kyi 'grel bshad de kho na nyid rab tu gsal ba'i me long), edited by Klaus-Dieter Mathes. Journal of the American Oriental Society 125, no. 1 (2005) 143–45.;'Gos Lo tsā ba gZhon nu dpal's Commentary on the Ratnagotravibhāgavyākhyā-Review by Kano;Ratnagotravibhāga Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra;Theg pa chen po rgyud bla ma'i bstan bcos kyi 'grel bshad de kho na nyid rab tu gsal ba'i me long;Kazuo Kano; 
A Critical Edition and Translation of a Text Fragment from Abhayākaragupta's Āmnāyamañjarī: Göttingen, Cod.ms.sanscr.259b
No abstract given. Here are the first relevant paragraphs:
An encyclopedic author active during the reign of King Rāmapāla (ca. 1084–1126/1077–
ca. 1119) of the Pāla Dynasty, Abhayākaragupta is renowned for his erudition in a vast range of subjects in Buddhism.[1] His expertise is especially prominent in, though not limited to, the area of Tantric Buddhism, as attested by the well-known "Garland Trilogy" (phreng ba skor gsum), i.e. his three major works on Tantric ritual (Vajrāvalī, Jyotirmañjarī, and Niṣpannayogāvalī), which exercised a great influence on the Buddhism of the later period in Nepal and Tibet.
The Peking bsTan 'gyur includes twenty-six works ascribed to Abhayākaragupta, of which twenty-three are in the domain of Tantra; the other three deal with non-Tantric Buddhism.[2] Though most of these works are only available through Tibetan translation, some important texts of Abhayākaragupta are preserved in Sanskrit. The following works in Sanskrit have hitherto been edited: Niṣpannayogāvalī; Vajrāvalī; Jyotimañjarī; Ucchuṣmajambhalasādhana; Svādhiṣṭhānakramopadeśa.[3] In addition, Sanskrit manuscripts are known to exist of the Pañcakramatātparyapañjikā Kramakaumudī, Kālacakrāvatāra, and Abhayapaddhati.[4] According to some recent information, furthermore, Sanskrit manuscripts of the Āmnāyamañjarī, Munimatālaṅkāra and Madhyamakamañjarī[5] have been discovered in Tibet [6]
The Amnāyamañjarī, which may be called the magnum opus of Abhayākaragupta, is a commentary on the Saṃpuṭodbhavatantra and an encyclopedic compendium of Indian Tantric Buddhism. According to Bühnemann, Abhayākaragupta undertook the composition of the Amnāyamañjarī before 1101 or 1108 C.E. (twenty-fifth regnal year of Rāmapāla) and completed it in 1113 or 1120 C.E (thirty-seventh year of Rāmapāla). As has been remarked,[7] the Saṃpuṭodbhavatantra, though traditionally considered to be an Explanatory Tantra (vyākhyātantra) of the Hevajra and Saṃvara cycles, integrates many doctrinal and ritual elements adopted from several heterogeneous textual traditions such as that of the Guhyasamāja. Because of this "ecumenical" character of the Saṃpuṭodbhavatantra, the Amnāyamañjarī as its commentary also encompasses a great variety of subjects relating to the doctrine and ritual of Tantric Buddhism. The Amnāyamañjarī is referred to several times by Abhayākaragupta himself in his other works, such as the Munimatālaṅkāra,
Abhayapaddhati, Pañcakramatātparyapañjikā, and Vajrāvalī.[8] In turn, the Āmnāyamañjarī
refers to his other works [9]
Though, as remarked above, the existence of a presumably complete Sanskrit manuscript of the Āmnāyamañjarī has been reported, it still remains inaccessible to us. However, a single folio fragment of this text has been recently identified in the collection of Sanskrit manuscripts in Göttingen. In this paper, we describe this manuscript fragment and present a critical edition and an annotated translation of the text contained in it. We also include as appendices an edition of the corresponding part of the Tibetan translation as well as parallel passages found in Kamalanātha's Ratnāvalī and Abhayākaragupta's Abhayapaddhati. (Tomabechi and Kano, Abhayākaragupta and the Āmnāyamañjarī, 22–23)
Notes
- For the dates and works of Abhayākaragupta, see Erb 1997: 27–29: Bühnemann and Tachikawa 1991: Bühnemann 1992.
- For bibliographical information on these works, see Bühnemann 1992: 123–125.
- The Svādhiṣṭhānakramopadeśa (or Dvibhujasaṃvaropadeśa) was edited by Okuyama (1993).
- The Centre for Tantric Studies at University of Hamburg is currently working on a joint project to the Abhayapaddhati in collaboration with CTRC (China Tibetology Research Centre). Tomabechi is preparing a critical edition of the Kramakaumudī based on the manuscript copy preserved at CTRC.
- The latter text is not included in the bsTan 'gyur, but is mentioned by Abhayākaragupta himself in the Munimatālaṅkāra, D 145v6; P 179r8: mdor bsdus pa ni kho bos dbu ma'i snye mar phul du byung bar rnam par bshad do; Āmnāyamañjarī, D 28r1; P 31r2–3: 'di'i skye ba dang 'jig pa de dag kyang dbu ma'i snye mar nges par dpyad zin pas (P: pa'i) ... ; D 76v7–77r1; P 86v2-3: thsad ma gang gis 'di rang bzhin med pa nyid du bsgrub pa de ni bdag cag gis rgyas pa dang bcas par dbu ma'i snye mar nye bar bkod cing; D 162r5–6; P 179v1: bzlog pa kho na las de kho na nyid 'di rnams so zhes dbu ma'i snye mar nges par dpyad zin to (P: te). See also Isoda 1984: 3 n. 14.
- These texts are registered in the (unpublished) catalogue of microfilms kept at the CTRC in Beijing. Tomabechi confirmed the existence of the copies of these manuscripts during his visit to Beijing in May–June 2007.
- Noguchi 1984 and Skorupski 1996: 201.
- See Munimatālaṅkāra, D 89r4; P 93v2, D 218r7; P 287r4, Kramakaumudī, fol. 22v4, 27r1, 53v4. For the Abhayapaddhati see Bühnemann and Tachikawa 1991: xiv and Bühnemann 1992:123; and for the Vajrāvalī, see Bühnemann and Tachikawa 1991: xvi and Bühnemann 1992: 125.
- Vajrāvalī (in ĀM D 72v3; P 82r2, D 97r1; P 108r7, D 188v7; P 208r5, D 24Or2; P 266v4, D 257v2; P 288r4, D 260r4; P 291r5–6), Jyotirmañjarī (in ĀM D 24Or2; P 266v3, D 260r3; P 291r4), Madhyamakamañjarī (in ĀM D 28r1; P 31r2–3, D 76v7-77r1; P 86v2–3, D 162r6; P 179v1; See note 6 above), Munimatālaṃkāra (in ĀM D 12r3; P 13v3, D 24v5; P 27v2, D 24v6; P 27v4, D 33v4; P 37v1–2, D 41v7–42r1; P 47r2, D 52r1; P 56r6, D 77r1; P 86v3, D 112v5–6); P 125r3, D 174v7; P 193r8, D 225v3; P 249r2, D 270r1–2; P 302v6), Abhayapaddhati (in ĀM D 77r1; P 86v2, D 209r2; P 229v8), Cakrasaṃvarābhisamaya (in ĀM D 172v6; P 191r6–7, D 242v3; P 269v7).
Tomabechi, Tōru, and Kazuo Kano. "A Critical Edition and Translation of a Text Fragment from Abhayākaragupta's Āmnāyamañjarī: Göttingen, Cod.ms.sanscr.259b." Tantric Studies 1 (2008): 22–44.
Tomabechi, Tōru, and Kazuo Kano. "A Critical Edition and Translation of a Text Fragment from Abhayākaragupta's Āmnāyamañjarī: Göttingen, Cod.ms.sanscr.259b." Tantric Studies 1 (2008): 22–44.;A Critical Edition and Translation of a Text Fragment from Abhayākaragupta's Āmnāyamañjarī: Göttingen, Cod.ms.sanscr.259b;Abhayākara;Textual study;Tōru Tomabechi; Kazuo Kano
A Preliminary Report on Newly Identified Text Fragments in Śāradā Script from Źwa lu Monastery in the Tucci Collection
In the summer of 2007 I had the opportunity to participate in Francesco Sferra’s course on Kamalaśīla’s First Bhāvanākrama at the University of Hamburg. For his lectures Sferra kindly provided us with digital images of Tucci’s photographs of the Sanskrit manuscript of this text. The 27 extant folios of the Bhāvanākrama (fols. 2–28), which were used by Tucci for the editio princeps of the text,'"`UNIQ--ref-00000028-QINU`"' have been photographed in three successive multi-folio images together with nine extra folios that appear in two photos only, namely those labelled MT 41 II/01 and MT 42 II/02. My attention was caught by these folios since while the Bhāvanākrama manuscript is written in Magadhi script, these nine folios are written in Śāradā script — a rather rare phenomenon among the corpus of Sanskrit manuscripts preserved in Tibet. They and the rest of the Bhāvanākrama manuscript were originally preserved at Zwa lu Ri phug.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000029-QINU`"' The manuscripts preserved there were probably taken to Beijing (The Cultural Palace of Nationalities) in the 1960s, but were returned to Lhasa sometime after 1990 (first to Nor bu gliṅ ka and then to the Tibetan Museum).'"`UNIQ--ref-0000002A-QINU`"'
Of the nine folios, Tucci photographed both sides of seven of them, while he photographed only one side of the remaining two (here labelled 7.2 and 9.2). The two sides not filmed were probably blank or contained title pages (unfortunately, Tucci did not photograph title pages). Some images are out of focus and barely legible, and thus a complete diplomatic transcription is almost impossible. If Rāhula Sāṅkṛtyāyana photographed the same folios, this would be very helpful in deciphering them; however, I have yet to find evidence that he did. Therefore, I have only been able to go through the folios haltingly, and so identify a limited number of them. (Kano, introductory remarks, 381–82)
Of the nine folios, Tucci photographed both sides of seven of them, while he photographed only one side of the remaining two (here labelled 7.2 and 9.2). The two sides not filmed were probably blank or contained title pages (unfortunately, Tucci did not photograph title pages). Some images are out of focus and barely legible, and thus a complete diplomatic transcription is almost impossible. If Rāhula Sāṅkṛtyāyana photographed the same folios, this would be very helpful in deciphering them; however, I have yet to find evidence that he did. Therefore, I have only been able to go through the folios haltingly, and so identify a limited number of them. (Kano, introductory remarks, 381–82)
Kano, Kazuo. "A Preliminary Report on Newly Identified Text Fragments in Śāradā Script from Zhwa lu Monastery in the Tucci Collection." In Part 1 of Sanskrit Texts from Giuseppe Tucci's Collection, edited by Francesco Sferra, 381–400. Rome: Istituto Italiano per l'Africa e l'Oriente (IsIAO), 2008.
Kano, Kazuo. "A Preliminary Report on Newly Identified Text Fragments in Śāradā Script from Zhwa lu Monastery in the Tucci Collection." In Part 1 of Sanskrit Texts from Giuseppe Tucci's Collection, edited by Francesco Sferra, 381–400. Rome: Istituto Italiano per l'Africa e l'Oriente (IsIAO), 2008.;A Preliminary Report on Newly Identified Text Fragments in Śāradā Script from Źwa lu Monastery in the Tucci Collection;Textual study;Kazuo Kano
A Syntactic Analysis of the Term Tathāgatagarbha in Sanskrit Fragments and Multiple Meanings of Garbha in the Mahāparinirvāṇamahāsūtra
The current of tathāgatagarbha thought that was born in Indian Mahayana Buddhism spread throughout the cultural sphere of Mahayana Buddhism in Asia and has also long held a fascination for people far beyond its geographical confines. The academic foundations for the study of tathāgatagarbha thought in India were laid by Takasaki Jikido, and the task left to us is to repeatedly reexamine each of Takasaki's findings on the basis of existing and newly discovered materials and corroborate or emend them.
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)
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)
Kano, Kazuo. "A Syntactic Analysis of the Term Tathāgatagarbha in Sanskrit Fragments and Multiple Meanings of Garbha in the Mahāparinirvāṇamahāsūtra." In "What is Tathāgatagarbha: Buddha-Nature or Buddha Within?" Edited by Akira Saitō. Special issue, Acta Asiatica 118 (2020): 17–40.
Kano, Kazuo. "A Syntactic Analysis of the Term Tathāgatagarbha in Sanskrit Fragments and Multiple Meanings of Garbha in the Mahāparinirvāṇamahāsūtra." In "What is Tathāgatagarbha: Buddha-Nature or Buddha Within?" Edited by Akira Saitō. Special issue, Acta Asiatica 118 (2020): 17–40.;A Syntactic Analysis of the Term Tathāgatagarbha in Sanskrit Fragments and Multiple Meanings of Garbha in the Mahāparinirvāṇamahāsūtra;Terminology;Textual study;tathāgatagarbha;Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra;Kazuo Kano; 
BCom ldan rig ral cho Daijō kukyōron sōgonka: Wayaku oyobi kōtei tekusuto (1)
Kano, Kazuo. "bCom ldan rig ral cho Daijō kukyōron sōgonka: Wayaku oyobi kōtei tekusuto (1)" (A Critical Edition and Translation of bCom ldan rig ral's rGyud bla ma'i ṭī ka rgyan gyi me tog (1)). Kōyasan Daigaku Ronsō (Journal of Kōyasan University) 45 (2010): 13–55.
Kano, Kazuo. "bCom ldan rig ral cho Daijō kukyōron sōgonka: Wayaku oyobi kōtei tekusuto (1)" (A Critical Edition and Translation of bCom ldan rig ral's rGyud bla ma'i ṭī ka rgyan gyi me tog (1)). Kōyasan Daigaku Ronsō (Journal of Kōyasan University) 45 (2010): 13–55.
Kano, Kazuo. "bCom ldan rig ral cho Daijō kukyōron sōgonka: Wayaku oyobi kōtei tekusuto (1)" (A Critical Edition and Translation of bCom ldan rig ral's rGyud bla ma'i ṭī ka rgyan gyi me tog (1)). Kōyasan Daigaku Ronsō (Journal of Kōyasan University) 45 (2010): 13–55.;BCom ldan rig ral cho Daijō kukyōron sōgonka: Wayaku oyobi kōtei tekusuto (1);Bcom ldan rig pa'i ral gri;Ratnagotravibhāga Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra;Theg pa chen po rgyud bla ma rgyan gyi me tog;Kazuo Kano
BCom ldan rig ral cho Daijō kukyōron sōgonka: Wayaku oyobi kōtei tekusuto (2): Hōshōron I.4–22 no chūkai
Kano, Kazuo. "bCom ldan rig ral cho Daijō kukyōron sōgonka: Wayaku oyobi kōtei tekusuto (2): Hōshōron I.4–22 no chūkai" (A Critical Edition and Annotated Translation of bCom ldan rig ral's rGyud bla ma'i ṭī ka rgyan gyi me tog (2): Commentary on Ratnagotravibhāga I.4–22). Kōyasan Daigaku Ronsō (Journal of Kōyasan University) 48 (2013): 1–14.
Kano, Kazuo. "bCom ldan rig ral cho Daijō kukyōron sōgonka: Wayaku oyobi kōtei tekusuto (2): Hōshōron I.4–22 no chūkai" (A Critical Edition and Annotated Translation of bCom ldan rig ral's rGyud bla ma'i ṭī ka rgyan gyi me tog (2): Commentary on Ratnagotravibhāga I.4–22). Kōyasan Daigaku Ronsō (Journal of Kōyasan University) 48 (2013): 1–14.
Kano, Kazuo. "bCom ldan rig ral cho Daijō kukyōron sōgonka: Wayaku oyobi kōtei tekusuto (2): Hōshōron I.4–22 no chūkai" (A Critical Edition and Annotated Translation of bCom ldan rig ral's rGyud bla ma'i ṭī ka rgyan gyi me tog (2): Commentary on Ratnagotravibhāga I.4–22). Kōyasan Daigaku Ronsō (Journal of Kōyasan University) 48 (2013): 1–14.;BCom ldan rig ral cho Daijō kukyōron sōgonka: Wayaku oyobi kōtei tekusuto (2): Hōshōron I.4–22 no chūkai;Bcom ldan rig pa'i ral gri;Ratnagotravibhāga Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra;Theg pa chen po rgyud bla ma rgyan gyi me tog;Kazuo Kano; 
Buddha Nature Across Asia
The tathāgatagarbha or buddha nature doctrine is centered on sentient beings’ potential for buddhahood—sometimes understood in the sense that all beings already contain a “buddha within.” This notion is found through various strands of early Mahāyāna sources that, notwithstanding their complex and interwoven development, came to share enough common features to summarize them under the doxographical category of Tathāgatagarbha.
The chapters contained in this volume represent the latest research into buddha nature theory that covers a range of topics across major Buddhist traditions. These contributions were originally presented as papers during the symposium “Tathāgatagarbha across Asia: The Reception of an Influential Mahāyāna Doctrine in Central and East Asia,” held at the University of Vienna in 2019. This symposium brought together academic scholars focusing on religio-historical developments of buddha nature theory as well as traditional teachers and monastics who offered emic perspectives on the relevance of the concept within the context of their own tradition. The resulting volume, therefore, aims at contributing to the overall better understanding of tathāgatagarbha doxography, both historically and in living Buddhist communities. (Source: WSTB)
Mathes, Klaus-Dieter, and Casey Kemp, eds. Buddha Nature Across Asia. Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde 103. Vienna: Arbeitkreis für tibetische und buddhistische Studien, University of Vienna, 2022.
Mathes, Klaus-Dieter, and Casey Kemp, eds. Buddha Nature Across Asia. Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde 103. Vienna: Arbeitkreis für tibetische und buddhistische Studien, University of Vienna, 2022.;Buddha Nature Across Asia;Buddha Nature Across Asia
Buddha-Nature and Emptiness
An essential study of a key text that presents buddha-nature theory and its transmission from India to Tibet, this book is the most thorough history of buddha-nature thought in Tibet and is exceptional in its level of detail and scholarly apparatus. It serves as a scholarly encyclopedia of sorts with extensive appendices listing every existent commentary on the Ratnagotravibhāga (Uttaratantraśāstra), as well as covering Ngok Lotsawa's commentarial text and his philosophical positions related with other Tibetan thinkers.
Kano, Kazuo. Buddha-Nature and Emptiness: rNgog Blo-ldan-shes-rab and A Transmission of the Ratnagotravibhāga from India to Tibet. Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde 91. Vienna: Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien Universität Wien, 2016.
Kano, Kazuo. Buddha-Nature and Emptiness: rNgog Blo-ldan-shes-rab and A Transmission of the Ratnagotravibhāga from India to Tibet. Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde 91. Vienna: Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien Universität Wien, 2016.;Buddha-Nature and Emptiness;Buddha-nature as Emptiness;History;History of buddha-nature in Tibet;Madhyamaka;Ngok Tradition;Textual study;The doctrine of buddha-nature in Tibetan Buddhism;Theg chen rgyud bla ma'i don bsdus pa;Sajjana;Rngog blo ldan shes rab;Geluk;Maitrīpa;Jñānaśrīmitra;Ratnākaraśānti;Prajñākaramati;Vibhūticandra;Kazuo Kano; Ngok Lotsāwa Loden Sherab;རྔོག་བློ་ལྡན་ཤེས་རབ་;rngog blo ldan shes rab;rngog lo tsA ba;lo chen blo ldan shes rab;blo ldan shes rab;རྔོག་ལོ་ཙཱ་བ་;ལོ་ཆེན་བློ་ལྡན་ཤེས་རབ་;Ngok Lotsāwa;Ngok Loden Sherab;Lochen Loden Sherab;Loden Sherab;Buddha-Nature and Emptiness: rNgog Blo-ldan-shes-rab and A Transmission of the Ratnagotravibhāga from India to Tibet;rngog blo ldan shes rab
Critical Edition of the Sanskrit Text of the Munimatālaṃkāra Chapter 1 (fol. 58r5–59v4): Passages on Caturāryasatya and Trisvabhāva Borrowed from Kamalaśīla's Madhyamakāloka
The Munimatālaṃkāra of Abhayākaragupta (composed 1113) is an encyclopedic overview of the entire system of non-tantric Buddhist doctrines and practices. Recently the existence of a Sanskrit manuscript was reported by Li Xuezhu (China Tibetology Center), and the textual study of the Munimatālaṃkāra is drastically evolving. The present paper is a part of results of our on-going project that deals with a critical edition of the Sanskrit text of the Munimatālaṃkāra. In the text portion edited in this paper, Abhayākaragupta establishes the Four Truths of Noble ones and the Three Characteristics by borrowing passages from Kamalaśīla’s Madhyamakāloka, which still lacks a Sanskrit original. We can recover parts of the Sanskrit original of the Madhyamakāloka on the basis of the Sanskrit text of the Munimatālaṃkāra. The Appendix provides Bodhicittavivaraṇa verses 51, 67, 68, 88–93, and 108 cited in the newly available Sanskrit-Tibetan bilingual manuscript of Abhayākaragupta’s Āmnāyamañjarī.
Kano, Kazuo, and Xuezhu Li . "Critical Edition of the Sanskrit Text of the Munimatālaṃkāra Chapter 1 (fol. 58r5–59v4): Passages on Caturāryasatya and Trisvabhāva Borrowed from Kamalaśīla's Madhyamakāloka." [In Japanese with English Summary.] Mikkyō Bunka [Journal of Esoteric Buddhism] 238 (2017): 7–27.
Kano, Kazuo, and Xuezhu Li . "Critical Edition of the Sanskrit Text of the Munimatālaṃkāra Chapter 1 (fol. 58r5–59v4): Passages on Caturāryasatya and Trisvabhāva Borrowed from Kamalaśīla's Madhyamakāloka." [In Japanese with English Summary.] Mikkyō Bunka [Journal of Esoteric Buddhism] 238 (2017): 7–27.;Critical Edition of the Sanskrit Text of the Munimatālaṃkāra Chapter 1 (fol. 58r5–59v4): Passages on Caturāryasatya and Trisvabhāva Borrowed from Kamalaśīla's Madhyamakāloka;Textual study;Abhayākara;Abhayākaragupta;འཇིགས་མེད་འབྱུང་གནས་སྦས་པ་;'jigs med 'byung gnas sbas pa;a b+ha yA ka ra gup+ta;'jigs med 'byung;paN+Di ta a b+ha yA ka ra gup+ta;ཨ་བྷ་ཡཱ་ཀ་ར་གུཔྟ་;འཇིགས་མེད་འབྱུང་གནས་;པཎྜི་ཏ་ཨ་བྷ་ཡཱ་ཀ་ར་གུཔྟ་;Abhayākara;Paṇḍita Abhayākaragupta; Kazuo Kano;Xuezhu Li
Eight Folios from a Sanskrit Manuscript of the Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkārabhāṣya from Ngor Monastery
The Sanskrit text of the Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkārabhāṣya (abbr. MSABh) was published for the first time by Sylvain Levi in 1907. This editio princeps was prepared based on a paper manuscript (NGMPP Reel No. A114/1; siglum Ns) written in Nepal in Samvat 798 (A.D. 1677 or 1678). All other Sanskrit manuscripts of MSABh from the Kathmandu Valley so far reported have been identified as apographs of this single manuscript. A single manuscript dating from the 17th century is, however, not sufficient in itself to base the editing of a text composed before the 5th century on. Other witnesses, namely, older Sanskrit manuscripts belonging to other transmission lines separate from that of Ns, can therefore be expected to help improve upon the editio princeps.
The present paper offers just such crucial material: eight folios from a Sanskrit manuscript of MSABh from Tibet. This is the first part of a series of studies dealing with the subject.
The present paper offers just such crucial material: eight folios from a Sanskrit manuscript of MSABh from Tibet. This is the first part of a series of studies dealing with the subject.
Kano, Kazuo. "Eight Folios from a Sanskrit Manuscript of the Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkārabhāṣya from Ngor Monastery: Diplomatic and Critical Editions on X.9–XI.3 — Studies of Göttingen Xc14/57 (1)." China Tibetology 18, no.1 (2012): 33–47.
Kano, Kazuo. "Eight Folios from a Sanskrit Manuscript of the Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkārabhāṣya from Ngor Monastery: Diplomatic and Critical Editions on X.9–XI.3 — Studies of Göttingen Xc14/57 (1)." China Tibetology 18, no.1 (2012): 33–47.;Eight Folios from a Sanskrit Manuscript of the Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkārabhāṣya from Ngor Monastery;Textual study;Kazuo Kano; 
Exegeses of the Ratnagotravibhāga in Kashmir in the 11th and 12th Century
The Ratnagotravibhāga (abbr. RGV) was very likely composed around the 4th or 5th century in India. But traces of the RGV fell into obscurity after the late 6th century, and again begin to appear after the early 11th century. The teaching relating to the RGV was transmitted from India to Tibet mainly via two routes: one from Vikramaśīla through Atiśa (ca. 982–1054) and the other from Kashmir through Sajjana, rNgog Blo-ldan-shes-rab (ca. 1059–1109) and others. rNgog is one of the most influential masters who established exegetical traditions of the RGV in Tibet, and his understanding of the RGV is strongly influenced by the Kashmiri tradition, for he studied it in Kashmir. In this regard, the Kashmiri tradition of the RGV is crucial to learn the foundation of the Tibetan development of the RGV's exegesis. Fortunately, we have some materials to learn about how Kashmiri Buddhists understood the RGV, but they have not been systematically studied in this regard. I have focused on Sajjana's Mahāyānottaratantraśāstropadeśa in my previous paper in 2015, and in the present paper, I shall extend the range of target to wider context in Kashmir tradition in 11th to 12th century focusing on works by Sajjana, Mahājana, Amṛtākara, and Jayānanda. (Kano, "Exegeses", 1)
Kano, Kazuo. "Exegeses of the Ratnagotravibhāga in Kashmir in the 11th and 12th Century." Kōyasandaigaku daigakuin kiyō 15 (2016): 1–23.
Kano, Kazuo. "Exegeses of the Ratnagotravibhāga in Kashmir in the 11th and 12th Century." Kōyasandaigaku daigakuin kiyō 15 (2016): 1–23.;Exegeses of the Ratnagotravibhāga in Kashmir in the 11th and 12th Century;Textual study;Ratnagotravibhāga Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra;Sajjana;Mahājana;Jayānanda;Kazuo Kano; 
Fragments of a Commentary on the Tattvasaṅgraha, Part 1
Kazuo Kano, an assistant professor at Koyasan University in Japan, joins forces with Kengo Harimoto, of the NGMCP in Hamburg, to present an early manuscript fragment of an otherwise unknown commentary on the Tattvasaṅgraha of Śāntarakṣita. Identified some twenty years [ago] by Prof. Kazunobu Matsuda, the well-known ‘manuscript-hunter’, this fragment has never before been studied in detail or published. Here Harimoto and Kano edit and translate the first of two surviving folios, with material which they show to be important for our understanding of the history of the Sāṃkhya system. (Isaacson, editorial, 1)
Kano, Kazuo, and Kengo Harimoto. "Fragments of a Commentary on the Tattvasaṅgraha, Part 1." Newsletter of the NGMCP 6 (2008): 15–24.
Kano, Kazuo, and Kengo Harimoto. "Fragments of a Commentary on the Tattvasaṅgraha, Part 1." Newsletter of the NGMCP 6 (2008): 15–24.;Fragments of a Commentary on the Tattvasaṅgraha, Part 1;Textual study;Kengo Harimoto; Kazuo Kano
Fragments of a Commentary on the Tattvasaṅgraha, Part 2
This is part 2 of a report on the fragments of hitherto unknown commentary on the Tattvasańgraha.'"`UNIQ--ref-000031A4-QINU`"' The folio we report on here, photographed in frames 32 (recto) and 33 top (verso), constitutes a part of the commentary on Tattvasańgraha stanzas 177–181. Tis is where various arguments for the existence of ātman is presented.
Here, we give the tex of the Tattvasańgraha along with the Tattvasańgrahapañjikā in full. Unlike in the previous fragment, our commentary is brief, and due to its fragmentary nature, it is hard to understand. Having the Tattvasańgrahapañjikā next to our text greatly helps in reconstructing and understanding our text. (Harimoto and Kano, introduction, 5)
Here, we give the tex of the Tattvasańgraha along with the Tattvasańgrahapañjikā in full. Unlike in the previous fragment, our commentary is brief, and due to its fragmentary nature, it is hard to understand. Having the Tattvasańgrahapañjikā next to our text greatly helps in reconstructing and understanding our text. (Harimoto and Kano, introduction, 5)
Harimoto, Kengo, and Kazuo Kano. "Fragments of a Commentary on the Tattvasaṅgraha, Part 2." Journal of the Nepal Research Centre 14 (2012) 5–17.
Harimoto, Kengo, and Kazuo Kano. "Fragments of a Commentary on the Tattvasaṅgraha, Part 2." Journal of the Nepal Research Centre 14 (2012) 5–17.;Fragments of a Commentary on the Tattvasaṅgraha, Part 2;Textual study;ātman;Kengo Harimoto; Kazuo Kano
Further Folios from the Set of Miscellaneous Texts in Śāradā Palm-leaves from Zha lu Ri phug
No abstract given. Here are the first relevant paragraphs:
The present report overviews further findings from the set of miscellaneous texts in Śāradā palm-leaves from Zha lu ri phug. The palm-leaf set was first reported by Kano Kazuo (2008), who utilized nine folios in two photographic images (Sferra Cat. MT 42 II/1& 2) preserved at the Istituto Italiano per l’Africa e l’Oriente (IsIAO) in Rome with the help of Francesco Sferra. We have known on the basis of catalogue descriptions that there are further folio images from the same set preserved in other institutes, viz. the China Tibetology Research Center (中国藏学研究中心, CTRC) and the China Ethnic Library (中国民族图书馆, CEL). In other words, the photographic images of the set have been scattered and separately preserved in the three institutes. Ye Shaoyong and Li Xuezhu have independently paid special attention to these materials and researched them.[1]
It was during a lunch break on 2 August 2012 on the occasion of the 5th Beijing International Seminar on Tibetan Studies at CTRC that the present authors (Ye, Li, Kano) met together and became aware of the fact that we were studying folios from one and the same collection. We quickly decided collaboration by unifying each one’s results and sharing all related materials (As for the CTRC material, we share transcription prepared by Li). After collecting the folios together, we have come to know the number of folios of the set as 87 in total, in which 46 folios are found in CTRC images (Sang De Cat. No. 100, [3], [5] = Luo Cat., 136ff., No. 44, [3], [5]) and 41 are found in CEL images (Wang Cat. No.10, 15, 16, 17). The nine leaves in IsIAO images as reported by Kano (2008) overlap with those in CEL (Wang Cat. 10, 16). These folios contain more than fifteen works, most of which are, unfortunately, incomplete, and the remaining folios are yet to be found. There are also folios yet to be identified among the available ones. In the present report, we shall provide a preliminary survey on the Śāradā folios and an update of the report of Kano (2008) by supplying further identifications. (Ye, Li, and Kano, introduction, 30–31)
Notes
1. See Ye 2012 and Li 2011.Ye, Shaoyong, Xuezhu Li, and Kazuo Kano. "Further Folios from the Set of Miscellaneous Texts in Śāradā Palm-leaves from Zha lu Ri phug: A Preliminary Report Based on Photographs Preserved in the CTRC, CEL and IsIAO." China Tibetology 1 (2013): 30–47. https://fh.pku.edu.cn/docs/2018-11/20181119234907464597.pdf
Ye, Shaoyong, Xuezhu Li, and Kazuo Kano. "Further Folios from the Set of Miscellaneous Texts in Śāradā Palm-leaves from Zha lu Ri phug: A Preliminary Report Based on Photographs Preserved in the CTRC, CEL and IsIAO." China Tibetology 1 (2013): 30–47. https://fh.pku.edu.cn/docs/2018-11/20181119234907464597.pdf;Further Folios from the Set of Miscellaneous Texts in Śāradā Palm-leaves from Zha lu Ri phug;Textual study;Shaoyong Ye; Xuezhu Li;Kazuo Kano
Göttingen shozō no Rāhula Sāṅkṛtyāyana satsuei bonbon shahon Xc14.1, Xcl4.57 ni tsuite
Kano, Kazuo. "Göttingen shozō no Rāhula Sāṅkṛtyāyana satsuei bonbon shahon Xc14/1, Xcl4/57 ni tsuite" (The Photocopies of Manuscripts Photographed by Rāhula Sāṅkṛtāyana Preserved in Göttingen, Xc14/1 and Xc14/57). Mikkyō Bunka (Journal of Esoteric Buddhism) 212 (2004) 35–54.
Kano, Kazuo. "Göttingen shozō no Rāhula Sāṅkṛtyāyana satsuei bonbon shahon Xc14/1, Xcl4/57 ni tsuite" (The Photocopies of Manuscripts Photographed by Rāhula Sāṅkṛtāyana Preserved in Göttingen, Xc14/1 and Xc14/57). Mikkyō Bunka (Journal of Esoteric Buddhism) 212 (2004) 35–54.
Kano, Kazuo. "Göttingen shozō no Rāhula Sāṅkṛtyāyana satsuei bonbon shahon Xc14/1, Xcl4/57 ni tsuite" (The Photocopies of Manuscripts Photographed by Rāhula Sāṅkṛtāyana Preserved in Göttingen, Xc14/1 and Xc14/57). Mikkyō Bunka (Journal of Esoteric Buddhism) 212 (2004) 35–54.;Göttingen shozō no Rāhula Sāṅkṛtyāyana satsuei bonbon shahon Xc14.1, Xcl4.57 ni tsuite;Sāṅkṛtyāyana, R.;Kazuo Kano; Rāhula Sāṅkṛtyāyana; 
Hōshōron miroku chosaku setsu no kagen nendai saikō: Tonkō bonbun dankan IOL Khot S 5 to Pelliot 2740 no setsugō fukugen to nendai suitei
It was reported by H. W. Bailey that a Khotanese-hybrid Sanskrit manuscript fragment from Dunhuang, IOL Khot S5 (abbr. S5) verso side, quotes verses from the Ratnagotravibhāga (abbr. RGV) and attributes them to Maitreya. S5 is the earliest text hitherto known that ascribes the authorship of the RGV to Maitreya. While Bailey dates the S5 verso side to the period between the end of the 8th century and the 11th century, we can now further specify the date of composition as some time between the first half of the 9th century and the 11th century. Our rationale for this more specific terminus post quem is that the Chinese version of the Aparimitāyurjñānadhāraṇī (無量寿宗要経) written on the recto side of S5 is likely one of the numerous copies of the sūtra produced during (or shortly after) the reign of king Khri gtsug lde btsan, that is, during the first half of the 9th century. This fact is attested by two witnesses: Pelliot Tibétain 999 and the colophon of S5 recto side. There is also another Dunhuang Sanskrit fragment (Pelliot Chinois 2740) which quotes the RGV, and it is identified as the missing part of S5: the text of Pelliot 2740 recto precisely supplies the missing portion of S5 recto, and the two fragments are very similar in terms of size, material, and scripts. (Source: Academia.edu)
Kano, Kazuo. "Hōshōron miroku chosaku setsu no kagen nendai saikō: Tonkō bonbun dankan IOL Khot S 5 to Pelliot 2740 no setsugō fukugen to nendai suitei" (Dating the Earliest Source That Attributes the Ratnagotravibhāga to Maitreya: Sanskrit Fragments IOL Khot S 5 and Pelliot 2740 from Dunhuang). Indogaku Bukkyōgaku Kenkyū (Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies) 60, no. 2 (2012): 168–74.
Kano, Kazuo. "Hōshōron miroku chosaku setsu no kagen nendai saikō: Tonkō bonbun dankan IOL Khot S 5 to Pelliot 2740 no setsugō fukugen to nendai suitei" (Dating the Earliest Source That Attributes the Ratnagotravibhāga to Maitreya: Sanskrit Fragments IOL Khot S 5 and Pelliot 2740 from Dunhuang). Indogaku Bukkyōgaku Kenkyū (Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies) 60, no. 2 (2012): 168–74.;Hōshōron miroku chosaku setsu no kagen nendai saikō: Tonkō bonbun dankan IOL Khot S 5 to Pelliot 2740 no setsugō fukugen to nendai suitei;Ratnagotravibhāga Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra;Maitreya;Bailey, H.;Kazuo Kano;  
Hōshōron no tenkai
Kano, Kazuo. "Hōshōron no tenkai" (Development of Interpretation of the Ratnagotravibhāga). In Nyoraizō to Busshō (Tathāgatagarbha and Buddha Nature), edited by Masahiro Shimoda, 205–47. Vol. 8 of Shirīzu Daijō Bukkyō (Series on Mahāyāna Buddhism). Tokyo: Shunjūsha, 2014.
Kano, Kazuo. "Hōshōron no tenkai" (Development of Interpretation of the Ratnagotravibhāga). In Nyoraizō to Busshō (Tathāgatagarbha and Buddha Nature), edited by Masahiro Shimoda, 205–47. Vol. 8 of Shirīzu Daijō Bukkyō (Series on Mahāyāna Buddhism). Tokyo: Shunjūsha, 2014.
Kano, Kazuo. "Hōshōron no tenkai" (Development of Interpretation of the Ratnagotravibhāga). In Nyoraizō to Busshō (Tathāgatagarbha and Buddha Nature), edited by Masahiro Shimoda, 205–47. Vol. 8 of Shirīzu Daijō Bukkyō (Series on Mahāyāna Buddhism). Tokyo: Shunjūsha, 2014.;Hōshōron no tenkai;Ratnagotravibhāga Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra;Kazuo Kano; 
Hōshōronchū kenkyū (I): Phywa pa niyoru hōshōron I.26 kaishaku
Kano, Kazuo. "Hōshōronchū kenkyū (I): Phywa pa niyoru hōshōron I.26 kaishaku" (A Study of Commentaries on the Ratnagotravibhāga (I): Phywa pa's Interpretation of Verse I.26). Indogaku Bukkyōgaku Kenkyū (Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies) 51, no. 2 (2003): 109-11.
Kano, Kazuo. "Hōshōronchū kenkyū (I): Phywa pa niyoru hōshōron I.26 kaishaku" (A Study of Commentaries on the Ratnagotravibhāga (I): Phywa pa's Interpretation of Verse I.26). Indogaku Bukkyōgaku Kenkyū (Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies) 51, no. 2 (2003): 109-11.
Kano, Kazuo. "Hōshōronchū kenkyū (I): Phywa pa niyoru hōshōron I.26 kaishaku" (A Study of Commentaries on the Ratnagotravibhāga (I): Phywa pa's Interpretation of Verse I.26). Indogaku Bukkyōgaku Kenkyū (Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies) 51, no. 2 (2003): 109-11.;Hōshōronchū kenkyū (I): Phywa pa niyoru hōshōron I.26 kaishaku;Ratnagotravibhāga Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra;gotra;Rngog blo ldan shes rab;Phywa pa chos kyi seng+ge;Kazuo Kano; 
Indo kōki mikkyō ni okeru nyoraizō eno genkyū to sono kaishaku: Tantra chūshakusho wo chūshin to shite
Kano, Kazuo. "Indo kōki mikkyō ni okeru nyoraizō eno genkyū to sono kaishaku: Tantra chūshakusho wo chūshin to shite" (References to Tathāgatagarbha in Later Tantric Commentaries). Mikkyōgaku Kenkyū 44 (2012): 125–37.
Kano, Kazuo. "Indo kōki mikkyō ni okeru nyoraizō eno genkyū to sono kaishaku: Tantra chūshakusho wo chūshin to shite" (References to Tathāgatagarbha in Later Tantric Commentaries). Mikkyōgaku Kenkyū 44 (2012): 125–37.
Kano, Kazuo. "Indo kōki mikkyō ni okeru nyoraizō eno genkyū to sono kaishaku: Tantra chūshakusho wo chūshin to shite" (References to Tathāgatagarbha in Later Tantric Commentaries). Mikkyōgaku Kenkyū 44 (2012): 125–37.;Indo kōki mikkyō ni okeru nyoraizō eno genkyū to sono kaishaku: Tantra chūshakusho wo chūshin to shite;tathāgatagarbha;Kazuo Kano; 
Jñānaśrīmitra on the Ratnagotravibhāga
Jñānaśrīmitra (ca. 980–1030)'"`UNIQ--ref-000032B8-QINU`"' contributed significantly not only to developing Nirākārajñānavāda theories but also to the resurrection of the Ratnagotravibhāga (abbr. RGV) in early-11th-century India. The Ratnagotravibhāga was very likely composed sometime around the 4th or 5th century in India. The work fell into obscurity towards the late 6th century, only to slowly regain recognition starting from the early 11th century (see Appendix A).
The earliest masters of this period who quote or refer to the RGV are Maitrīpa (1007/1010-?), Jñānaśrīmitra (ca. 980–1030), and Ratnākaraśānti (late 10th to early 11th century).'"`UNIQ--ref-000032B9-QINU`"' Maitrīpa was the common disciple of Jñānaśrīmitra and Ratnākaraśānti, and, according to a story in Tibetan documents, rediscovered a Sanskrit manuscript of the RGV in a stūpa in Magadha.
If this rediscovery story is a historical event, Jñānaśrīmitra and Ratnākaraśānti would have received the teaching of the RGV from their common disciple Maitrīpa; but we have no concrete witness to corroborate it.
Maitrīpa’s knowledge of the RGV is attested by a quotation of RGV II. 61b in his Pañcatathāgatamudrāvivaraṇa; he introduces a Nirākāravijñānavādin’s propounding the arising of the Dharmakāya from the Saṃbhogakāya and Nirmāṇakāya, but does not discuss Buddha-nature.'"`UNIQ--ref-000032BA-QINU`"' In contrast to Maitrīpa, who does not discuss Buddha-nature, we find extensive discussions of the topic in compositions of Jñānaśrīmitra and Ratnākaraśānti.'"`UNIQ--ref-000032BB-QINU`"' In the present paper, I shall focus on quotations from the RGV in Jñānaśrīmitra’s Sākārasiddhiśāstra and Sākārasaṃgrahasūtra, and on his understanding of the RGV, so as to shed light on the reception of the RGV in the early 11th century. (Kano, introductory remarks, 7–8)
The earliest masters of this period who quote or refer to the RGV are Maitrīpa (1007/1010-?), Jñānaśrīmitra (ca. 980–1030), and Ratnākaraśānti (late 10th to early 11th century).'"`UNIQ--ref-000032B9-QINU`"' Maitrīpa was the common disciple of Jñānaśrīmitra and Ratnākaraśānti, and, according to a story in Tibetan documents, rediscovered a Sanskrit manuscript of the RGV in a stūpa in Magadha.
If this rediscovery story is a historical event, Jñānaśrīmitra and Ratnākaraśānti would have received the teaching of the RGV from their common disciple Maitrīpa; but we have no concrete witness to corroborate it.
Maitrīpa’s knowledge of the RGV is attested by a quotation of RGV II. 61b in his Pañcatathāgatamudrāvivaraṇa; he introduces a Nirākāravijñānavādin’s propounding the arising of the Dharmakāya from the Saṃbhogakāya and Nirmāṇakāya, but does not discuss Buddha-nature.'"`UNIQ--ref-000032BA-QINU`"' In contrast to Maitrīpa, who does not discuss Buddha-nature, we find extensive discussions of the topic in compositions of Jñānaśrīmitra and Ratnākaraśānti.'"`UNIQ--ref-000032BB-QINU`"' In the present paper, I shall focus on quotations from the RGV in Jñānaśrīmitra’s Sākārasiddhiśāstra and Sākārasaṃgrahasūtra, and on his understanding of the RGV, so as to shed light on the reception of the RGV in the early 11th century. (Kano, introductory remarks, 7–8)
Kano, Kazuo. "Jñānaśrīmitra on the Ratnagotravibhāga." In "Relationship between Tantric and Non-Tantric Doctrines in Late Indian Buddhism," edited by Norihisa Baba. Special issue, Oriental Culture 96 (2016): 7–48.
Kano, Kazuo. "Jñānaśrīmitra on the Ratnagotravibhāga." In "Relationship between Tantric and Non-Tantric Doctrines in Late Indian Buddhism," edited by Norihisa Baba. Special issue, Oriental Culture 96 (2016): 7–48.;Jñānaśrīmitra on the Ratnagotravibhāga;Ratnagotravibhāga Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra;Jñānaśrīmitra;Kazuo Kano; 
Kazuo Kano at the 2019 Tathāgatagarbha Symposium
Kazuo Kano discusses the term tathāgatagarbha and its appearance in tantric scriptures and commentaries composed by Indic authors and shows how and for what purposes this term has been integrated into tantric contexts. In terms of precursors to the tantric usages, he notes mentions such as that found in the Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra, in which practitioners are taught to think of themselves as a stūpa—that is, a reliquary that contains a buddha within it and as such are objects of worship. As for Indian authors, he discusses the views of Ratnākaraśānti as representative of the Yogācāra school and the notion of the three vehicles (triyāna), and he discusses Abhayākaragupta as representative of the Madhyamaka school and the notion of a single vehicle (ekayāna). Some brief mention is also made of Kamalaśīla, who represents a synthesis of the two schools.
Kano, Kazuo. "Examples of the Term tathāgatagarbha Appearing in Indic Tantric Literature." Paper presented at the University of Vienna Symposium, Tathāgatagarbha Across Asia, Vienna, Austria, July 2019. Video, 42:13. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIVDu1Ig7H8.
Kano, Kazuo. "Examples of the Term tathāgatagarbha Appearing in Indic Tantric Literature." Paper presented at the University of Vienna Symposium, Tathāgatagarbha Across Asia, Vienna, Austria, July 2019. Video, 42:13. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIVDu1Ig7H8.;Kazuo Kano at the 2019 Tathāgatagarbha Symposium;Vajrayana;tathāgatagarbha;Ratnākaraśānti;Yogācāra;Abhayākara;Madhyamaka;triyāna;ekayāna;Terminology;Kazuo Kano;Examples of the Term tathāgatagarbha Appearing in Indic Tantric Literature
Mahāyānottaratantraparicaya: Kashumīru yurai no shinshutsu no Hōshōron chū bonbun danpen
Kano, Kazuo. "Mahāyānottaratantraparicaya: Kashumīru yurai no shinshutsu no Hōshōron chū bonbun danpen" (Mahāyānottaratantraparicaya: Sanskrit Fragments from a Newly Available Ratnagotravibhāga Commentary from Kashmir). Indogaku Bukkyōgaku Kenkyū (Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies) 62, no. 2 (2014): 152–58.
Kano, Kazuo. "Mahāyānottaratantraparicaya: Kashumīru yurai no shinshutsu no Hōshōron chū bonbun danpen" (Mahāyānottaratantraparicaya: Sanskrit Fragments from a Newly Available Ratnagotravibhāga Commentary from Kashmir). Indogaku Bukkyōgaku Kenkyū (Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies) 62, no. 2 (2014): 152–58.
Kano, Kazuo. "Mahāyānottaratantraparicaya: Kashumīru yurai no shinshutsu no Hōshōron chū bonbun danpen" (Mahāyānottaratantraparicaya: Sanskrit Fragments from a Newly Available Ratnagotravibhāga Commentary from Kashmir). Indogaku Bukkyōgaku Kenkyū (Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies) 62, no. 2 (2014): 152–58.;Mahāyānottaratantraparicaya: Kashumīru yurai no shinshutsu no Hōshōron chū bonbun danpen;Ratnagotravibhāga Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra;Kazuo Kano; 
Mahāyānottaratantraśāstropadeśa of Sajjana: An Annotated Translation with a Reading Text
No abstract given. Here are the first relevant paragraphs:
The present paper provides an annotated translation of Sajjana’s Mahāyānottaratantraśāstropadeśa along with a reading text of this Sanskrit work (a critical edition of which is under preparation for publication). I started to work on this text in 2005 when I received a copy of a photographic image of a manuscript containing it from Professor Jikidō Takasaki. I published a study dealing with this manuscript in 2006 (Kano 2006b) and provided a critical edition of the Sanskrit text in my doctoral thesis, submitted to Hamburg University in 2006 (Kano 2006a). I also prepared a preliminary annotated translation of this text in 2006 and gave the draft to Karl Brunnhölzl together with my unpublished doctoral thesis.
It came as a surprise for me to learn that Brunnhölzl copied and published the draft of my translation under his name in his book When the Clouds Part: The Uttaratantra and Its Meditative Tradition as a Bridge between Sūtra and Tantra (Boston/London: Snow Lion, 2014), pp. 461–472. Brunnhölzl (p. 1121, n. 1718) says in his book: “All topical headings are inserted by the translator (corresponding to my outline above). Though my translation sometimes differs from Kano’s, I am indebted to both his translation and his Sanskrit edition of the text with critical apparatus (Kano 2006, 513–35), which in turn owe much to Profs. Schmithausen and Isaacson as well as Dr. Diwakar Acharya.” The fact is, however, that he has in many cases simply copied my earlier work.
Since the translation used by Brunnhölzl was an unpublished draft, my earlier mistakes found their way into his book, inasmuch as that draft was based in turn on an early draft of my Sanskrit edition, which itself contains serious misreadings, especially in verses 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, and 15, along with a number of errors in the interlinear glosses. All his striving to make sense of my misreadings of the Sanskrit have been to no avail; his interpretations and analysis (Brunnhölzl, ibid. pp. 288–300 ) based on these errors need to be fundamentally revised. I have since made improvements to the Sanskrit edition and translation, and this is reflected in the differences between his published translation and the one I offer here.[1] (Kano, preface, 1–2)
Notes
1. I am grateful for a number of suggestions and improvements of my critical edition of Sajjana's Mahāyānottaratantraśāstropadeśa to Prof. Harunaga Isaacson, Prof. Diwakar Acharya, Prof. Lambert Schmithausen, Dr. Pascale Hugon, and all participants of a workshop “From Kashmir to Tibet: A set of proto-Śāradā palm leaves and two works on the Ratnagotravibhāga” held on 21. April 2015 at Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften Institut für Kultur-und Geistesgeschichte Asiens. I would like to thank to Dr. David Reigle and Mr. Philip Pierce for much valuable information regarding difficult points of the text and English proof-reading of my translation.Kano, Kazuo. "Mahāyānottaratantraśāstropadeśa of Sajjana: An Annotated Translation with a Reading Text." Kōyasan daigaku daigakuin kiyō (Bulletin of the Graduate School: Graduate Program of Liberal Arts, Kōyasan University) 14 (2015) 1–49.
Kano, Kazuo. "Mahāyānottaratantraśāstropadeśa of Sajjana: An Annotated Translation with a Reading Text." Kōyasan daigaku daigakuin kiyō (Bulletin of the Graduate School: Graduate Program of Liberal Arts, Kōyasan University) 14 (2015) 1–49.;Mahāyānottaratantraśāstropadeśa of Sajjana: An Annotated Translation with a Reading Text;Sajjana;Mahāyānottaratantraśāstropadeśa;Ratnagotravibhāga Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra;Kazuo Kano; 
Nyoraizō to Busshō
This book is part of a 10-volume "Series on Mahayana Buddhism" published between 2011 and 2014. The series consists of the contributions of over seventy authors from Japan and other countries. Mahayana Buddhism is an ideological movement that came into existence in the early years of the first millennium CE through the inheritance of the teachings of Buddhism as developed by the Buddha in India in the fifth century BCE, as well as through the development of new sutras both during and since that time. Throughout the following several hundred years, Mahayana Buddhism played a major role in deepening the development of Buddhist thought, particularly regarding epistemology and ontology. Tathāgatagarbha and Buddha nature, the themes of this book, are ideas developed in the final stages of Mahayana Buddhism, which had a significant effect on the formation of Buddhist thought in East Asia and Tibet. Especially in China, Mahayana Buddhism has received attention for both merging with the philosophy of Huayan Buddhism and for affecting the theoretical form of Neo-Confucianism, as well as for providing theoretical support for the leaders of the Xinhai Revolution.
Tathāgatagarbha and Buddha nature are technical terms that indicate the existence of the true nature of the Buddha or Tathāgata who has attained enlightenment through totally unclouded insight (prajñā), within all living things, though these living things may be covered with the impurity of worldly desire and be seemingly incapable of attaining enlightenment. In essence, these terms refer to the fact that the Buddha or Tathāgata resides within the nature of all living things. The notions of Tathāgatagarbha and Buddha nature make assertions about the nature of enlightenment or salvation for living things still trapped in an unenlightened condition of suffering. They do so from the ideological position of those Tathāgatas or Buddhas who have already realized truth and been released from suffering and unenlightenment. These ideas are expressed as a kind of theodicy and soteriology, as they deal with the challenge of how super-temporal, absolute truth appears at a historical or personal level. Ideas that originate in the mature period of the history of an ideology produce higher-level notions that allow concepts born in various contexts in the previous history of the ideology to coexist. The ideas of Tathāgatagarbha and Buddha nature, which point to the Tathāgata or Buddha that dwells within all living things, encompass both all living things and Tathāgata, and so exist at a higher conceptual level than either.
There are two foundations of the ideas of Tathāgatagarbha and Buddha nature, which simultaneously problematize both unenlightenment and enlightenment: the features of soteriology in general religious thought, and the view of truth that is unique to Buddhism. Soteriology, as conceived of in general religious thought, considers the world in a dualistic fashion, as being split into the world of humanity and the world of gods, the world of suffering and the world of liberation, the endless cycle of life and death (samsara) and supreme enlightenment (nirvana). On the one hand is a relative, limited, and impermanent world, and on the other an absolute, infinite, and eternal world. The movement from the former aspect to the latter is not ceaseless but, rather, requires a change in the dimension of our existence, such as religious conversion or enlightenment. The experience of the individual transforms the aspect of the world, which formerly appeared as a single layer, thus exposing its mysterious and unseen facets. In contrast to many religions, which end their exposition at this point, Mahayana Buddhism takes the appearance of this duality itself as a subjective experience and seeks to reach the point at which both aspects ultimately become indistinguishable. The scenery of this world as seen from the world of libreration, worldly desire purified by enlightenment, Samsara illuminated by nirvana are all accepted as they are, without the necessity of any negation or denial. The duality of the world is therefore overcome, and a higher-level equality emerges that still acknowledges individual differences. (Source Accessed June 29, 2020)
Tathāgatagarbha and Buddha nature are technical terms that indicate the existence of the true nature of the Buddha or Tathāgata who has attained enlightenment through totally unclouded insight (prajñā), within all living things, though these living things may be covered with the impurity of worldly desire and be seemingly incapable of attaining enlightenment. In essence, these terms refer to the fact that the Buddha or Tathāgata resides within the nature of all living things. The notions of Tathāgatagarbha and Buddha nature make assertions about the nature of enlightenment or salvation for living things still trapped in an unenlightened condition of suffering. They do so from the ideological position of those Tathāgatas or Buddhas who have already realized truth and been released from suffering and unenlightenment. These ideas are expressed as a kind of theodicy and soteriology, as they deal with the challenge of how super-temporal, absolute truth appears at a historical or personal level. Ideas that originate in the mature period of the history of an ideology produce higher-level notions that allow concepts born in various contexts in the previous history of the ideology to coexist. The ideas of Tathāgatagarbha and Buddha nature, which point to the Tathāgata or Buddha that dwells within all living things, encompass both all living things and Tathāgata, and so exist at a higher conceptual level than either.
There are two foundations of the ideas of Tathāgatagarbha and Buddha nature, which simultaneously problematize both unenlightenment and enlightenment: the features of soteriology in general religious thought, and the view of truth that is unique to Buddhism. Soteriology, as conceived of in general religious thought, considers the world in a dualistic fashion, as being split into the world of humanity and the world of gods, the world of suffering and the world of liberation, the endless cycle of life and death (samsara) and supreme enlightenment (nirvana). On the one hand is a relative, limited, and impermanent world, and on the other an absolute, infinite, and eternal world. The movement from the former aspect to the latter is not ceaseless but, rather, requires a change in the dimension of our existence, such as religious conversion or enlightenment. The experience of the individual transforms the aspect of the world, which formerly appeared as a single layer, thus exposing its mysterious and unseen facets. In contrast to many religions, which end their exposition at this point, Mahayana Buddhism takes the appearance of this duality itself as a subjective experience and seeks to reach the point at which both aspects ultimately become indistinguishable. The scenery of this world as seen from the world of libreration, worldly desire purified by enlightenment, Samsara illuminated by nirvana are all accepted as they are, without the necessity of any negation or denial. The duality of the world is therefore overcome, and a higher-level equality emerges that still acknowledges individual differences. (Source Accessed June 29, 2020)
Shimoda, Masahiro, ed. Nyoraizō to Busshō (Tathāgatagarbha and Buddha Nature). Vol. 8 of Shirīzu Daijō Bukkyō (Series on Mahāyāna Buddhism). Tokyo: Shunjūsha, 2014.
Shimoda, Masahiro, ed. Nyoraizō to Busshō (Tathāgatagarbha and Buddha Nature). Vol. 8 of Shirīzu Daijō Bukkyō (Series on Mahāyāna Buddhism). Tokyo: Shunjūsha, 2014.;Nyoraizō to Busshō;Doctrine;The doctrine of buddha-nature in Indian Buddhism;The doctrine of buddha-nature in Chinese Buddhism;tathāgatagarbha;Nyoraizō to Busshō (Tathāgatagarbha and Buddha Nature)
Paramārtha's Doctrine of a Ninth Consciousness, as Transmitted in Tibetan Texts: Tsong kha pa's Kun gzhi dka' gter and Its Context
This study aims to elucidate a portion of the reception and evaluation of Paramārtha's doctrines in Tibet, taking as its entry point controversy about Paramārtha's theory of a ninth consciousness as seen in Tsong kha pa's (Tsong kha pa Blo bzang grags pa, 1357-1419) Kun gzhi dka' gter, while simultaneously investigating the background to that text. The development of our argument will incorporate new insights gained through investigation of the texts upon which Tsong kha pa based himself: Wǒnch'ŭk's commentary on the Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra, and commentaries on the Abhidharmasamuccaya by gZad ring (gZad ring Dar ma tshul khrims, latter half of the 12th century), bCom ldan rig ral (1227-1305), Bu ston (Bu ston Rin chen grub, 1290-1364) and Blo gros brtan pa (dPang Blo gros brtan pa, 1276-1342).
Wǒnch'ŭk, bCom ldan rig ral and Bu ston understood that ninth consciousness is ultimately the seeds of the eighth consciousness, or else the pure part thereof. In terms of the content of the controversy, gZad ring, bCom ldan rig ral and Bu ston largely follow a common archetype. They introduce the ninth consciousness without mentioning Paramārtha; they refer to tathāgatagarbha doctrine, relying upon a passage from the Samādhirāja-sūtra as their proof-text; and in rejecting the doctrine of ninth consciousness, they propose that ninth consciousness must exist either actually or potentially, and then reject both alternatives. Since these two points cannot be identified in Wǒnch'ŭk's commentary, we can postulate that the controversy between these scholars was an innovative creation and development from within Tibetan Buddhism. Furthermore, it also seems that in the transmission of ninth consciousness doctrine in Tibet, there arose certain distortions (or deviations from Wǒnch'ŭk's theories), such as when gZad ring ascribes the doctrine of ninth consciousness not to Paramārtha, but to Bhavya.
We also must not neglect the fact that the doctrine of ninth consciousness affirmed in these commentaries to the Abhidharmasamuccaya is not completely identical to that described by Tsong kha pa. Comparison with these texts, which constitute the immediate context for his discussion, highlights the fact that in discussing Paramārtha's doctrine of ninth consciousness as it appears in Wonchuk, Tsong kha pa cites Wonchuk's work directly, rather than second-hand (i.e. rather than relying upon predecessors who utilize Wonchuk's exposition); and in refuting the doctrine of ninth consciousness, he attempts to construct proofs on the basis of his own original viewpoint, rather than recycling the arguments of his predecessors. We are surely justified in judging that it was Tsong kha pa's achievement to absorb Wonchuk's commentary for himself, and to attempt to correct the distortions incidental to the transmission of ninth consciousness doctrine in Tibet. (Source Accessed June 16, 2020)
Wǒnch'ŭk, bCom ldan rig ral and Bu ston understood that ninth consciousness is ultimately the seeds of the eighth consciousness, or else the pure part thereof. In terms of the content of the controversy, gZad ring, bCom ldan rig ral and Bu ston largely follow a common archetype. They introduce the ninth consciousness without mentioning Paramārtha; they refer to tathāgatagarbha doctrine, relying upon a passage from the Samādhirāja-sūtra as their proof-text; and in rejecting the doctrine of ninth consciousness, they propose that ninth consciousness must exist either actually or potentially, and then reject both alternatives. Since these two points cannot be identified in Wǒnch'ŭk's commentary, we can postulate that the controversy between these scholars was an innovative creation and development from within Tibetan Buddhism. Furthermore, it also seems that in the transmission of ninth consciousness doctrine in Tibet, there arose certain distortions (or deviations from Wǒnch'ŭk's theories), such as when gZad ring ascribes the doctrine of ninth consciousness not to Paramārtha, but to Bhavya.
We also must not neglect the fact that the doctrine of ninth consciousness affirmed in these commentaries to the Abhidharmasamuccaya is not completely identical to that described by Tsong kha pa. Comparison with these texts, which constitute the immediate context for his discussion, highlights the fact that in discussing Paramārtha's doctrine of ninth consciousness as it appears in Wonchuk, Tsong kha pa cites Wonchuk's work directly, rather than second-hand (i.e. rather than relying upon predecessors who utilize Wonchuk's exposition); and in refuting the doctrine of ninth consciousness, he attempts to construct proofs on the basis of his own original viewpoint, rather than recycling the arguments of his predecessors. We are surely justified in judging that it was Tsong kha pa's achievement to absorb Wonchuk's commentary for himself, and to attempt to correct the distortions incidental to the transmission of ninth consciousness doctrine in Tibet. (Source Accessed June 16, 2020)
Kano, Kazuo. "Paramārtha's Doctrine of a Ninth Consciousness, as Transmitted in Tibetan Texts: Tsong kha pa's Kun gzhi dka' gter and Its Context." In Studies of the Works and Influence of Paramārtha, edited by Funayama Tōru, 345–99. (In Japanese.) Kyoto: Institute for Research in Humanities, Kyoto University, 2012.
Kano, Kazuo. "Paramārtha's Doctrine of a Ninth Consciousness, as Transmitted in Tibetan Texts: Tsong kha pa's Kun gzhi dka' gter and Its Context." In Studies of the Works and Influence of Paramārtha, edited by Funayama Tōru, 345–99. (In Japanese.) Kyoto: Institute for Research in Humanities, Kyoto University, 2012.;Paramārtha's Doctrine of a Ninth Consciousness, as Transmitted in Tibetan Texts: Tsong kha pa's Kun gzhi dka' gter and Its Context;Paramārtha;*Amalavijñāna;Tsong kha pa;Wǒnch'ǔk;Bcom ldan rig pa'i ral gri;Bu ston rin chen grub;Kazuo Kano; 
Kano, K.: rNgog Blo-ldan-shes-rab's Summary of the Ratnagotravibhāga
The purpose of the present thesis is to study the origin of the RGV's tradition in Tibet, studying the earliest Tibetan commentary, Theg chen rgyud bla ma'i don bsdus pa by rNgog-lo, and to clarify the historical and doctrinal background of the transmission of the RGV from India to Tibet as well as rNgog-lo's impact upon the later doctrinal development with regard to the RGV. To avoid the kind of prejudices that sometimes appeared in the course of the later doctrinal development, we remain mindful of the gap between the original purport of the RGV, which clarified the Buddha nature teaching in line with a group of the “Buddha nature sūtras” (critical successors of the Prajñāpāramitāsūtras), and that of later Indian and Tibetan traditions, which sometimes integrated the Buddha nature teaching into their Madhyamaka or Yogācāra while losing sight of the RGV's original purport. One of the tasks in the present thesis is to clarify how such a gap had arisen and come to be accepted by a certain tradition of Tibetan Buddhism.
Part I, the historical and doctrinal background, consists of six chapters: Chapter 1 describes the authorship and the history of the transmission of the RGV in India, using Indian and Tibetan materials. Chapter 2 studies six different Tibetan translations of the RGV, clarifying how the RGV was transmitted from India to Tibet. Chapter 3 outlines rNgog's life and writings. Chapter 4 presents rNgog's philosophical positions taught in his RGV commentary. Chapters 5 and 6 discuss the impact of his interpretations on the later Tibetan doctrinal developments, and reactions to them. Part II is a critical edition of rNgog-lo's RGV commentary, Theg chen rgyud bla ma'i don bsdus pa (1a-46a5 and 65a5-66a4), preceded by an explanation of textual materials and an outline of the whole text. Part III presents an annotated translation of that commentary.
Appendix A presents a diplomatic edition of rNgog-lo's “topical outline” of the RGV, his other work related to the RGV (discovered at Kharakhoto and preserved in the British Library). Appendix B presents a critical edition of a versified summary of the RGV in Sanskrit, the Mahāyānottaratantraśāstropadeśa composed by the Kashmiri Paṇḍita Sajjana, a teacher of rNgog-lo. Appendix C provides another Sanskrit commentary on the RGV, Vairocanarakṣita's Mahāyanottaratantraṭippaṇī, while appendix D presents translations of relevant passages from the Sākārasiddhi and Sākarasaṃgraha of Jñānaśrīmitra. Appendix E presents rNgog-lo's identification of the passages of the RGVV that refer to the Nidānaparivarta (“introductory chapter”) of the Dhāraṇīśvararājasūtra, as well as a topical outline of this chapter of the sūtra. Appendix F investigates the dating of Blo-gros-mtshungs-med, who among later Tibetans criticized rNgog-lo's position most severely. Appendix G presents a list of commentaries on the RGV. Appendix H lists
records of the RGV's transmission lineage from gsan yigs. (Kano, introduction, 12-13)Kano, Kazuo. "rNgog Blo-ldan-shes-rab's Summary of the Ratnagotravibhāga: The First Tibetan Commentary on a Crucial Source for the Buddha-Nature Doctrine." PhD diss., University of Hamburg, 2006.
Kano, Kazuo. "rNgog Blo-ldan-shes-rab's Summary of the Ratnagotravibhāga: The First Tibetan Commentary on a Crucial Source for the Buddha-Nature Doctrine." PhD diss., University of Hamburg, 2006.;rNgog Blo-ldan-shes-rab's Summary of the Ratnagotravibhāga;Rngog blo ldan shes rab;Ngok Tradition;Ratnagotravibhāga Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra;Buddha-nature as Emptiness;Geluk;Kazuo Kano;rNgog Blo-ldan-shes-rab's Summary of the Ratnagotravibhāga: The First Tibetan Commentary on a Crucial Source for the Buddha-Nature Doctrine
RNgog blo ldan shes rab's Topical Outline of the Ratnagotravibhāga Discovered at Khara Khoto
1) Among the fifty or so compositions of Rngog lo, most are still unavailable and only nine works have so far been published. To these works we can add our topical outline of the RGV (rgyud bla ma’i bsdus don) preserved in a folio discovered at Khara Khoto, which originally consisted of two folios. Its authorship could be confirmed from its colophon as well as by comparing its contents to another lengthy RGV commentary (the Essential Meaning) ascribed to Rngog lo. Our manuscript is thus the earliest Tibetan text that systematically outlines the RGV, and it has made a fundamental contribution to the development of the Tibetan exegetical tradition of the RGV.
2) Rngog lo seems to have used the term bsdus don (or its equivalents) to refer to two kinds of works, namely “topical outline” and “essential meaning,” for he composed two works on the RGV―a brief topical outline and a lengthy essential meaning―which bear titles containing the term bsdus don and its equivalent don bsdus pa, respectively. Among Rngog lo’s available writings, our Khara Khoto manuscript and the Byang chub sems dpa’i spyod pa la ’jug pa’i don bsdus pa offer the only testimony that bsdus don (and its equivalent don bsdus pa) refers to a “topical outline,” as he often uses the term bsdus don to indicate a lengthy "essential meaning" in his other commentarial works. The first usage was common among Tibetan masters during the early and middle phyi dar period, whereas the latter was generally rare. This rare usage is most likely influenced by the piṇḍārtha sub-genre of Indian commentaries.
3) Our manuscript has some serious textual problems, such as missing words, illegible words, syntactic ambiguity, and a missing folio. However, we can solve many of those problems by referring to corresponding sentences in the other two works on the RGV, namely, Rngog lo’s Essential Meaning and Phywa pa’s Topical Outline.
Kano, Kazuo. "rNgog blo ldan shes rab's Topical Outline of the Ratnagotravibhāga Discovered at Khara Khoto." In Contributions to Tibetan Buddhist Literature. PIATS 2006: Proceedings of the Eleventh Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies, Königswinter, 2006, edited by Orna Almogi, 127–94. Halle (Saale), Germany: International Institute for Tibetan and Buddhist Studies GmbH, 2008.
Kano, Kazuo. "rNgog blo ldan shes rab's Topical Outline of the Ratnagotravibhāga Discovered at Khara Khoto." In Contributions to Tibetan Buddhist Literature. PIATS 2006: Proceedings of the Eleventh Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies, Königswinter, 2006, edited by Orna Almogi, 127–94. Halle (Saale), Germany: International Institute for Tibetan and Buddhist Studies GmbH, 2008.;RNgog blo ldan shes rab's Topical Outline of the Ratnagotravibhāga Discovered at Khara Khoto;Ratnagotravibhāga Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra;Rngog blo ldan shes rab;Theg chen rgyud bla ma'i don bsdus pa;Kazuo Kano
Ratnākaraśānti no shochosaku ni okeru nyoraizō rikai no niruikei
Ratnākaraśānti (ca. 11th cent.) is one of the most influential figures in the final phase of Indian Buddhism, and more than thirty works are available in Tibetan translations (some of them are also available in Sanskrit originals). However, previous studies have pointed out that some works are of another person with the same namesake, because, among the works attributed to him, we find some serious diversity in their doctrinal systems. The present paper focuses on the diversity in interpretation of the Buddha-nature doctrine.
We can find two types of interpretation, i.e., (1) that in accord with the yānatraya doctrine (in the Prajñāpāramitopadeśa, Muktāvalī, and Kusumāñjali), and (2) that in accord with the ekayāna doctrine (in the Sūtrasamuccayabhāṣya and Triyānavyavasthāna). The two positions are clearly contradicting each other. The first interpretation (1) is based on traditional Yogācāra doctrine that admits the gotrabheda doctrine ("differences of spiritual potentials"), while the second (2) premises the Madhyamaka doctrine that does not accept the gotrabheda doctrine on the ultimate level and claims all beings equally have the same potential to become a buddha.
Furthermore, the existence of the diversity between the two interpretations is supported by other doctrinal issues, for instance, two different attitudes toward the understanding of Abhisamayālaṃkāra I.39.
As a conclusion, the doctrinal position in the Sūtrasamuccayabhāṣya and Triyānavyavasthāna is different from that of the Prajñāpāramitopadeśa etc. The aim of the present paper is to show the clear diversity attested in the works attributed to Ratnākaraśānti, which will, hopefully, contribute to solving the question of the authorship of the works, i.e., whether they are composed by one person or not. (Source: Academia.edu)
We can find two types of interpretation, i.e., (1) that in accord with the yānatraya doctrine (in the Prajñāpāramitopadeśa, Muktāvalī, and Kusumāñjali), and (2) that in accord with the ekayāna doctrine (in the Sūtrasamuccayabhāṣya and Triyānavyavasthāna). The two positions are clearly contradicting each other. The first interpretation (1) is based on traditional Yogācāra doctrine that admits the gotrabheda doctrine ("differences of spiritual potentials"), while the second (2) premises the Madhyamaka doctrine that does not accept the gotrabheda doctrine on the ultimate level and claims all beings equally have the same potential to become a buddha.
Furthermore, the existence of the diversity between the two interpretations is supported by other doctrinal issues, for instance, two different attitudes toward the understanding of Abhisamayālaṃkāra I.39.
As a conclusion, the doctrinal position in the Sūtrasamuccayabhāṣya and Triyānavyavasthāna is different from that of the Prajñāpāramitopadeśa etc. The aim of the present paper is to show the clear diversity attested in the works attributed to Ratnākaraśānti, which will, hopefully, contribute to solving the question of the authorship of the works, i.e., whether they are composed by one person or not. (Source: Academia.edu)
Kano, Kazuo. "Ratnākaraśānti no shochosaku ni okeru nyoraizō rikai no niruikei" (Two Different Positions Toward the Buddha-nature Doctrine Found in Ratnākaraśānti's Compositions). Mikkyō Bunka (Journal of Esoteric Buddhism) 226 (2011): 7–35.
Kano, Kazuo. "Ratnākaraśānti no shochosaku ni okeru nyoraizō rikai no niruikei" (Two Different Positions Toward the Buddha-nature Doctrine Found in Ratnākaraśānti's Compositions). Mikkyō Bunka (Journal of Esoteric Buddhism) 226 (2011): 7–35.;Ratnākaraśānti no shochosaku ni okeru nyoraizō rikai no niruikei;The doctrine of buddha-nature in Indian Buddhism;Ratnākaraśānti;Kazuo Kano; 
Ratnākaraśānti’s Understanding of Buddha-nature
Ratnākaraśānti (ca. 11th cent.) is one of the most influential figures in the final phase of Indian Buddhism, and more than thirty works are available in Tibetan translations (some of them are also available in Sanskrit originals). However, previous studies have pointed out that some works are of another person with the same namesake, because, among the works attributed to him, we find some serious diversity in their doctrinal systems. The present paper focuses on the diversity in interpretation of the Buddha-nature doctrine. We can find two types of interpretation, i.e., (1) that in accord with the yānatraya doctrine (in the Prajñāpāramitopadeśa, Muktāvalī, and Kusumāñjali), and (2) that in accord with the ekayāna doctrine (in the Sūtrasamuccayabhāṣya and Triyānavyavasthāna). The two positions are clearly contradicting each other. The first interpretation (1) is based on traditional Yogācāra doctrine that admits the gotrabheda doctrine (“differences of spiritual potentials”), while the second (2) premises the Madhyamaka doctrine that does not accept the gotrabheda doctrine on the ultimate level and claims all beings equally have the same potential to become a buddha. Furthermore, the existence of the diversity between the two interpretations is supported by other doctrinal issues, for instance, two different attitudes toward the understanding of Abhisamayālaṃkāra I.39. As a conclusion, the doctrinal position in the Sūtrasamuccayabhāṣya and Triyānavyavasthāna is different from that of the Prajñāpāramitopadeśa etc. The aim of the present paper is to show the clear diversity attested in the works attributed to Ratnākaraśānti, which will, hopefully, contribute to solving the question of the authorship of the works, i.e., whether they are composed by one person or not. (Source: Academia.edu)
Kano, Kazuo. "Ratnākaraśānti’s Understanding of Buddha-Nature." China Tibetology 25, no. 2 (2015): 52–77.
Kano, Kazuo. "Ratnākaraśānti’s Understanding of Buddha-Nature." China Tibetology 25, no. 2 (2015): 52–77.;Ratnākaraśānti’s Understanding of Buddha-nature;The doctrine of buddha-nature in Indian Buddhism;Ratnākaraśānti;Kazuo Kano; 
RṄog Blo ldan śes rab's Position on the Buddha-nature Doctrine and its Influence on the Early gSaṅ phu Tradition
The teaching that all sentient beings have Buddha-nature (tathāgatagarbha) was first proclaimed in the Tathāgatagarbhasūtra. Developed in a series of Mahāyāna sūtras, such as the Śrīmālādevīsūtra and Anūnatvāpūrṇatvanirdeśasūtra, it was then systematized in the Ratnagotravibhāga (abbr. RGV), alias Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra. The core idea of the RGV’s teaching is that everyone possesses Buddha-nature. The latter does not change throughout the progression from the level of ordinary beings to that of a Buddha, it is merely purified through the separation from adventitious defilements. Once this purification is complete, awakening is accomplished.
Both Indian and Tibetan traditions struggled with the question of the ontological status of Buddha-nature. One finds indeed in some sūtras descriptions of Buddha-nature as permanent and pervading every sentient being, which are also characteristics ascribed by non-Buddhists to the Self (ātman). But if Buddha-nature were to be understood as a permanent entity akin to a Self, how could this teaching be compatible with the standard Buddhist doctrine that everything is impermanent and selfless?
Some Mahāyāna sūtras, such as the Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra, would offer support for the assimilation of Buddha-nature with a Self. The Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra is quite explicit in associating the two notions, characterizing in particular the dharmakāya in terms of “perfection of Self” (ātmapāramitā), but warns about the confusion of the “correct” ātman, which is Buddha-nature, with ātman taken in its ordinary sense.'"`UNIQ--ref-00003326-QINU`"'
RGV I.37 and RGVV also speak of the “perfection of Self” as an epithet of the dharmakāya, interpreting however this notion of “Self” (ātman) in the sense of selflessness (nairātmya) or quiescence of conceptual proliferations (prapañca), thus distinguishing Buddha-nature from the notion of a personal, permanent Self (ātman).'"`UNIQ--ref-00003327-QINU`"'
Nevertheless, the RGV does not promote the doctrine of emptiness in the sense that everything is ultimately empty of intrinsic nature. Quite on the contrary, the RGV stresses the real existence of Buddha-nature, and proclaims the superiority of the Buddha-nature doctrine to the emptiness doctrine of the Prajñāpāramitāsūtras.'"`UNIQ--ref-00003328-QINU`"'
The RGV thus on the one hand distinguishes Buddha-nature from the disapproved view of a Self, while on the other hand it admits Buddha-nature as ultimately existent'"`UNIQ--ref-00003329-QINU`"'—an ambiguous viewpoint, and a challenging one for its interpreters. . . .
The present paper deals with a selection of rṄog’s most significant views on the doctrine of Buddha-nature and considers some reactions to his interpretations in the works of his followers. Since the RGV commentaries attributed to two of rṄog’s "four main [spiritual] sons" (sras kyi thu bo bźi), Źaṅ Tshes spoṅ ba Chos kyi bla ma and Gro luṅ pa Blo gros byuṅ gnas,'"`UNIQ--ref-0000332A-QINU`"' as yet remain to be found'"`UNIQ--ref-0000332B-QINU`"' we will concentrate on the next-earliest available work, a commentary by Phywa pa Chos kyi seṅ ge (1109–1169) '"`UNIQ--ref-0000332C-QINU`"' (Kano, introduction, 249–55)
Both Indian and Tibetan traditions struggled with the question of the ontological status of Buddha-nature. One finds indeed in some sūtras descriptions of Buddha-nature as permanent and pervading every sentient being, which are also characteristics ascribed by non-Buddhists to the Self (ātman). But if Buddha-nature were to be understood as a permanent entity akin to a Self, how could this teaching be compatible with the standard Buddhist doctrine that everything is impermanent and selfless?
Some Mahāyāna sūtras, such as the Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra, would offer support for the assimilation of Buddha-nature with a Self. The Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra is quite explicit in associating the two notions, characterizing in particular the dharmakāya in terms of “perfection of Self” (ātmapāramitā), but warns about the confusion of the “correct” ātman, which is Buddha-nature, with ātman taken in its ordinary sense.'"`UNIQ--ref-00003326-QINU`"'
RGV I.37 and RGVV also speak of the “perfection of Self” as an epithet of the dharmakāya, interpreting however this notion of “Self” (ātman) in the sense of selflessness (nairātmya) or quiescence of conceptual proliferations (prapañca), thus distinguishing Buddha-nature from the notion of a personal, permanent Self (ātman).'"`UNIQ--ref-00003327-QINU`"'
Nevertheless, the RGV does not promote the doctrine of emptiness in the sense that everything is ultimately empty of intrinsic nature. Quite on the contrary, the RGV stresses the real existence of Buddha-nature, and proclaims the superiority of the Buddha-nature doctrine to the emptiness doctrine of the Prajñāpāramitāsūtras.'"`UNIQ--ref-00003328-QINU`"'
The RGV thus on the one hand distinguishes Buddha-nature from the disapproved view of a Self, while on the other hand it admits Buddha-nature as ultimately existent'"`UNIQ--ref-00003329-QINU`"'—an ambiguous viewpoint, and a challenging one for its interpreters. . . .
The present paper deals with a selection of rṄog’s most significant views on the doctrine of Buddha-nature and considers some reactions to his interpretations in the works of his followers. Since the RGV commentaries attributed to two of rṄog’s "four main [spiritual] sons" (sras kyi thu bo bźi), Źaṅ Tshes spoṅ ba Chos kyi bla ma and Gro luṅ pa Blo gros byuṅ gnas,'"`UNIQ--ref-0000332A-QINU`"' as yet remain to be found'"`UNIQ--ref-0000332B-QINU`"' we will concentrate on the next-earliest available work, a commentary by Phywa pa Chos kyi seṅ ge (1109–1169) '"`UNIQ--ref-0000332C-QINU`"' (Kano, introduction, 249–55)
Kano, Kazuo. "rṄog Blo ldan śes rab's Position on the Buddha-Nature Doctrine and Its Influence on the Early gSaṅ phu Tradition." Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 32, no. 1-2 (2010): 249–83.
Kano, Kazuo. "rṄog Blo ldan śes rab's Position on the Buddha-Nature Doctrine and Its Influence on the Early gSaṅ phu Tradition." Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 32, no. 1-2 (2010): 249–83.;RṄog Blo ldan śes rab's Position on the Buddha-nature Doctrine and its Influence on the Early gSaṅ phu Tradition;Rngog blo ldan shes rab;The doctrine of buddha-nature in Tibetan Buddhism;Kazuo Kano; 
Sajjana and Mahājana: Yogācāra Exegeses in the Eleventh Century Kashmir
The present paper aims to clarify work-titles of writings of Sajjana and his son Mahājana, the 11th and 12th century lay Buddhists of Kashmir; especially Sajjana is sometimes regarded as a crucial individual for Yogācāra exegesis tradition of Tibetan Buddhism. Although, until recently, their writings had not been known except for works available in Tibetan canon, further works that are not included in Tibetan canon have gradually been found in a Sanskrit manuscript, which we call here Sajjana-Mahājana codex. As for Sajjana, in addition to his Putralekha, that is, an epistile addressed to his son Mahājana (only in Tib.), two further works, i.e., Mahāyānottaratantraśāstropadeśa and Sūtrālaṃkārapiṇḍārtha, have been available (both only in Skt.). With regard to Mahājana, (1) Sūtrālaṃkārādhikārasaṅgati (only in Skt.) has become newly available found in the Sajjana-Mahājana codex, in addition to (2) his Prajñāpāramitāhṛdaya commentary (only in Tib.). In (2), Mahājana refers to two of his own writings, i.e., (3) ’Brel pa grub pa chung ngu’i yongs su shes pa and (4) rNam par nges pa’i yongs su shes pa. We can identify (3) as the Pratibandhasiddhiparicaya which is available only as a Sanskrit fragment in the Sajjana-Mahājana codex. On the baisis of this identification, we can assume the Sanskrit title of (4) as *Viniścayaparicaya (yet to be found). Accordingly, the Sanskrit title of (1) can be known as Prajñāpāramitāhṛdayaparicaya as attested in the Peking Tanjur (Derge's reading -arthaparijñāna does not seem to reflect the original). Furthermore, there are two other works with the word paricaya in their titles, i.e., Sūtrālaṃkāraparicaya and *Mahāyānottaratantraparicaya, included in the Sajjana-Mahājana codex. Although their colophons that refer to the author's name are yet to be found, these two are most prabably Mahājana's compositions as this particular title paricaya and this particular situation (being included in the same codex) suggests.
Kano, Kazuo. "Sajjana and Mahājana: Yogācāra Exegeses in the Eleventh Century Kashmir." Indogaku Bukkyogaku Kenkyu (Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies) 69, no. 2 (2021): 118–124.
Kano, Kazuo. "Sajjana and Mahājana: Yogācāra Exegeses in the Eleventh Century Kashmir." Indogaku Bukkyogaku Kenkyu (Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies) 69, no. 2 (2021): 118–124.;Sajjana and Mahājana: Yogācāra Exegeses in the Eleventh Century Kashmir;Yogācāra;Sajjana;Mahājana;Kazuo Kano
Sanskrit Manuscript of Sajjana's Mahāyānottaratantraśāstropadeśa
Kano, Kazuo. "Sanskrit Manuscript of Sajjana's Mahāyānottaratantraśāstropadeśa." (In Japanese.) Kōyasan daigaku mikkyō bunka kenkyūjo kiyō (Bulletin of the Research Institute of Esoteric Buddhist Culture, Kōyasan University) 19 (2006): 29–51.
Kano, Kazuo. "Sanskrit Manuscript of Sajjana's Mahāyānottaratantraśāstropadeśa." (In Japanese.) Kōyasan daigaku mikkyō bunka kenkyūjo kiyō (Bulletin of the Research Institute of Esoteric Buddhist Culture, Kōyasan University) 19 (2006): 29–51.
Kano, Kazuo. "Sanskrit Manuscript of Sajjana's Mahāyānottaratantraśāstropadeśa." (In Japanese.) Kōyasan daigaku mikkyō bunka kenkyūjo kiyō (Bulletin of the Research Institute of Esoteric Buddhist Culture, Kōyasan University) 19 (2006): 29–51.;Sanskrit Manuscript of Sajjana's Mahāyānottaratantraśāstropadeśa;Sajjana;Mahāyānottaratantraśāstropadeśa;Kazuo Kano; 
Sanskrit Verses from Candrakīrti's Triśaraṇasaptati Cited in the Munimatālaṃkāra
The present paper provides newly available Sanskrit fragments (11½ verses) from the Triśaraṇasaptati attributed to Candrakīrti '"`UNIQ--ref-0000329C-QINU`"' These verses are found in the Sanskrit manuscript of Abhayākaraguptaʼs Munimatālaṃkāra.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000329D-QINU`"'
The Triśaraṇasaptati is a small versified work consisting 68 ślokas, the full text of which is preserved only in Tibetan translation. We find two versions (i.e. recensions) of the Triśaraṇasaptati in all the Tanjurs. The two versions are almost the same, having been translated by the same translation team (Atiśa and Rin chen bzang po).
Sorensen translated the Tibetan text into English and added to them six verses (12, 13, 33, 45, 46, and 47) in Sanskrit traced in the form of quotations in other works. Sorensenʼs English translation is for the most part faithful to the Tibetan text. The Tibetan translation itself, when compared with the Sanskrit original, is seen on occasion to be imprecise (see below, "Philological Remarks").
Other quotations from the Triśaraṇasaptati have been found in two passages in the Munimatālaṃkāra: Passage A (Skt. Ms. 7v1-4; Tib. D 82a7-b3; verses 1, 34, 51, 54, 55, 67) in Munimatālaṃkāra chapter 1 (the Bodhicittāloka chapter)'"`UNIQ--ref-0000329E-QINU`"' and Passage B (Skt. 132r1-3; Tib. D 219a5-b1; 7-9ab, 22-23) in chapter 3 (the Aṣṭābhisamayāloka chapter). When we collate these 11½ verses with the 6 verses independently collected by Sorensen, the total number becomes 17½, which is about 26% of the whole text of the Triśaraṇasaptati. (Kano and Xuezhu, introductory remarks, 4)
The Triśaraṇasaptati is a small versified work consisting 68 ślokas, the full text of which is preserved only in Tibetan translation. We find two versions (i.e. recensions) of the Triśaraṇasaptati in all the Tanjurs. The two versions are almost the same, having been translated by the same translation team (Atiśa and Rin chen bzang po).
Sorensen translated the Tibetan text into English and added to them six verses (12, 13, 33, 45, 46, and 47) in Sanskrit traced in the form of quotations in other works. Sorensenʼs English translation is for the most part faithful to the Tibetan text. The Tibetan translation itself, when compared with the Sanskrit original, is seen on occasion to be imprecise (see below, "Philological Remarks").
Other quotations from the Triśaraṇasaptati have been found in two passages in the Munimatālaṃkāra: Passage A (Skt. Ms. 7v1-4; Tib. D 82a7-b3; verses 1, 34, 51, 54, 55, 67) in Munimatālaṃkāra chapter 1 (the Bodhicittāloka chapter)'"`UNIQ--ref-0000329E-QINU`"' and Passage B (Skt. 132r1-3; Tib. D 219a5-b1; 7-9ab, 22-23) in chapter 3 (the Aṣṭābhisamayāloka chapter). When we collate these 11½ verses with the 6 verses independently collected by Sorensen, the total number becomes 17½, which is about 26% of the whole text of the Triśaraṇasaptati. (Kano and Xuezhu, introductory remarks, 4)
Kano, Kazuo, and Xuezhu Li. "Sanskrit Verses from Candrakīrtiʼs Triśaraṇasaptati Cited in the Munimatālaṃkāra." China Tibetology 22, no. 1 (2014) 4–11.
Kano, Kazuo, and Xuezhu Li. "Sanskrit Verses from Candrakīrtiʼs Triśaraṇasaptati Cited in the Munimatālaṃkāra." China Tibetology 22, no. 1 (2014) 4–11.;Sanskrit Verses from Candrakīrtiʼs Triśaraṇasaptati Cited in the Munimatālaṃkāra;Textual study;Candrakīrti;Kazuo Kano; Xuezhu Li
Six Tibetan Translations of the Ratnagotravibhāga
No translation of the Ratnagotravibhāga seems to have existed in Tibet before the 11th century, inasmuch as no catalogue of the imperial period (the 9th century) shows any record of one. Although only a single Tibetan translation is extant (that of rNgog Blo ldan shes rab [1069-1109] and Sajjana), ’Gos Lo tsā ba gZhon nu dpal (1392-1481) reports that up to his time six translations had already been made. In the present paper, I will examine what can be learned about the six translations, those of: (1) Atiśa and Nag tsho Tshul khrims rgyal ba, (2) rNgog Blo ldan shes rab and Sajjana (late 11th cent.), (3) Pa tshab Nyi ma grags, (4) Mar pa Do pa Chos kyi dbang phyug (1042–1136), (5) Jo nang Lo tsā ba Blo gros dpal (1299–1353 or 1300–1364), and (6) Yar klungs Lo tsā ba.
Kano, Kazuo. "Six Tibetan Translations of the Ratnagotravibhāga." China Tibetology 23, no. 2 (2014), 76–101.
Kano, Kazuo. "Six Tibetan Translations of the Ratnagotravibhāga." China Tibetology 23, no. 2 (2014), 76–101.;Six Tibetan Translations of the Ratnagotravibhāga;Textual study;Ratnagotravibhāga Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra;Atīśa;Nag 'tsho lo tsA ba tshul khrims rgyal ba;Rngog blo ldan shes rab;Sajjana;Mar pa do pa chos kyi dbang phyug;Jo nang lo tsA ba blo gros dpal;Pa tshab lo tsA ba nyi ma grags pa;Kazuo Kano
Some Remarks on the Sanskrit Titles of Sthiramati’s Works
In this paper, I shall discuss the titles of Sthiramati's works available in Sanskrit: Tattvārthā Abhidharmakośaṭīkā, Madhyāntavibhāgaṭīkā, and Abhidharmasamuccaya. I will first clarify the meaning of the title of the Tattvārthā, and then reconsider the titles of the Madhyāntavibhāgaṭīkā and Abhidharmasamuccaya, reexamining their colophons in Sanskrit manuscripts. Additionally , I will discuss the Sanskrit title of Sthiramati's Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra commentary. Finally, I will examine the reliability of titles found in colophons.
Kano, Kazuo. "Some Remarks on the Sanskrit Titles of Sthiramati’s Works." In Śrāvakabhūmi and Buddhist Manuscripts, edited by Seongcheol Kim and Jundo Nagashima, 191–208. Tokyo: Nombre, 2017.
Kano, Kazuo. "Some Remarks on the Sanskrit Titles of Sthiramati’s Works." In Śrāvakabhūmi and Buddhist Manuscripts, edited by Seongcheol Kim and Jundo Nagashima, 191–208. Tokyo: Nombre, 2017.;Some Remarks on the Sanskrit Titles of Sthiramati’s Works;Textual study;Sthiramati;Kazuo Kano; 
Tathāgatagarbaḥ Sarvasattvānāṃ: A Hypothetical Interpretation of a Declarative Formula in the Mahāparinirvāṇamahāsūtra
In this paper, I shall propose a hypothetical interpretation of the phrase tathāgatagarbhaḥ sarvasattvānāṃ, which is a declarative formula of the Mahāparinirvāṇamahāsūtra (abbr. MPMS) and is preserved as original Sanskrit. This phrase confirms that the word tathāgatagarbha—if this is a bahuvrīhi compound—cannot grammatically go with the word sattvānāṃ unlike the case of the Tathāgatagarbhasūtra, in which tathāgatagarbha, being a bahuvrīhi, qualifies the noun sattva (sarvasattvās tathāgatagarbhāḥ). Previous studies have mostly interpreted tathāgatagarbhaḥ of the MPMS, as a tatpuruṣa, whereas I shall keep this as a bahuvrīhi and take it to be an adjective which qualifies some undescribed noun—that is, stūpa, omitted in the phrase, based on the following reasons: (1) The word tathāgatagarbha in the formula is probably premising such expressions like tathāgatadhātugarbhān stūpān, dhātugarbhe caitye (which is paraphrased by the expression sadhātuke caitye "a caitya that contains relics"), etc., as found in other Mahāyāna scriptures, where tathāgatadhātugarbha, as a bahuvrīhi, qualifies the noun stūpa "a stūpa that contains tathāgata 's relics”; (2) the omission of the noun stūpa in the formula might reflect the same omission found in expressions, such as dhātudhṛk or dhātudharaḥ (both omitting stūpaḥ), as found in Buddhist inscriptions; (3) The declarative formula of the MPMS should naturally be relevant to the main topic of the MPMS, which deals with tathāgata's nirvāṇa and his relics that were found in stūpas (which, in turn, are reinterpreted in the MPMS from the viewpoint of the dharmakāya and tathāgatagarbha); (4) The MPMS precisely declares that all beings are real stūpa/caitya, and this declaration fits well with the phrase tathāgatagarbhaḥ sarvasattvānāṃ “all beings have tathāgatagarbha (i.e. stūpa)”; (5) We find yet another expression (asmākam upari tathāgatagarbho 'sti "there is tathāgatagarbha above us") in the Sanskrit fragment of the MPMS; however, the word tathāgatagarbha, in this expression, does not disturb the abovementioned interpretation. Instead, this reminds us of the famous scene taught in the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka—the stūpa arising in the sky above the audience: saptaratnamayaḥ stūpo ’bhyudgataḥ ... parṣanmaṇḍalasyopari vaihāyasaṃ tiṣṭhet. Accordingly, I shall tentatively propose to interpret the word tathāgatagarbhaḥ in the formula as a bahuvrīhi which qualifies the noun stūpa. I think, however, it is possible to apprehend tathāgatagarbha as a tatpuruṣa, to be the secondary meaning of the word because the MPMS most probably utilizes the word with double or triple meaning in order to preserve the semantic richness of the word garbha, which has already been pointed out by Masahiro Shimoda and Michael Radich.
Kano, Kazuo. "Tathāgatagarbaḥ Sarvasattvānāṃ: A Hypothetical Interpretation of a Declarative Formula in the Mahāparinirvāṇamahāsūtra." (In Japanese.) Critical Review for Buddhist Studies 22 (2017): 9–61.
Kano, Kazuo. "Tathāgatagarbaḥ Sarvasattvānāṃ: A Hypothetical Interpretation of a Declarative Formula in the Mahāparinirvāṇamahāsūtra." (In Japanese.) Critical Review for Buddhist Studies 22 (2017): 9–61.;Tathāgatagarbaḥ Sarvasattvānāṃ: A Hypothetical Interpretation of a Declarative Formula in the Mahāparinirvāṇamahāsūtra;Terminology;Textual study;Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra;Kazuo Kano; 
The Transmission of Sanskrit Manuscripts from India to Tibet
No abstract given. Here are the first relevant paragraphs:
Hardly any Sanskrit manuscripts of Buddhist scriptures remain in India today, even though such manuscripts have been discovered in surrounding regions. Tibet in particular is one of the richest treasuries of precious Sanskrit manuscripts from as early as the 8th century. These became widely known to the scholarly world in the 1930s thanks to discoveries by Rāhula Sāṅkṛtyāyana (1893-1963) in monasteries of Tsang (Tib. gTsang) province, in the Western part of Central Tibet. He had little success, however, in accessing Sanskrit manuscripts in monasteries of Ü (Tib. dBus) province, in the Eastern part of the Central Tibet among which Retreng (Tib. Rwa sgreng) monastery[1] was especially famous for its rare manuscript collection. Retreng, the former centre of the Kadam tradition located about 120 km to the Northwest of Lhasa, was founded by Dromtön Gyalwe jungne (Tib. 'Brom ston rGyal ba'i 'byung gnas, 1008-1064) in 1056. The aim of the present paper is to trace the Sanskrit manuscript collection once preserved at Retreng monastery by focusing on the transmission of individual manuscripts, and in the process to shed light on one historical aspect of Indo-Tibetan cross-cultural exchanges.
In the following, I shall (1) sketch the challenges faced by explorers trying to access the manuscript collection of Retreng monastery in the early 20th century, and then try to (2) trace the origin of the collection in Tibetan historical sources, (3) collect references to the manuscripts belonging to the collection, (4) draw up a title list of scriptural texts contained in it, (5) trace and identify its current location, and finally (6) evaluate the historicity of Atiśa's ownership of the manuscripts. (Kano, preliminary remarks, 82–83)
Notes
- For historical sources on Retreng, see Kano, "Rāhula," 123, n. 1.
Kano, Kazuo. "The Transmission of Sanskrit Manuscripts from India to Tibet: The Case of a Manuscript Collection in the Possession of Atiśa Dīpaṃkaraśrījñāna (980–1054)." In Transfer of Buddhism Across Central Asian Networks (7th to 13th Centuries), edited by Carmen Meinert, 82–117. Leiden: Brill, 2015.
Kano, Kazuo. "The Transmission of Sanskrit Manuscripts from India to Tibet: The Case of a Manuscript Collection in the Possession of Atiśa Dīpaṃkaraśrījñāna (980–1054)." In Transfer of Buddhism Across Central Asian Networks (7th to 13th Centuries), edited by Carmen Meinert, 82–117. Leiden: Brill, 2015.;The Transmission of Sanskrit Manuscripts from India to Tibet;Atīśa;Kazuo Kano; Atiśa;ཇོ་བོ་རྗེ་ཨ་ཏི་ཤ་;jo bo rje a ti sha;dpal mar med mdzad dpal ye shes;slob dpon chen po dpal mar me mdzad ye shes;rgya gar gyi mkhan po dpal ldan mar me;rgya gar gyi mkhan po dpal ldan mar me mdzad bzang po ye shes snying po;dI paM ka ra shrI dz+nyA na;paN+Dita dI paM ka ra;mgon po a ti sha;དཔལ་མར་མེད་མཛད་དཔལ་ཡེ་ཤེས་;སློབ་དཔོན་ཆེན་པོ་དཔལ་མར་མེ་མཛད་ཡེ་ཤེས་;རྒྱ་གར་གྱི་མཁན་པོ་དཔལ་ལྡན་མར་མེ་;རྒྱ་གར་གྱི་མཁན་པོ་དཔལ་ལྡན་མར་མེ་མཛད་བཟང་པོ་ཡེ་ཤེས་སྙིང་པོ་;དཱི་པཾ་ཀ་ར་ཤྲཱི་ཛྙཱ་ན་;པཎྜིཏ་དཱི་པཾ་ཀ་ར་;མགོན་པོ་ཨ་ཏི་ཤ་;Atīśa;Atiśa Dīpaṃkara;Dīpaṃkara Śrījñāna;Śrī Dīpaṃkarajñānapada;Dīpaṃkararakṣita
Two Short Glosses on Yogācāra Texts by Vairocanarakṣita
No abstract given. Here are the first relevant paragraphs:
In Giuseppe Tucci’s collection of Sanskrit manuscripts and photographed materials, a set of positive prints of texts filmed at Ñor monastery contains a codex unicus of
Vairocanaraksita’s (fl. 11th/12th century) Yogācāra/Tathāgatagarbha commentarial
works:
1. Viṃśikāṭikāvivṛti (glosses on Vasubandhu’s Viṃśikāvṛtti and Vinītadeva’s Viṃśikāṭīkā);
2. Triṃśikāṭīkāvivṛti (glosses on Sthiramati’s Triṃśikābhāṣya and Vinītadeva’s Triṃśikāṭīkā);
3. Madhyāntavibhāgakatipayapadavivṛti (glosses on Vasubandhu’s Madhyāntavibhāgabhāṣya
and Sthiramati’s Madhyāntavibhāgaṭīkā);
4. Mahāyānottaratantraṭippaṇī (glosses on the Ratnagotravibhāgavyākhyā);
5. *Sūtrālaṃkāravivṛti (glosses on Vasubandhu’s Sūtrālaṃkārabhāṣya)2 and
6. *Dharmadharmatāvibhāgavivṛti (glosses on Vasubandhu’s Dharmadharmatāvibhāgavṛtti).3
V. Gokhale (1978) was the first to study these works, using Saṅkṛtyāyana’s negatives and the prints made from them, which have been preserved in Patna. He reported titles of the six works, without, however, going into detail because of the poor quality of the images. Subsequently the details of the works remained unknown for a long time, and no complete editions have been published. To be sure, Zuiryū Nakamura edited the text of folios 9v2–14v7 of the Mahāyānottaratantraṭippaṇī (the text of folios 15r1–17r5 remains to be edited);4 and Mathes in his translation of the Dharmadharmatāvibhāgavṛtti referred to some sentences from the *Dharmadharmatāvibhāgavivṛti.5 I myself also edited a small portion of the *Sūtrālaṃkāravivṛti.6
The present paper contains an editio princeps of the Viṃśikāṭīkāvivṛti and *Dharmadharmatāvibhāgavivṛti. Critical editions of the other three works are under preparation: Francesco Sferra is preparing a critical edition of the Madhyāntavibhāgakatipayapadavivṛti, and I am preparing critical editions of the Mahāyānottaratantraṭippaṇī, the Triṃśikāṭīkāvivṛti and the *Sūtrālaṃkāravivṛti for publication. (Kano, introduction, 343-44)
Notes
- [From title] I am grateful to Prof. Francesco Sferra and Prof. Harunaga Isaacson for a number of text-critical suggestions, and Prof. Lambert Schmithausen for permitting me to use his preliminary handwritten transcription of Vairocanarakṣita’s *Dharmadharmatāvibhāgavivṛti, and also for his very valuable suggestions concerning that text. I am indebted, too, to Mrs. Bärbel Mund of Niedersächsische Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Göttingen for giving me the permission to use photographic images of the Göttingen Collection, to Dr. Diwakar Acharya for his help with deciphering barely legible letters in the manuscript, to Prof. Toru Yagi for his very valuable suggestions regarding Vairocanarakṣita’s grammatical explanations, to Dr. Martin Delhey, Dr. Kengo Harimoto and Dr. Koichi Takahashi for reading my draft and making many valuable suggestions, and to Prof. Robert Kritzer and Philip Pierce for their English proofreading.
- The title of the work is not ascertainable from the colophon: sūtrālaṃkāraḥ samāptaḥ II II kṛtiḥ paṇḍitavairocanarakṣitapādānaṃ II II. Other possible Sanskrit titles are Sūtrālaṃkāravivṛti, Sūtrālaṃkārakatipayapadavivṛti, or Sūtrālaṃkāraṭippaṇī.
- The title of the work is not ascertainable from the colophon: dharmadharmatāvibhā[gaḥ]. The two illegible akṣaras after °vibhā in the bottom margin are probably gaḥ. Cf. the colophon to the *Sūtrālaṃkāravivṛti. One might expect something like Dharmadharmatāvibhāgavivṛti, Dharmadharmatāvibhāgakatipayapadavivṛti (as suggested by Gokhale 1978: 638), or Dharmadharmatāvibhāgaṭippaṇī. In Kano 2005: 142, I referred to this work under the title “Dharmadharmatāvibhā[gaṭīkā],” supplying the three akṣaras enclosed by square brackets. However, in view of its scope, it can hardly be a ṭīkā, a type of commentary typically more extensive in nature.
- For his edition, see Nakamura 1985. For studies of this text, see Nakamura 1980, 1982, 1992. Unfortunately, Nakamura’s edition contains many errors (around 190). It is remarkable that his edition shares some notable errors with Jagdishwar Pandey’s modern transcription preserved at Göttingen under the shelf-mark Xc14/90 (which contains a transcription of the full text of the Mahāyānottaratantraṭippaṇī); we can deduce that one of the two was made on the basis of the other. In my unpublished dissertation (Kano 2006b), I have critically edited the whole text of the Mahāyānottaratantraṭippaṇī and presented a list of corrections to Nakamura’s edition.
- See Mathes 1996: 37, 115-135.
- The text of folio 17r>sub>7–v6 of this work is edited in Kano 2006a: 92, n. 40.
Kano, Kazuo. "Two Short Glosses on Yogācāra Texts by Vairocanarakṣita: Viṃśikāṭīkāvivṛti and *Dharmadharmatāvibhāgavivṛti." In Part 1 of Sanskrit Texts from Giuseppe Tucci's Collection, edited by Francesco Sferra, 343–80. Manuscripta Buddhica 1. Rome: Istituto Italiano per l’Africa e l’Oriente (IsIAO), 2008.
Kano, Kazuo. "Two Short Glosses on Yogācāra Texts by Vairocanarakṣita: Viṃśikāṭīkāvivṛti and *Dharmadharmatāvibhāgavivṛti." In Part 1 of Sanskrit Texts from Giuseppe Tucci's Collection, edited by Francesco Sferra, 343–80. Manuscripta Buddhica 1. Rome: Istituto Italiano per l’Africa e l’Oriente (IsIAO), 2008.;Two Short Glosses on Yogācāra Texts by Vairocanarakṣita;Yogācāra;Textual study;tathāgatagarbha;Vairocanarakṣita;Kazuo Kano; 
What is Tathāgatagarbha: Buddha-Nature or Buddha Within?
This is a special issue of Acta Asiatica devoted to the topic of tathāgatagarbha. It contains articles by Akira Saitō, Kazuo Kano, Michael Zimmermann, Christopher V. Jones, and Masahiro Shimoda.
Saitō, Akira, ed. "What is Tathāgatagarbha: Buddha-Nature or Buddha Within?" Special Issue, Acta Asiatica 118 (2020).
Saitō, Akira, ed. "What is Tathāgatagarbha: Buddha-Nature or Buddha Within?" Special Issue, Acta Asiatica 118 (2020).;What is Tathāgatagarbha: Buddha-Nature or Buddha Within?;tathāgatagarbha;What is Tathāgatagarbha: Buddha-Nature or Buddha Within?
Mentioned in
Christopher V. Jones at the 2019 Tathāgatagarbha Symposium
Christopher Jones discusses the development of the concept of buddha-nature in the first five hundred years of the Common Era. He postulates that the most likely trajectory of buddha-nature thought in India entailed a reimagining of the expression tathāgatagarbha away from its contentious "ātmavādin" origins.
Jones, Christopher V. "Selfhood, Secrecy, Singularity: Reassessing the Early Life of the Tathāgatagarbha in India." Paper presented at the University of Vienna Symposium, Tathāgatagarbha Across Asia, Vienna, Austria, July 2019. Video, 45:01. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARzGpIOwFYc.
Jones, Christopher V. "Selfhood, Secrecy, Singularity: Reassessing the Early Life of the Tathāgatagarbha in India." Paper presented at the University of Vienna Symposium, Tathāgatagarbha Across Asia, Vienna, Austria, July 2019. Video, 45:01. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARzGpIOwFYc.;Christopher V. Jones at the 2019 Tathāgatagarbha Symposium;History of buddha-nature in India;The doctrine of buddha-nature in Early Buddhism;Takasaki, J.;Radich, M.;The doctrine of buddha-nature in Indian Buddhism;Buddha-nature as Self - Atman;tathāgatagarbha;Tathāgatagarbhasūtra;buddhadhātu;dharmakāya;Anūnatvāpūrṇatvanirdeśaparivarta;Śrīmālādevīsūtra;Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra;Aṅgulimālīyasūtra;Mahābherīsūtra;Ratnagotravibhāga Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra;Ratnagotravibhāgavyākhyā;Laṅkāvatārasūtra;ātman;ekayāna;Terminology;Christopher V. Jones; Selfhood, Secrecy, Singularity: Reassessing the Early Life of the Tathāgatagarbha in India
Affiliations & relations
- Komazawa University · workplace affiliation
