Property:Scholarlynotes
From Buddha-Nature
This is a property of type Text.
The ''Anūnatvāpūrṇatvanirdeśaparivarta'' (Scripture on the Absence of Increase or Decrease [in the Extent of the Sphere of Beings]) is preserved only in a single Chinese version, the ''Bu zeng bu jian jing'' (不增不減經; T. 668), translated by Bodhiruci (菩提流支; ?–527 ce), though portions are cited in the ''Ratnagotravibhāga'', showing that the text was already in existence by circa 400 ce. The ''Anūnatvāpūrṇatvanirdeśaparivarta'' is also cited in the ''*Mahāyānadharmadhātunirviśeṣa'' (see below), the date of which is unknown. The relative chronological relation among the ''Anūnatvāpūrṇatvanirdeśaparivarta'', the ''Tathāgatagarbhasūtra'', and the ''Śrīmālādevīsiṃhanādasūtra'' remains unclear. (For an annotated English translation, see Silk, 2014; important studies are Takasaki, 1965; 1974, 69–96; see also Srisetthaworakul, 2010; Tsai, 2004; Wakiya, 2005; Watanabe, 1984.)<br> The ''Anūnatvāpūrṇatvanirdeśaparivarta'' may be divided into two main parts, with the second, the main body of the text, giving the impression of being quite shastric – doctrinally complex and even somewhat abstruse. The first part of the text discusses a range of “false views” (''dṛṣṭi''), which are, however, difficult to identify or interpret with precision. These false views are, in various ways, said to prevent insight into the correct nature of truth and reality, the topic of the second part.<br> In accordance with the title of the text, the main burden of the correct view presented in the second part is that there is “neither decrease nor increase” in the “realm (or domain, or element) of (sentient) beings” (''sattvadhātu''; T. 668 [XVI] 467a2–7), which means that the overall number of sentient beings does not increase or decrease, despite all the vicissitudes of transmigration, and despite the fact that some beings may attain liberation or buddhahood. This is because there is in fact only one realm or element ''(*ekadhātu)'', which is identical in both the deluded realm of ordinary sentient beings in saṃsāra and in the liberated state of the buddhas. This leads to a series of other equivalences: ''sattvadhātu'' is ''paramārtha'' (ultimate truth); ''sattvadhātu'' is ''tathāgatagarbha''; ''tathāgatagarbha'' is ''dharmakāya'' (the transcendent body); ''sattvadhātu'' is ''dharmakāya''. This bivalent single essence that runs through all things and states of being, both suffering and liberated, is also aligned with the notion of the “originally pure mind” ''(*prakṛtipariśuddhacitta, *prakṛtiprabhāsvara)''. It is also said to be precisely the ''dharmakāya'' that, “carried by the flood of saṃsāra,” comes and goes through the rounds of birth and death; the feature that distinguishes this state of the ''dharmakāya'' from its fully realized state in the buddhas is that it is “hidden within a sheath of countless defilements.”<br><br> (Source: Radich, Michael. "Tathāgatagarbha Scriptures." In Vol. 1, ''Brill's Encyclopedia of Buddhism: Literature and Languages'', edited by Jonathan A. Silk, Oskar von Hinüber, and Vincent Eltschinger, 262. Leiden: Brill, 2015.)
The (Mahāyāna) ''Mahāparinirvāṇamahāsūtra'' (The Great Scripture of the Great, Perfect Nirvāṇa) must be distinguished from the almost identically entitled “mainstream” ''Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra'' (Pal. ''Mahāparinibbānasutta''). Study of Sanskrit fragments shows that the correct title of the text is ''Mahāparinirvāṇamahāsūtra'' (Habata, 2007, xliii–xliv), although it is obvious that the authors of this text were fully aware of the earlier scripture of (almost) the same title and purposely referred to it.<br>The ''Mahāparinirvāṇamahāsūtra'' survives in four main independent versions:
:1. 35 identified Central Asian Sanskrit fragments (Habata, 2007, xxvi, xxxi);
:2. the ''Dabannihuan jing'' (大般泥洹經; T. 376), translated circa 416–418 ce by Buddhabhadra and Faxian (法顯; 320?–420? ce);
:3. the ''Dabanniepan jing'' (大般涅槃經; T. 374), translated circa 421–432 ce by *Dharmakṣema (曇無讖; 385–433 ce); and
:4. the ''Yongs su mya ngan las 'das pa chen po'i theg pa chen po'i mdo'' (D 120/Q 788), translated by Jinamitra, Jñānagarbha, and Devacandra (9th cent. ce).<br>
Dharmakṣema’s version of the ''Mahāparinirvāṇamahāsūtra'' is four times as long as all the other independent versions. Two additional versions are based in turn on Dharmakṣema’s ''Dabanniepan jing''. The ''Dabanniepan jing'' (大般涅槃經 T. 375), by Zhiyan 慧嚴 et al., is not an independent translation at all but a revision of Dharmakṣema’s text. D 119/Q 787 is a Tibetan translation from Dharmakṣema’s Chinese version.<br> H. Habata (2007) has collected, edited, and studied the Sanskrit fragments, and critically edited the Tibetan translation (2013); a second volume of Sanskrit fragments is forthcoming. The first English translation by K. Yamamoto (1973–1975) – rough, sometimes incomprehensible, and often inaccurate – is presented as a translation of Dharmakṣema’s text (T. 374), but it was actually produced from Shimaji’s Kokuyaku issaikyō translation of T. 375, itself a mere recasting of the Chinese text in Japanese grammatical order (see Yuyama, 1981, 14). Shimoda Masahiro (1993) has published a Japanese translation of the first three chapters of the Tibetan text. M. Blum (2013) has published the first volume of a planned four-volume translation of Dharmakṣema’s ''Dabanniepan jing'' (T. 374). S. Hodge is preparing an English translation based on all four independent versions, while M. Radich (2015) has prepared a monograph on the relative dating of the ''Mahāparinirvāṇamahāsūtra''
and aspects of its ''tathāgatagarbha'' doctrine.<br> The most significant study of the ''Mahāparinirvāṇamahāsūtra'' to date is by Shimoda (1997). Other significant scholarship includes works by Mochizuki Ryōkō (1988) and Qu Dacheng (1994). S. Karashima (2007) studied the key term ''icchantika''. The main English-language studies are by M.-W. Liu (1982; 1984), Takasaki Jikidō (1971), and S. Hodge (2010; 2012). The history of interpretation of this text in China and East Asia generally is a vital and crucial chapter in the history of East Asian Buddhism, which requires its own treatment. Numerous commentaries were written and debates conducted about this scripture; particularly important in this
regard is the ''Dabanniepan jing ji jie'' (大般涅槃經集 解; T. 1763), compiled in 509 ce by Baoliang (寶亮; see also Fuse, 1942).<br> As in the latter parts of the mainstream
''Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra'', on which it is based, the mise-en-scène is the final hours of the Buddha’s (apparent) life, as a last chance to ask questions. A vast cosmic congregation assembles, bewailing the Buddha’s imminent death. After much competition for the honor, the Buddha deigns to accept the offering of the smith Cunda as his final meal. Against the mainstream text, the disciple Ānanda is depicted as entirely absent (he only reappears at the very end of the text, and then only in Dharmakṣema’s version), and against his traditional role as the best keeper of the Buddha’s teaching, the text stresses that Ānanda is in fact unworthy to be entrusted with safeguarding the dharma. Instead, the dharma is entrusted to the bodhisattva Mahākāśyapa. Remarkably, the ''Mahāparinirvāṇamahāsūtra'' (with the exception of the Dharmakṣema version) ends with the Buddha lying down upon his right side in the “lion’s pose” as if to die, but stops short of his actual ''parinirvāṇa'', his cremation, the division of relics, and so forth.<br> The central claim of the first part of the text is that the Buddha’s impending ''parinirvāṇa'' is only a docetic show. In fact, in this text, his life is inordinately long, and his body (termed both ''dharmakāya'' and ''abhedavajrakāya'' [indivisible adamantine body]) is indestructible and made of adamant (Radich, 2011a). The second part of the text (excluding portions unique to the version of Dharmakṣema), which probably belongs to a different stratum of compositional history (Shimoda, 1997), concerns itself with a somewhat miscellaneous sequence of topics, including the following:<br>
* the docetic reinterpretation of the worldly existence of the Buddha, both before his attainment of buddhahood (when he is a bodhisattva) and after;
* a secret teaching centering on ''tathāgatagarbha'';
* creative reinterpretations of liberation and the four fruits of the monastic vocation (''śrotāpanna'' [stream enterer], ''sakṛdāgāmin'' [once-returner], ''anāgāmin'' [nonreturner], and ''arhat'');
* how best to observe the monastic rule (''vinaya'');
* doctrines of the end-times of the dharma (times in which the true dharma will fade from the world, attended by various calamities; Nattier, 1991), false monks, and false teachings;
* the “four inversions,” by which – in contrast to classical Buddhist doctrine, which denies the possibility of such things – the Tathāgata is permanent (''nitya''), blissful (''sukha''), (true) self (''ātman''), and pure (''śuddha''; comp. the ''Śrīmālādevīsiṃhanādasūtra'');
* the magical virtues of Sanskrit letters; and
* various parables about the realization of ''tathāgatagarbha''/buddha nature and the docetic ''parinirvāṇa''.<br>
In the ''Mahāparinirvāṇamahāsūtra'', ''tathāgatagarbha'' is also frequently referred to as “buddha nature” (this is by now the standard English translation of Chinese ''foxing'' [佛性]). Shimoda Masahiro (1997) contends that the use of this synonym for ''tathāgatagarbha'' buttresses efforts to supersede worship of physical Buddha relics (''buddhadhātu'') by the realization of an element of buddhahood within the sentient being. The Sanskrit underlying Chinese ''foxing'' (i.e. Tib. ''sangs rgyas gyi khams'') is thought also to be ''*buddhadhātu'', exploiting an alternate sense of ''dhātu'' to mean “element” or “raw material.” Thus, by a play on the word ''dhātu'', the focus of cultic activity is shifted from the remnant of past, physical buddhahood in the external world (''dhātu'' [relic]) to a nascent, future buddhahood within the sentient being itself (''dhātu'' [element, raw material]). This hypothesis is among several that have displaced A. Hirakawa’s (1963) hypothesis that the Mahāyāna began as a lay movement centered on the worship of Buddha relics in stūpas (see also Sasaki, 1999) and constitutes an attempt to provide a more accurate account of the relation between nascent Mahāyāna movements and the cult of the Buddha’s relics.<br> The ''Mahāparinirvāṇamahāsūtra'' (again, excepting extra parts found in the Dharmakṣema translation) can be divided into two main chronological strata. The earliest layer reflects the practices and ideas of itinerant dharma preachers, who were semimonastic and engaged in frequent pilgrimages to stūpas through dangerous regions, accompanied by laypeople who did not observe the traditional five precepts and armed themselves to protect the preacher. In Shimoda Masahiro’s view, this layer is apparently opposed to relic worship and proposes that the Buddha’s dharmakāya is adamantine (''vajrakāya''; see Radich, 2011a); it also propounds the eternity of the Buddha, the docetic view of the ''parinirvāṇa'', and the aforementioned four inversions (eternity, bliss, self, and purity); it separately propounds the idea that the Tathāgata is “self ” (''ātman'').<br> Only in the second layer does the term bodhisattva come to be used for proponents of the ''Mahāparinirvāṇamahāsūtra''. Moreover, with few exceptions, ''tathāgatagarbha'' doctrine is only introduced in this second layer, which also propounds the idea that the true teachings are secret, types of ''samādhi'' (meditative states), docetism (''lokānuvartanā''; “conformity with the world”), the three jewels (the Buddha, the dharma, and the saṅgha, taken as “refuges”), and criticism of ''śrāvakas'' (adherents of “mainstream,” non-Mahāyāna doctrine); mentions ''sūtras'' as written books (as opposed to oral teachings); and teaches about ''icchantikas'', beings who are forever unable to attain buddhahood. Shimoda Masahiro also sees here a renewed rigor in monastic discipline, corresponding to a shift to sedentary cenobiticism, linked to a new concern for the purity of the saṅgha, and vehement criticism of corrupt monks. The later very important and influential ban on eating meat also appears here.<br> As mentioned earlier, Dharmakṣema’s version of the ''Mahāparinirvāṇamahāsūtra'' is much longer than the other independent versions. Yijing (義淨; 635–713 ce) searched in India and Southeast Asia for Sanskrit texts corresponding to this large unique portion, without success (T. 2066 [LI] 4a8–12). Modern scholarship has paid surprisingly little attention to the question of the origin of the remaining unique three quarters of Dharmakṣema’s text (but see Chen, 2004; Hodge, 2010; 2012). However, it is clear that authors of parts of it must have known Indic texts otherwise unknown in China (Radich, 2011b, 49–50, 160–163; Granoff, 2012). These unique portions of Dharmakṣema’s text played a key role in the massive impact of the ''Mahāparinirvāṇamahāsūtra'' on Chinese Buddhism, including the controversy surrounding the ''icchantika'' doctrine, in which the important cleric Daosheng (道生; 355–434 ce) played a celebrated role.<br><br>(Source: Radich, Michael. "[[Tathāgatagarbha Scriptures]]." In Vol. 1, ''Brill's Encyclopedia of Buddhism: Literature and Languages'', edited by Jonathan A. Silk, Oskar von Hinüber, and Vincent Eltschinger, 264-66. Leiden: Brill, 2015.)
The ''Mahāmeghasūtra'' (Scripture on the Great Cloud) is extant in two versions:<br>
:1. the ''Dafangdeng wuxiang jing'' (大方等無想 經; T. 387; *Mahāvaipulyāsaṃjñikasūtra in the Korean; but ''Dafangdeng dayun jing'' [大方等大雲 經] = ''*Mahāvaipulyamahāmeghasūtra'' in the Song, Yuan, Ming, and “Palace” editions), translated circa 421–433 ce by Dharmakṣema; and
:2. the ''Sprin chen po'' (D 232/Q 898), translated by Jinamitra, Śīlendrabodhi, and Ye shes sde (9th cent. ce).<br>
Although the text has apparently otherwise been lost in its original form, a Sanskrit passage has been preserved as an interpolation into the ''Suvarṇabhāsottama'' (Suzuki, 1996), itself extant in Sanskrit.<br> No full translation of the ''Mahāmeghasūtra'' exists in a Western language, but a detailed English summary is given by A. Forte (1976, app. A). Western scholarship has mainly focused on a peculiar prophecy contained in the text (see below), which was used by the Chinese Empress Wu Zetian (武則天; r. 690–705 ce) to legitimate the rule of her Zhou (周) dynasty (Chavannes, 1902, 235–236; Demiéville, 1924, 218–230; Tucci, 1930, 217; Forte, 1976). Apart from Takasaki Jikidō (1974, 276–301), the most important studies are by Suzuki Takayasu (1996b; 1998a; 1998b; 1998c; 1999a; 2001; 2003a; 2003b).<br> The title reflects a conceit of the dharma as rain from the cloud of a Tathāgatagarbha ''sūtra'', in the drought of the end-times (comp. also the ''Mahāparinirvāṇamahāsūtra'' and ''Mahābherīhārakasūtra''). In both versions, the structure of the ''Mahāmeghasūtra'' is odd: of the 37 chapters, only chapters 1, 2, 36, and 37 are fully elaborated. Chapters 3 to 35, by contrast, seem merely to be skeletal outlines of topics. The following summary focuses on chapters 1, 2, 36, and 37.<br> In keeping with Mahāyāna convention, the frame narrative describes a vast congregation assembled to listen to the Buddha’s sermon, and various wonders performed by the Buddha, or occurring spontaneously, to mark the occasion. The bodhisattva *Mahāmeghagarbha (大雲密藏) asks the Buddha a hundred questions. The Buddha responds by teaching on themes already encountered above – the docetic ''parinirvāṇa'', the four inversions, the fact that sentient beings are in truth not distinct from ''dharmadhātu'' (the realm/element of the dharma; comp. the ''Anūnatvāpūrṇatvanirdeśaparivarta'' teaching of ''ekadhātu'' [the one realm/element]), the inferior merits of ''śrāvakas'' and pratyekabuddhas, and ''tathāgatagarbha''/buddha nature. Chapter 2 is largely taken up with four hundred samādhis, which secure for the practitioner a long list of benefits.<br> Chapter 36 picks out a couple of ''samādhis'' for special discussion. In answer to the Brahman Shande (善德; later identified with the Indian emperor Aśoka), the Buddha explains that the Buddha’scousin and “rival” Devadatta was not as evil as he appeared. Rather, he was a ''mahāpuruṣa'' (great being), acting as part of the Buddha’s salvific plan. A person called *Sarvasattvapriyadarśana (一切眾生樂見) then begins speaking in the Buddha’s stead. Shande declares the doctrines of the ''Mahāmeghasūtra'' to be beyond him; instead, he says, he would like to venerate a relic of the Buddha. *Sarvasattvapriyadarśana proclaims a series of verses declaring that there is in fact no such thing as a Buddha relic (echoing similar ideas in the ''Suvarṇabhāsottama''). A goddess (*devī) called *Vimalaprabhā (淨光) asks the Buddha how Shande and *Sarvasattvapriyadarśana can have such insight. The Buddha explains that in a past life, they had a similar exchange, in the presence of a buddha who also preached the ''Mahāmeghasūtra''. He also explains that in a future life, Shande will be Aśoka. The devī *Vimalaprabhā, moreover, was the queen in the past narrative, and will reign in the future over a kingdom of her own as a kind of “one-quarter cakravartin.” The Buddha also gives another prophecy of an end-times scenario in which the ''Mahāmeghasūtra'' will circulate. The chapter closes with another iteration of the docetic ''parinirvāṇa''.<br> Chapter 37 returns to the end-times prophecy. During the end-times, another person who also goes by the name of *Sarvasattvapriyadarśana (一切眾生樂見) will be the guardian of the true dharma. The chapter expounds at length the virtues of one specific ''samādhi'' – that is, the ability of bodhisattvas to manifest themselves in many different apparent bodies to save sentient beings. This exposition is interwoven with a reprise of the eternity of the ''dharmakāya'' and the docetic ''parinirvāṇa''. *Vimalaprabhā again comes to the fore, and bests *Mahāmeghagarbha in her grasp of doctrine. The Buddha then prophesies an illustrious future for her. *Mahāmeghagarbha foolishly assumes that this future must involve changing into a male, as traditional Buddhist doctrine all but universally asserts, but the Buddha scolds *Mahāmeghagarbha for making this assumption; in fact, he reveals, *Vimalaprabhā deliberately assumes the body of a woman through countless aeons for the sake of sentient beings (although the female body that she assumes is apparently not real but merely a body of skillful means [''*upāyakāya''; 方便之身]). A further very detailed prophecy expands on the promise of the previous chapter that the devī will become a powerful queen – this being the prophecy so useful to Wu Zetian. This queen will be a powerful sponsor of the cult of Buddha relics in stūpas (seemingly contradicting the earlier denigration and docetic denial of relics). Many lifetimes later, the ''devī'' will preside over her own buddha world. This theme of spiritually powerful women prophesied to buddhahood echoes the ''Śrīmālādevīsiṃhanādasūtra''.<br> The exposition of ''tathāgatagarbha'' doctrine in the ''Mahāmeghasūtra'' echoes that of the ''Mahāparinirvāṇamahāsūtra'' (especially the hypothesized second layer, mentioned above). It preaches the theme of secret teachings, the idea that ''tathāgatagarbha''/buddha nature is to be “seen,” and the fact that sentient beings have ''tathāgatagarbha'' within them like a separate entity. The ''Mahāmeghasūtra'' is also concerned with docetism, and, indeed, one of its ''samādhis'' converts the notion of conformity to the [expectations of the] world (''lokānuvartanā'') into a practice of meditation on the production of the docetic appearance of all the typical acts of a buddha (dwelling in Tuṣita heaven, conception and birth attended by a set of stock miracles, etc.). The ''Mahāmeghasūtra'' also preaches a docetic ''parinirvāṇa''; and it discusses the danger that people will accuse its proponents of peddling fake teachings (''buddhavacana''). Both texts teach the four inversions, the ban on meat eating, and the ''dharmakāya/vajrakāya''. Suzuki Takayasu (1998b; 2001) has proposed that Shimoda Masahiro’s second layer in the ''Mahāparinirvāṇamahāsūtra'' bears the mark of recomposition under the influence of the ''Mahāmeghasūtra''.<br><br>(Source: Radich, Michael. "Tathāgatagarbha Scriptures." In Vol. 1, ''Brill's Encyclopedia of Buddhism: Literature and Languages'', edited by Jonathan A. Silk, Oskar von Hinüber, and Vincent Eltschinger, 266-67. Leiden: Brill, 2015.)
Rongtön composed exegetical treatises on all five Maitreya texts and, as mentioned above, was particularly renowned for his explanations of the ''Abhisamayālamkāra'', on which he is reported to have authored seven commentaries.1 His commentary on the ''Ratnagotravibhāga'' was composed at Sangphu (the date of composition is not given in the colophon).2 In his exposition, he follows Loden Sherab's analytical tradition of bringing the teachings on buddha-nature in line with the Madhyamaka doctrine of emptiness. Another important feature of his commentary, as I will try to show below, is his use of Asaṅga's ''vyākhyā'' that he follows verbatim in many places. However, he consistently reinterprets and to greater extent omits all passages and quotations that favour a ''zhentong'' interpretation of buddha-nature. This comes without surprise considering his education at the monastery of Sangphu Ne'u Thog, the famous learning centre established in 1073 by Ngog Legpe Sherab (a student of Atīśa and Loden Sherab's paternal uncle). On the other hand, it would have been at odds with the exegetical tradition of the meditation school of Karma Könchog Zhönnu, who taught him the treatises attributed to Maitreya.3 As stated above, the analytical school of Ngog followed by Rongtön and the meditative school of Tsen both go back to Sajjana and are thus complementary according to Shākya Chokden.4 However, the differences in those two approaches added to doctrinal controversies already prevalent during Rongtön's time. This eventually led to the ''rangtong'' versus ''zhentong'' debate. - [[Bernert, C.]] ''[[Perfect or Perfected? Rongtön on Buddha-Nature]]'', pp. 24-25.<br><br>
<big>'''Notes'''</big>
# Cf. Jackson 1988, V.
# Kano (2006, 218) notes that Rongtön probably composed this commentary in the 1380s, around the time he was engaged in the study of Ngog's tradition.
# Unfortunately no commentary by this master is available today. Mathes notes, however, that his RGV commentary has been supplemented by the notes of Karma Trinlepa (1456-1539), inserted as corrections in the text. This text—also unavailable—is mentioned next to Zhönnu Pel's RGV commentary in Kongtrul's presentation of the meditative school of Tsen. From this, Mathes concludes that looking at Zhönnu Pel's commentary would help understand this tradition since no written commentary has surfaced so far. Cf. Mathes 2008, 33.
# Cf. van der Kuijp 1983,43.
The ''Śrīmālādevīsiṃhanādasūtra'' (Scripture on the Lion’s Roar of Queen Śrīmālā) survives in two Chinese versions: the ''Shengman shizihou yisheng dafangbian fangguang jing'' (勝鬘師子吼一乘大 方便方廣經; T. 353), translated by Guṇabhadra (求那跋陀羅; 394–468 ce), the ''Shengman furen hui'' (勝鬘夫人會) in the ''Ratnakūṭa'' (大寶積經; T. 310[48]), translated by Bodhiruci (菩提流志; ?–727 ce), and in a Tibetan version, the ''Lha mo dpal phreng gi seng ge’i sgra'' (D 92/Q 760[48]), translated by Jinamitra, Surendrabodhi, and Ye shes sde (9th cent.). The ''Śrīmālādevīsiṃhanādasūtra'' is cited in Sanskrit in the ''Ratnagotravibhāga'' (see Ogawa, 2001), and the Schøyen collection includes Sanskrit manuscript fragments of the text dating to the 5th century ce (Matsuda, 2000; Sander, 2000, 293). <br> Tsukinowa Kenryū (1940) published an edition of both Chinese versions and the Tibetan translation (with Japanese translation, not containing the Sanskrit materials, which were unknown in his day). English translations are found in A. and H. Wayman (1974), G.C.C. Chang (1983, 363–383), and D. Paul (2004). Key studies are those by Kagawa Takao (1957), Watanabe Shōkō (1968), Tsurumi Ryōdō (1974), Takasaki Jikidō (1974, 97–126), and Matsumoto Shirō (1983). Takasaki Jikidō places the ''Śrīmālādevīsiṃhanādasūtra'' after the ''Tathāgatagarbhasūtra'' and the ''Anūnatvāpūrṇatvanirdeśaparivarta.''<br> In the frame narrative of the ''Śrīmālādevīsiṃhanādasūtra'', young Queen Śrīmālā receives a miraculous visitation from the Buddha, who prophesies that she will attain unexcelled perfect awakening (''anuttarasaṃyaksaṃbodhi'') and preside over her own Buddha land (a perfect heavenlike world created by the power of a Buddha to provide a perfect environment for sentient beings to attain liberation). Śrīmālā makes ten vows to practice various perfections. On the basis of those vows she performs an act of truth, in which the very truth of her words causes physical manifestations in the visible world, and this causes several miracles (flowers from the sky, heavenly sounds, etc.). Śrīmālā expresses three times the aspiration to teach the dharma in numerous lifetimes. The Buddha bestows on her the eloquence to teach, and she preaches the ''Śrīmālādevīsiṃhanādasūtra''. The Buddha approves and levitates back to Śrāvastī (present-day Saheth-Maheth). Śrīmālā returns to Ayodhyā and converts the entire populace.<br> The doctrinal burden of the ''Śrīmālādevīsiṃhanādasūtra'' centers on several main themes. Accepting and safeguarding the true doctrine (''saddharma''; typically the doctrine of the ''Śrīmālādevīsiṃhanādasūtra'' itself, but also that of the Mahāyāna) are of unsurpassed benefit and identical to the six perfections, and all alike aim to promote acceptance of the doctrine of this text by sentient beings. One should renounce even the “body” (life and limb) for the sake of promoting the text, and as a result attain the ''dharmakāya'' of the Buddha (comp. the ''Aṅgulimālīyasūtra'' below). The achievements of the arhat and the pratyekabuddha of the “Hīnayāna” are paltry in comparison to those of the Mahāyāna, and the text subsumes those other vehicles into the Mahāyāna (it advocates ''ekayāna'', “one vehicle”). Among other things, Mahāyāna is distinguished by the type of nirvāṇa particular to it, which is a docetic illusion for the benefit of sentient beings as ''upāya'' (a skillful expedient used by the Buddha to edify sentient beings) and an “inconceivable metamorphosis” (''*acintyapariṇāmikī'' [''cyuti'']; T. 353 [XII] 219c20–220a2).<br> Like the ''Anūnatvāpūrṇatvanirdeśaparivarta'', the ''Śrīmālādevīsiṃhanādasūtra'' contains an idiosyncratic, technical, shastric doctrinal exposition. The two types of nirvāṇa and death differ because of a subtle level of defilement. Arhats and pratyekabuddhas overcome only ''*paryutthānakleśa'' (active defilements; see Tsukinowa, 1940, 85 n1) but not the deeper ''āvāsakleśas'' (defilements as habitation; ''zhudifannao'' [住地煩惱]), which produce all active defilements. The most fundamental type of defilement is ''avidyāvāsabhūmi'' (ignorance as the [fundamental] ground of habitation), which exists from time immemorial and is dissociated from thought ''(*cittaviprayukta)''. Only the tathāgatas can destroy this defilement. Because of this, arhats, pratyekabuddhas, and “bodhisattvas who have attained mastery” engender three kinds of “body made of mind” and do not entirely escape saṃsāra; thus, true liberation is possible only for full-fledged tathāgatas and more generally, for adherents of the Mahāyāna.<br> The ''tathāgatagarbha'' doctrine is the domain of the tathāgatas alone; for common people, it is an object of faith. It is the equivalent of the ''dharmakāya'', but whereas ''tathāgatagarbha'' is enclosed in the defilements, ''dharmakāya'' is free of them. The ''dharmakāya'' is originally pure (''prakṛtipariśuddha''), unconditioned (''asaṃskṛta''), unborn (''ajāta''), unarisen (''anutpanna''), eternal (''nitya''), changeless (''dhruva''), and permanent (''śāśvata''), and it is characterized by eternity, bliss, (true) self, and purity (''nitya, sukha, ātman,'' and ''śuddha''). The mind is also intrinsically pure ''(*prakṛtipariśuddhacitta, *prakṛtiprabhāsvaracitta)'' but obscured by adventitious defilements (''āgantukakleśa''). <br><br>(Source: Radich, Michael. "Tathāgatagarbha Scriptures." In Vol. 1, ''Brill's Encyclopedia of Buddhism: Literature and Languages'', edited by Jonathan A. Silk, Oskar von Hinüber, and Vincent Eltschinger, 263. Leiden: Brill, 2015.))
The ''Tathāgatagarbhasūtra'' (Scripture on the Embryo of the Tathāgatas) is a relatively short text, extant in four versions – two Chinese and two Tibetan:<br>
:1. the ''Dafangdeng rulaizang jing'' (大方等如來藏 經; T. 666), ascribed to Buddhabhadra (佛陀跋 陀羅; 359–429 ce);
:2. the ''Dafangguang rulaizang jing'' (大方廣如來 藏經; T. 667), ascribed to Amoghavajra (不空; 705–774 ce);
:3. the ''De bzhin gshegs pa’i snying po’i mdo'' (D 258/Q 924); and
:4. a second Tibetan translation'', ’Phags pa de bzhin gshegs pa’i snying po zhes bya ba theg pa chen po’i mdo'', known so far only from the Bathang Kanjur kept in the Newark Museum (Zimmermann, 2002).<br>
Two other Chinese translations that may have existed are no longer extant (Zimmermann, 2002, 69–75). Portions of the ''Tathāgatagarbhasūtra'' are cited in the above-mentioned ''Ratnagotravibhāg'', the only known Sanskrit text to preserve such citations, and several key formulations in the ''Ratnagotravibhāga'' clearly derive from the ''Tathāgatagarbhasūtra''. In particular, the nine similes at the core of the ''Tathāgatagarbhasūtra'' comprise the skeleton of portions of both the ''Ratnagotravibhāga'' and its commentary, the ''Ratnagotravibhāgavyākhyā'' (see below). <br> The ''Tathāgatagarbhasūtra'' has been translated into English, with extensive annotations, by M. Zimmermann (2002) and earlier (from Chinese) by W. Grosnick (1995). Important studies include those by Takasaki Jikidō (1974, 40–68), Matsumoto Shirō (1994, 411–543), and Nakamura Zuiryū (1963).<br> The ''Tathāgatagarbhasūtra'' has long been regarded as the first scripture to propound the ''tathāgatagarbha'' doctrine. However, it is striking
that the actual term “tathāgatagarbha” is not central to the text but rather appears only in introductory sections, which M. Zimmermann argues were later additions (2002, 29–32, 39–40). Instead (or in addition), the ''Tathāgatagarbhasūtra'' refers to the hidden potential for buddhahood by means of a wide variety of terms, most prominent among which are ''*tathāgatatva, *buddhatva, *tathāgatakāya'' (and other terms denoting special Buddha bodies, in contrast to the ordinary bodies borne by unawakened sentient beings), and terms denoting types of ''jñāna'' (Zimmermann, 2002, 50–62).<br> The ''Tathāgatagarbhasūtra'' opens in Rājagṛha (present-day Rajgir) and describes a miraculous display by the Buddha of a myriad tathāgatas seated in the calyx of each of a copious array of gigantic lotuses floating in the sky, which then blacken and rot away. The body of the scripture follows, giving nine similes for the hidden potential of sentient beings to attain liberation. According to the similes, this hidden potential resembles the following:
:1. brightly shining tathāgatas sitting inside withered, rotting lotus flowers;
:2. honey inside a hive fiercely guarded by bees;
:3. the kernel of a cereal grain, encased in the husk;
:4. a gold nugget in a pile of excrement;
:5. a hidden treasure buried beneath the house of a poor person;
:6. the sprout inside a seed;
:7. a statuary image of a tathāgata wrapped in rotten rags and dropped by the wayside in a dangerous wasteland;
:8. the embryo of a ''cakravartin'' (universal monarch) carried in the womb of an unsuspecting and destitute mother; and
:9. golden figures within the grubby clay molds that are used to cast them, before the mold is broken.<br>
The sūtra closes by describing the merit that accrues to one who propagates the text and deprecates the comparative value of the veneration of the buddhas. As an illustration of the power of the text, there follows a story of a past buddha, Sadāpramutkaraśmi, who always emitted a great and wondrous light from his body; he preached the ''Tathāgatagarbhasūtra'' at the request of the bodhisattva *Anantaraśmi, and countless bodhisattvas attained supreme and perfect awakening as a result. The Buddha’s disciple Ānanda then asks from how many buddhas one must hear the ''Tathāgatagarbhasūtra'', in order to become perfected (''niryāta'') and is told that it varies from a hundred buddhas to a myriad. Brief sections then praise one who holds the ''Tathāgatagarbhasūtra'' in his or her hands, and onlookers delight and rejoice.<br><br>(Source: Radich, Michael. "Tathāgatagarbha Scriptures." In Vol. 1, ''Brill's Encyclopedia of Buddhism: Literature and Languages'', edited by Jonathan A. Silk, Oskar von Hinüber, and Vincent Eltschinger, 261-62. Leiden: Brill, 2015.)
Not to be confused with the ''Brahmajāla sūtra/sutta'', the first of 34 suttas in the Dīgha Nikāya of the Pāli canon transmitted by the Theravāda tradition, the separate Dharmaguptaka recension appearing as the twenty-first sūtra in the Chinese translation of the Dīrghāgama, or the 梵網六十二見經 (fan wang liu shi er jian jing), the individual translation the Taisho edition attributes to Chih-ch'ien, numbered T21. For more on recensions of this sūtra, see [https://www.buddhismuskunde.uni-hamburg.de/pdf/5-personen/analayo/sixty-two-views.pdf The 'Sixty-two Views' – A Comparative Study] by Bhikkhu Anālayo. +
According to Karl Brunnhölzl, this work has been mistakenly attributed to Marpa Chökyi Lodrö, which is why it is erroneously included in his collected works. Alternatively, he suggests this work be attributed to Marpa Dopa Chökyi Wangchuk, or rather a student of this master that recorded his teachings on the ''Uttaratantra''. +
The ''*Mahābherīhārakasūtra'' (Scripture on the Beater of the Great Kettledrum) is extant in two versions:
# the ''Da fagu jing'' (大法鼓經; T. 270), translated by Guṇabhadra; and
# the ''Rnga bo che chen po’i le’u'' (D 222/Q 888), translated by Vidyākaraprabha, Dpal gyi lhun po, and Dpal brtsegs (9th cent. ce).<br>
Apart from Takasaki Jidikō (1974, 234–253), the main studies are by Suzuki Takayasu (1996a; 1997; 2000; 2002), who suggests that the ''*Mahābherīhārakasūtra'' is linked to the ''Aṅgulimālīyasūtra'' (see below), because of the reference to its preachers as ''*hitopadeṣṭṛ'' (Chn. ''anweishuozhe'' [安慰說者]; Tib. ''phan par ston pa'', “those who teach what is beneficial [for sentient beings]”). <br> King Prasenajit goes to hear the Buddha preaching the dharma, accompanied by a great fanfare of beating drums and blasting conches. In response, the Buddha “beats the great kettledrum of the dharma” (hence the title) and “blasts the great conch of the dharma” (T. 270 [IX] 290c15, 291c14–15). Later, we learn that Prasenajit smears his war drum with a magical ointment, and when the drum is beaten, poisoned arrows fall from his soldiers’ wounds; similarly, the ''*Mahābherīhārakasūtra'' has the power to extract the arrows of the so-called three poisons (i.e. lust, hatred, and delusion), the elements which, according to Buddhist doctrine, cause the entire wheel of transmigration to revolve and bind beings to saṃsāra.<br> The ''*Mahābherīhārakasūtra'' proposes that existence (''*bhava'') is at the root of all pleasure and pain (''*sukhaduḥkha''), so that nirvāṇa, which is freedom from the very conditions of existence, is the supreme bliss. This apparently simple teaching (which echoes the bliss of the four inversions) is not known to all tathāgatas, and bodhisattvas from other buddha worlds come to hear it taught by Śākyamuni. This teaching is thus a “secret dharma store of the tathāgatas,” a “concealed teaching” (T. 270 [IX] 291a13–14, 291a26–29). After the (apparent) ''parinirvāṇa'', this secret is to be entrusted to the bodhisattva Mahākāśyapa, whom the Buddha likens to King Prasenajit, beating his drums and sounding his conches, defeating enemies, and bringing peace.<br> However, toward the end of the text, it is dramatically revealed that various phantoms created by Māra, the embodiment of evil, are hidden among the congregation. A series of powerful disciples and bodhisattvas – including Mahākāśyapa – prove incapable of rooting them out. This sets the scene for *Sarvasattvapriyadarśana, despite histrionic protest that he is a mere layman, to best even Mahākāśyapa by unmasking and capturing Māra’s minions. The Buddha reveals that *Sarvasattvapriyadarśana only gives the appearance of being a common person (''pṛthagjana''). In fact, his true level of spiritual development is more advanced; in the end-times, he will be reborn as a monk “bearing the same name as myself ” (i.e. as the Buddha, who is speaking; T. 270 [IX] 299a17–18), the main proponent of the true teachings (of the ''Mahābherīhārakasūtra''); and in the very remote future, *Sarvasattvapriyadarśana will become a buddha.<br> The heart of the teaching of the ''*Mahābherīhārakasūtra'' is twofold. First, the Buddha is truly eternal and does not really enter parinirvāṇa. Second, all sentient beings have ''tathāgatagarbha''/buddha nature – clearly and explicitly identified with the self (''wo'' [我]; ''ātman''). The fact that sentient beings at first do not perceive this pure essence within themselves, but can nonetheless realize it with practice, is explained by the metaphor of gold tainted by impurities and then refined. The ''*Mahābherīhārakasūtra'' also uses other metaphors, later commonplace, like the moon obscured by clouds, or the eye obscured by cataracts, and speaks explicitly of the covering of the ''tathāgatagarbha''/buddha nature/''ātman'' by adventitious defilements (''*āgantukakleśa'').<br> The ''*Mahābherīhārakasūtra'' shares a number of themes with other texts in the ''Mahāparinirvāṇamahāsūtra'' group: the eternity of the Tathāgata; the docetic ''parinirvāṇa'' secret teachings; the identification of the Tathāgata with ''ātman''; deprecation of śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas; the identification of Mahākāśyapa as the true heritor of the dharma; and end-times prophecies. It speaks of “the great rain of the dharma” (e.g. T. 270, [IX] 299c9; comp. also the ''Mahāmeghasūtra''). The ''*Mahābherīhārakasūtra'' also includes a version of the parable, better known from the Lotus Sūtra, of the phantom city conjured up by a guide to encourage travelers to continue a long and arduous journey, used as a figure for the Buddha’s teaching of intermediate “vehicles” (''yāna'') as way stations on the path to the Mahāyāna as the “one” (true) vehicle.<br><br> (Source: Radich, Michael. "Tathāgatagarbha Scriptures." In Vol. 1, ''Brill's Encyclopedia of Buddhism: Literature and Languages'', edited by Jonathan A. Silk, Oskar von Hinüber, and Vincent Eltschinger, 267-68. Leiden: Brill, 2015.))
The ''Aṅgulimālīyasūtra'' (Scripture on Aṅgulimālīya) is extant in two versions:<br>
# the ''Yangjuemoluo jing'' (央掘魔羅經; T. 120), translated by Guṇabhadra; and
# the ''Sor mo’i phreng ba la phan pa'' (D 213/Q 879), translated by Śākyaprabha, Dharmatāśīla, and Tong Ācārya (9th cent.).<br>
The main studies on this text are by Takasaki Jikidō (1974, 191–233), Ogawa Ichijō (1999; 2001, 7–15), Kanō Kazuo (2006), Suzuki Takayasu (1999a; 1999b; 2000), and L. Schmithausen (2003). Suzuki Takayasu notes that the ''Aṅgulimālīyasūtra'', like the ''*Mahābherīhārakasūtra'', refers to its preachers as ''*hitopadeṣṭṛ'' (teachers for the benefit [of others]).<br> Like the ''Mahāparinirvāṇamahāsūtra'', the ''Aṅgulimālīyasūtra'' reworks a scenario from mainstream canonical scripture – this time, the conversion of the bandit and murderer Aṅgulimāl(īy)a (see Theragāthā vv. 866–891; Majjhimanikāya, 86). The ''Aṅgulimālīyasūtra'' thus betrays a concern with the power of the dharma to save even hopeless sinners, also seen in the ''Mahāparinirvāṇamahāsūtra'' (the portions found in the Dharmakṣema translation) on the salvation of Ajātaśatru (famed for killing his father, Bimbisāra, in order to usurp his throne), the ''Mahāmeghasūtra’s'' docetic reinterpretation of Devadatta, and ''icchantika'' doctrine.<br> Aṅgulimālīya is originally a Brahman youth named *Sarvalokapriyadarśana, connecting him to the central protagonist of the ''Mahāparinirvāṇamahāsūtra'' group. He is accused by the wife of his teacher of sexually molesting her, and the teacher convinces Aṅgulimālīya to expiate his guilt by killing a thousand people and making a trophy garland of their severed fingers (the source of his grisly soubriquet – Aṅgulimālīya [“Finger Garland”]). Having killed 999 people, Aṅgulimālīya prepares to kill his mother. The Buddha intervenes, and Aṅgulimālīya wants to kill him, too. Instead, the Buddha manages to convert him. Various deities and advanced disciples express their admiration at the conversion, and Aṅgulimālīya defeats each in battles of Buddhist wit (often versified) and mastery of the dharma. Aṅgulimālīya takes precepts and is ordained by the Buddha. When Prasenajit comes to arrest Aṅgulimālīya, the Buddha declares that he has already become a tathāgata in a distant Buddha world, and that the teacher, the teacher’s wife, Aṅgulimālīya’s mother, and Aṅgulimālīya’s murders were all merely expedient phantoms to teach sentient beings.<br> The ''Aṅgulimālīyasūtra'' is elaborately concerned with the Buddha’s body (or, more accurately, the various special bodies that buddhas have or appear to have). The Buddha dwells “at the limit of the unproduced” (''zhu wusheng ji'' [住無生際]; T. 120 [II] 533b6) in this ordinary world of ours (the Sahāloka), without really entering ''parinirvāṇa'', and simultaneously also dwells in other buddha worlds. This is possible because he “is born in an unborn body” (or “arises in an unproduced body”; ''sheng busheng shen'' [生不生身]; 533b15–16). All the tathāgatas in all quarters of the cosmos are in fact doppelgängers of Śākyamuni. The Buddha also has other types of extraordinary body (or his body is described using other extraordinary epithets): he is “born in a reality-limit body” (''sheng shiji shen'' [生實際身]; 533b7–9), and he dwells in a “limitless body” (or “countless bodies”; ''shenwubian'' [身無邊]; c1). This body is the ''dharmakāya'' – unconditioned; free of old age, sickness, death, and defilements; permanent and quiescent; and so on. The Buddha has attained this body, paradoxically, by giving up his (physical) body in countless incarnations. This lengthy exposition is linked in part to the prophecy complex common to the ''Mahāparinirvāṇamahāsūtra'' group. The ''Aṅgulimālīyasūtra'' emphasizes the hardship to be endured by promulgators of ''tathāgatagarbha'' doctrine during the end-times; bodhisattvas have to be prepared to give up their bodies and their lives. Presumably, they too are promised the reward of the ''dharmakāya'' in exchange for such sacrifice.<br> The ''Aṅgulimālīyasūtra'' emphasizes strenuous practice and incorporates long discussion to ward off interpretations of ''tathāgatagarbha'' doctrine leading to moral lassitude or even antinomianism. The text also contains an amusing story relating to naked ''tīrthaka'' ascetics, clearly satirizing Digambara Jaina practice. This story is juxtaposed with the ban on meat eating and with the use of “pure” (presumably strained) water for cooking, to avoid harming tiny bugs. This may suggest that these practices were instituted to “keep up with the Jainas” (Nattier, 1991, 21).<br> The ''Aṅgulimālīyasūtra'' shares with the ''Mahāparinirvāṇamahāsūtra'' group ''tathāgatagarbha''/buddha nature preached as explicitly connected with ''*ātman'' (''*ātmadhātu'' [''wojie'' (我界)]) and concealed by defilements, the eternity of the Tathāgata, the secret teachings, the promotion of faith (''xin'' [信]) toward the teaching of ''tathāgatagarbha'', and concern with the worst sinners, including the ''icchantika''.<br><br>
(Source: Radich, Michael. "Tathāgatagarbha Scriptures." In Vol. 1, ''Brill's Encyclopedia of Buddhism: Literature and Languages'', edited by Jonathan A. Silk, Oskar von Hinüber, and Vincent Eltschinger, 268-69. Leiden: Brill, 2015.)
Only two works are by now known to us as Indian commentaries on the RGV/RGVV. One is by Sajjana and the other is the Mahāyānottaratantraṭippaṇī (abbr. Ṭippaṇī) composed by Vairocanarakṣita (11/12th cent.). Vairocanarakṣita composed six commentarial works relating Yogācāra texts, which were reported by Gokhale. According to Gustav Roth, Gokhale tried to edit these works, but in the end, he did not publish it.
Nakamura (1985) published an edition of the Ṭippaṇī (fols. 9v2–14v7), but leaves the remaining portion (fol. 15r1–17r5) unedited. A full transcription of the work (fols. 9v2–17r5) was done by Jagdishwar Pandey, which is, however, not published. Considering to some shared errors by Nakamura and Pandey, Nakamura followed Pandey's transcription. Unfortunately, both edition and transcription contain a number of mistakes, which can be corrected based on the readings in the original palm-leaf manuscript (I provide a list of “Correction to Nakamura's edition of the Ṭippaṇī” below).
- 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.″ 2006, p. 536. +
In terms of the authorship of this work ''Rgyud bla ma'i 'grel pa'', BDRC attributes it to Zhang rin chen ye shes, while Wangchuk, Tsering in ''The Uttaratantra in the Land of Snows'' repeatedly associates this work with Rta nag rin chen ye shes. +
