Ratnākaraśānti

From Buddha-Nature

< People(Redirected from Ratnākaraśānti)

PeopleRatnākaraśānti


रत्नाकरशान्ति
Ratnākaraśānti(late-10th century - early-11th century) 
རིན་ཆེན་འབྱུང་གནས་ཞི་བ་
Buddhist Digital Resource Center

Ratnākaraśānti was an Indian scholar and tantric adept who lived during the late tenth and early eleventh century. The head of the great Indian monastery Vikramaśīla, he was a teacher to Atiśa, Maitrīpā, Śraddhākaravarman, and Drokmi Śākya Yeshe, among others. Forty of his compositions are included in the Tibetan Tengyur. In his esoteric works he sought to explain tantric practice from a Yogācāra interpretation of the Perfection of Wisdom literature.

... read more at The Treasury of Lives

Library Items

Book
Prajñāpāramitā, Indian "gzhan stong pas", and the Beginning of Tibetan gzhan stong
In the Tibetan Buddhist tradition, there is an ongoing debate about whether the gzhan stong system was "invented" by Tibetans, in particular by Dol po pa Shes rab rgyal mtshan (1292–1361), or whether there are Indian precursors of that view. Here, I will (1) discuss evidence for a number of typical positions of the gzhan stong system in several Indian texts, (2) provide a sketch of the transmission of the five works of Maitreya from India to Tibet and the beginning of a Tibetan gzhan stong tradition preceding Dol po pa, and (3) trace some typical gzhan stong assertions in a few early Tibetan works before Dol po pa that are considered by Tibetan writers as belonging to the gzhan stong system. (Brunnhölzl, introduction, 9)
Brunnhölzl, Karl. Prajñāpāramitā, Indian "gzhan stong pas", and the Beginning of Tibetan gzhan stong. Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde 74. Vienna: Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien Universität Wien, 2011.

On the topic of this person

Book
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.
Video
Hong Luo at the 2019 Tathāgatagarbha Symposium
Hong Luo discusses Ratnākaraśānti’s understanding of self-awareness (svasaṃvedana/svasaṃvitti) and its relationship to buddha-nature in his Prajñāpāramitopadeśa.
Luo, Hong. "Observing the Link between Self-awareness and Buddha Nature in Ratnākaraśānti’s Prajñāpāramitopadeśa." Paper presented at the University of Vienna Symposium, Tathāgatagarbha Across Asia, Vienna, Austria, July 2019. Video, 39:00. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5iFwWLJUAc.
Video
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.
Article
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)
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.
Article
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.

Philosophical positions of this person

Is buddha-nature considered definitive or provisional?
 
Do all beings have buddha-nature?
  Qualified No

He accepts a pure nature that is the five wisdom's which are possessed, but obscured in sentient beings, but in terms of buddha-nature as a seed, only bodhisattvas have it.
"...he suggests that only bodhisattvas have Buddha-nature, that is, the spiritual disposition to become a buddha, whereas others do not." Kano, K., Buddha-Nature and Emptiness, p. 75.

Click for more on this topic
To which "turning of the wheel" do the buddha-nature teachings belong?
 
Is buddha-nature equated with emptiness or alayavijnana?
  Yogācāra

There are apparently different takes on this issue, particularly whether he was a Yogācāran who accepted Madhyamaka or whether he was a Mādhyamika who accepted Yogācāra:

  1. Nirākāra Vijñānavāda, though as Kano states: "he defines the Madhyamaka position in accordance with the Madhyāntavibhāga's, description of the “middle way.” Indeed, he repeats throughout his works that the doctrine of the Mādhyamikas and that of the Yogācāras are completely compatible." Kano, K., Buddha-Nature and Emptiness, p. 73.
  2. "In sum, in his works Ratnākaraśānti generally sees himself as a Mādhyamika, but one who integrates many essential elements of Yogācāra and the teachings on buddha nature, such as emphasizing the soteriologically crucial role of mind’s nature being nondual lucid self-awareness—the tathāgata heart—which is only obscured by adventitious stains and needs to be experienced in an unmediated manner as what it truly is." Brunnhölzl, K., When the Clouds Part, p. 61.
Click for more on this topic
Do buddha-nature teachings belong to the zhentong or rangtong view of emptiness?
 
Are there one or three vehicles on the path to buddhahood?
  3
Do the author's writings belong to the analytic or meditative tradition of Uttaratantra exegesis?
 
What is Buddha-nature?
  Tathāgatagarbha as Mind's Luminous Nature

"Ratnākaraśānti generally describes the tathāgata heart as being equivalent to naturally luminous mind, nondual self-awareness, and the perfect nature (which he considers to be an implicative negation and not a nonimplicative negation). As for the ontological status of mind, his Prajñāpāramitopadeśa says that it does not exist as apprehender and apprehended, but the existence of the sheer lucidity of experience cannot be denied." Brunnhölzl, K., When the Clouds Part, p. 58.

Click for more on this topic
Does the author advocate the Svatantrika or Prasangika view of emptiness?
 

Other names

  • སློབ་དཔོན་ཤནྟི་པ་ · other names (Tibetan)
  • slob dpon shan+ti pa · other names (Wylie)
  • Śāntipa · other names

Affiliations & relations

  • Vikramaśilā · religious affiliation
  • Maitrīpa · student
Retrieved from "https://buddhanature.tsadra.org/index.php?title=People/Ratnākaraśānti&oldid=10530"