Sinitic Speculations on Buddha-Nature: The Nirvāṇa School (420–589)
From Buddha-Nature
< Articles(Redirected from Sinitic Speculations on Buddha-Nature: The Nirvāṇa School (420–589))
Sinitic Speculations on Buddha-Nature: The Nirvāṇa School (420–589)
Article
Article
| Citation: | Lai, Whalen. "Sinitic Speculations on Buddha-Nature: The Nirvāṇa School (420–589)." Philosophy East and West 32, no. 2 (1982), 135–49. |
|---|
Abstract
No abstract given. Here are the first relevant paragraphs:
The universality of Buddha-nature is a doctrine accepted by all Chinese schools of Buddhism. The Wei-shih(a) (Fa-hsiang(b), Vijñaptimātratā) school of Hsuantsang(c), for reviving the notion that the icchantika is agotra, devoid of this seed of enlightenment, had been summarily dismissed as "Hīnayānist" for that reason. The idea of "the enlightenability of the icchantika" is associated with the later named "Nirvana School," a group of scholars in the Southern Dynasties (420-589) that chose to specialize on the Nirvāṇa Sūtra, the Mahayana scripture narrating the last day and teaching of Śākyamuni on earth. The person credited with discovering this doctrine, before even the full sūtra was available to vindicate his stand, is Chu Tao-sheng(d) (375?-434), perhaps better known for his stand on "sudden enlightenment." The school as such flourished best in the Liang dynasty (502-557); but because it was then aligned with scholarship focusing on the Ch'eng-shih-lun(e) (Satyasiddhi? ) by Harivarman, it came under criticism when the latter was denounced as Hinayanist in the Sui dynasty. It is usually said that the T`ien-t'ai(f) school, based on the Lotus Sūtra, superseded the Nirvāṇa school by incorporating many of its ideas, while the Ch'eng-shih school suffered irredeemably under the attack of Chi-tsang(g) of the San-lun(h) (Three Treatise or Madhyamika) school at the same time. Henceforth, the Nirvāṇa school faded away while its old association with the Ch'eng-shih tradition was judged an unnecessary mistake.(1) This article will introduce three moments from the history of this Nirvāṇa school, showing the main trends of development and, somewhat contrary to traditional opinion, justifying the necessity for the detour into Harivarmans scholarship. Emphasis will also be put on the interaction between Buddhist reflections and the native traditions. (Lai, introductory remarks, 135)
