History of buddha-nature in Tibet
< Topics
Books
གླང་རི་བ་ཐུབ་བསྟན་སྦྱིན་པ། བདེ་གཤེགས་སྙིང་པོ་རིགས་ཀྱི་ཆོས་སྐོར། བོད་ཀྱི་གཙུག་ལག་གཅེས་བཏུས།༡༧ བོད་ཀྱི་གཙུག་ལག་ཞིབ་དཔྱོད་ཁང་།
Jinpa, Thupten. Treatises on the Buddha Nature. Tibetan Classics Series 17. New Delhi: Institute of Tibetan Classics, 2007.གླང་རི་བ་ཐུབ་བསྟན་སྦྱིན་པ། བདེ་གཤེགས་སྙིང་པོ་རིགས་ཀྱི་ཆོས་སྐོར། བོད་ཀྱི་གཙུག་ལག་གཅེས་བཏུས།༡༧ བོད་ཀྱི་གཙུག་ལག་ཞིབ་དཔྱོད་ཁང་། Jinpa, Thupten. Treatises on the Buddha Nature. Tibetan Classics Series 17. New Delhi: Institute of Tibetan Classics, 2007.;Bde gshegs snying po rigs kyi chos skor;Buddha-nature as Luminosity;Buddha-nature as Emptiness;Doctrine;History;History of buddha-nature in Tibet;Sakya;Geluk;Kagyu;Nyingma;Butön Rinchen Drup;བུ་སྟོན་རིན་ཆེན་གྲུབ་;bu ston rin chen grub;bu ston kha che;bu ston thams cad mkhyen pa;Buton Khache;Butön Tamche Khyenpa;Rinchen Drub; Third Karmapa Rangjung Dorje;རང་བྱུང་རྡོ་རྗེ་;rang byung rdo rje;karma pa gsum pa;ཀརྨ་པ་གསུམ་པ་;Karmapa, 3rd;Fifteenth Karmapa Khakhyab Dorje;མཁའ་ཁྱབ་རྡོ་རྗེ་;mkha' khyab rdo rje;karma pa bco lnga pa;don grub rdo rje;ཀརྨ་པ་བཅོ་ལྔ་པ་;དོན་གྲུབ་རྡོ་རྗེ་;Karmapa, 15th;Rongtön Sheja Kunrik;རོང་སྟོན་ཤེས་བྱ་ཀུན་རིག་;rong ston shes bya kun rig;shAkya rgyal mtshan;smra ba'i seng+ge;shes bya kun gzigs;rong TI ka pa;shes rab 'od zer;ཤཱཀྱ་རྒྱལ་མཚན་;སྨྲ་བའི་སེངྒེ་;ཤེས་བྱ་ཀུན་གཟིགས་;རོང་ཊཱི་ཀ་པ་;ཤེས་རབ་འོད་ཟེར་;Rongtön Shéja Günsi;Rongton Sheja Kunrig;Śākya Chokden;ཤཱཀྱ་མཆོག་ལྡན་;shAkya mchog ldan;Sera Jetsun Chokyi Gyaltsen;སེ་ར་རྗེ་བཙུན་ཆོས་ཀྱི་རྒྱལ་མཚན་;se ra rje btsun chos kyi rgyal mtshan;chos kyi rgyal mtshan;se ra rje btsun pa chos kyi rgyal mtshan;se ra khri rabs 12;ser byes mkhan rabs 05;ཆོས་ཀྱི་རྒྱལ་མཚན་;སེ་ར་རྗེ་བཙུན་པ་ཆོས་ཀྱི་རྒྱལ་མཚན་;སེ་ར་ཁྲི་རབས་༡༢;སེར་བྱེས་མཁན་རབས་༠༥;Sera Jetsun Chokyi Gyal Tsan;Sera Jetsün Chökyi Gyäl Tsän;Mipam Gyatso;མི་ཕམ་རྒྱ་མཚོ་;mi pham rgya mtsho;mi pham 'jam dbyangs rnam rgyal rgya mtsho;'jam dpal dgyes pa'i rdo rje;'ju mi pham;མི་ཕམ་འཇམ་དབྱངས་རྣམ་རྒྱལ་རྒྱ་མཚོ་;འཇམ་དཔལ་དགྱེས་པའི་རྡོ་རྗེ་;འཇུ་མི་ཕམ་;mipham;bde gshegs snying po rigs kyi chos skor
Articles
In this chapter I will look into interpretations of buddha-nature starting with the Sublime Continuum (Uttaratantra, ca. fourth century), the first commentarial treatise focused on this subject. I will then present its role(s) in Mahāyāna Buddhism in general, and in the interpretations of Yogācāra and Madhyamaka in particular. Next I will discuss the role of buddha-nature as a key element in the theory and practice of Buddhist tantra, which will lead into a discussion of this doctrine in light of pantheism ("all is God"). Thinking of buddha-nature in terms of pantheism can help bring to light significant dimensions of this strand of Buddhist thought. (Duckworth, introduction, 235)
Buddha-nature comes to shape a Madhyamaka interpretation of emptiness in a positive light in a way that parallels its place in a Yogācāra interpretation (as a positive foundation of mind and reality). Buddha-nature supplements a Yogācāra theory of mind and reality by offering a positive alternative to a theory of consciousness that otherwise functions simply as the distorted cognitive structure of suffering. It thus is not only the potential for an awakened mind, but the cognitive content of awakening, too.
In Tibet we see the interpretation of buddha-nature converge with Mahāyāna doctrines in structurally parallel ways. Paired with buddha-nature, the doctrine of emptiness in Madhyamaka pivots from a “self-empty” lack of intrinsic nature to an “other-empty,” pure ground that remains. In narratives of disclosure characteristic of the doctrine of buddha-nature, we also see parallel shifts in the foundations of Yogācāra, as grounds of distortion like the basic consciousness, the dependent nature, and self-awareness are reinscribed into a causal story that takes place within a pure, gnostic ground.The contributions to this volume were presented at the gzhan stong panel organized by Klaus-Dieter Mathes (University of Vienna) at the Twelfth Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies in Vancouver, Canada, in August 2010. Its full name was "The History of the Rang stong/Gzhan stong Distinction from its Beginning through the Ris-med Movement." The contributors were, besides the organizer, Karl Brunnhölzl (Tsadra Foundation), Anne Burchardi (The University of Copenhagen and The Royal Library of Denmark), Douglas Duckworth (Temple University), David Higgins (University of Vienna), Yaroslav Komarovski (University of Nebraska-Lincoln), and Tsering Wangchuk (University of San Francisco). It is regretted that Karl Brunnhölzl and Douglas Duckworth were unable to include their work in the present publication. (Mathes, introduction, 4–5)
Notes:
1. See Brunnhölzl’s Prajñāpāramitā, Indian "gzhan stong pas," and the Beginning of Tibetan gzhan stong; and Mathes’s "Tāranātha's ‘Twenty-One Differences with Regard to the Profound Meaning’—Comparing the Views of the Two gŹan stoṅ Masters Dol po pa and Śākya mchog ldan," and "The gzhan stong Model of Reality. Some More Material on Its Origin, Transmission, and Interpretation."This essay probes the discourses of other-emptiness in the Jonang (jo nang) and Nyingma (rnying ma) traditions. After briefly introducing other-emptiness in the Jonang tradition, the locus classicus for other-emptiness in Tibet, I will contrast the way Mipam (‘ju mi pham rgya mtsho) (1846–1912) positions the discourse of other-emptiness in his interpretative system. I will then demonstrate how Mipam’s portrayal of other-emptiness highlights the way he uses a perspectival means to incorporate a diversity of seemingly contradictory claims that he uses to support his view of ultimate reality as indeterminate. I will argue that an implication of his view is a
non-representational account of language about the ultimate. (Duckworth, introduction, 920)This question aside, seeing the canon as a predicament, i.e., as a tradition's self-imposed limitation, and viewing the exegetical enterprise as the means whereby a tradition extricates itself from this predicament, is indeed a provocative way of formulating the problematic of religious canons. In this essay I intend to employ Smith's notion as a springboard for discussing the Indo-Tibetan concept of siddhānta (Tibetan grub mtha', literally 'tenet'), a concept that represents on the level of philosophical ideas this same process of self-limitation. I will maintain that the adoption of such a schema serves functionally to "canonize" philosophy in much the same way as the collection of accepted scriptural texts creates a norm for what is textually canonical. I shall also examine some of the rhetorical strategies involved in utilizing and upholding the validity of the siddhānta schema. In particular, in the latter part of the essay I will turn my attention to the exegesis of the Tibetan dGe lugs pa school and shall examine how this brand of Buddhist scholasticism deals with the problems that arise out of the self-limitation that occurs in the course of canonizing its philosophical tradition. As might be expected, the examples that best illustrate the unique dGe lugs pa exposition of siddhānta have to do with points of controversy, and among these some of the most controversial have to do with the theory of Buddha Nature. Hence, much of the material that we shall consider will in one way or another have to do with the notion of tathāgatagarbha.
In what follows I shall urge, first of all, that in the scholastic tradition of Tibetan Buddhism, especially in the literature of the dGe lugs pa sect, the siddhānta schematization served as a de facto canonization of Buddhist philosophy that came to defme what was philosophically normative.'"`UNIQ--ref-000004A1-QINU`"' Secondly, I shall maintain that, despite the fact that Tibetan exegetes have arrived at only a tentative consensus'"`UNIQ--ref-000004A2-QINU`"' as to the nature of the textual canons,'"`UNIQ--ref-000004A3-QINU`"' the determination of whether or not a doctrine was normatively Buddhist (and if so either provisionally or unequivocally true)'"`UNIQ--ref-000004A4-QINU`"' involved to a great extent a rhetoric that had as its basic presupposition the validity of the siddhānta schema. Put in another way, philosophical discourse (and particularly polemics) was based as much on the siddhānta classification scheme as it was on the physical canons, the collection of the "Buddha's word" and the commentarial literature whose creation it spurred. In many instances the siddhānta schema that formed the doctrinal or philosophical canon came to supersede the physical canon as the standard by comparison with which new ideas or texts came to achieve legitimacy.'"`UNIQ--ref-000004A5-QINU`"' (Cabezón, "The Canonization of Philosophy," 7–9)