Category:Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien Universität Wien

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)

This is David Higgins and Martina Draszczyk's second book together and comes out of their first study, Mahāmudrā And The Middle Way. In their follow up they have delivered another two volumes on the writings of the Eighth Karmapa Mikyö Dorje (1507-1554) and his nuanced approach to the intricacies of the buddha-nature debate. It is an approach that combines the yogic sensibilities of Mahāmudrā with the dialectic approach of the Madhyamaka, which, according to the authors, Mikyö Dorje characterizes as the Yuganaddha-Apratiṣṭhāna-Madhyamaka (zung ’jug rab tu mi gnas pa’i dbu ma), that is, as a “Nonfoundational (or Nonabiding) Middle Way consisting in Unity.” As the authors explain, "This nomenclature tells us much about the central philosophical aims and presuppositions of the Eighth Karma pa and his Karma bka’ brgyud tradition. As a Mahāmudrā proponent, Mi bskyod rdo rje gives primacy to innate modes of being and awareness, such as coemergent wisdom or buddha nature naturally endowed with qualities, that are amenable only to direct yogic perception and revealed through the personal guidance of a qualified teacher. As an exponent of yuganaddha (zung ’jug), i.e., unity (literally, “yoking together”), he espouses the tantric goal of unity beyond extremes, a goal grounded in the inseparability of the two truths or realities (bden gnyis dbyer med), of appearance and emptiness (snang stong dbyer med). In his eyes, this unity is only fully realized when one understands that the conventional has no independent existence apart from the ultimate and that the latter is a condition of possibility of the former. As an advocate of apratiṣṭhāna (rab tu mi gnas pa), i.e., nonfoundationalism, he resolutely maintains that all outer and inner phenomena, including deep features of reality disclosed through meditation, lack any ontic or epistemic essence or foundation that the mind can lay hold of. Finally, as a champion of Madhyamaka, i.e., the Buddhist Middle Way, the author attempts to ply a middle course between the extremes of existence and nonexistence, eternalism and nihilism. These various doxographical strands are deftly interwoven in the Karma pa’s view of buddha nature, which affirms the innate presence of buddha nature and its qualities in all sentient beings as well as their soteriological efficacy while denying either any ontological status." (Higgins and Draszczyk, preface, 14)

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.

The doctrine of tathāgatagarbha as the element inherent in every sentient being is a central concept within Mahāyāna Buddhism. Presenting this Buddha nature as the absolute in positive terms, as a state of gnosis with inconceivable qualities, is the core of the so-called gzhan stong view. Mind as such is understood to be empty of other (gzhan stong), i.e. empty of incidental stains, which are not mind’s nature; but mind is seen to be not empty of its enlightened qualities. Yet, as long as sentient beings are deluded by their incidental or superficial stains, they are incapable of directly relating to these inherent enlightened qualities. According to the relevant texts, this constitutes the only difference to the awakened ones, the buddhas, who, having removed the incidental stains, have actualized their inherent Buddha nature. From the perspective of the doctrine of tathāgatagarbha in general, and from the gzhan stong view in particular, Buddhist philosophy and any spiritual training in ethics, view, and meditation has as its goal the removal the incidental stains so that the buddha qualities can develop or manifest themselves. The book Die Anwendung der Tathāgatagarbha-Lehre in Kong spruls Anleitung zur gZhan stong-Sichtweise deals with the interpretation of Buddha nature in contexts of view and meditation advanced by the scholar monk ’Jam mgon Kong sprul Blo gros mtha’ yas (1813–1899). The introductory section of the book sketches Kong sprul’s historical context. This is followed by a short overview of the topic of Buddha nature from the perspective of its sources in Mahāyāna-sūtras and Indian treatises. Special attention is given to the Ratnagotravibhāga and its relevance to the Mahāmudrā teachings of the bKa’ brgyud pa-tradition of Tibetan Buddhism. The book then examines the development of the gzhan stong view in Tibet. In light of this historical and doctrinal background, attention turns to Kong sprul’s treatment of the gzhan stong position based on his text The Immaculate Vajra Moonrays, an Instruction for the View of Gzhan stong, the Great Madhyamaka. The main focus is on how Kong sprul guides a Buddhist yogin through the process of realization: The analysis of the correct mundane and supramundane view plays just as an important role as the question of which of the Buddha’s teachings are to be understood in a provisional sense (drang don, neyārtha) and which in a definitive sense (nītārtha, nges don). Kong sprul recommends for this analysis in particular the models of the Niḥsvabhāvavāda-Madhyamaka and the Yogācāra-Madhyamaka which to him are synonymous with rang stong- and gzhan stong-Madhyamaka respectively. The book concludes to show how according to Kong sprul the spiritual path which is based in the gzhan stong-view culminates in actualizing tathāgatagarbha. A critical edition of the text and its translation into German form the final part of the book. (Source Accessed Nov 14, 2019)

This two-volume publication explores the complex philosophy of Mahāmudrā that developed in Tibetan Dwags po Bka’ brgyud traditions between the 15th and 16th centuries CE. It examines the attempts to articulate and defend Bka’ brgyud views and practices by four leading post-classical thinkers: (1) Shākya mchog ldan (1423‒1507), a celebrated yet controversial Sa skya scholar who developed a strong affiliation with the Karma Bka’ brgyud Mahāmudrā tradition in the last half of his life, (2) Karma phrin las Phyogs las rnam rgyal (1456‒1539), a renowned Karma Bka’ brgyud scholar-yogin and tutor to the Eighth Karma pa, (3) the Eighth Karma pa himself, Mi bskyod rdo rje (1507‒1554), who was among the most erudite and influential scholar-hierarchs of his generation, (4) and Padma dkar po (1527‒1592), Fourth ’Brug chen of the ’Brug pa Bka’ brgyud lineage who is generally acknowledged as its greatest scholar and systematizer. It is an important academic work published in the Vienna series WSTB and is divided into two volumes: the first offers a detailed philosophical analysis of the authors’ principal views and justifications of Mahāmudrā against the background of Indian and Tibetan Buddhist doctrines on mind, emptiness and buddha nature; the second comprises an annotated anthology of their seminal writings on Mahāmudrā accompanied by critical editions and introductions. These two volumes are the result of research that was generously funded by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) from 2012 to 2015 under the supervision of Prof. Klaus-Dieter Mathes. The project was entitled “‘Emptiness of Other’ (Gzhan stong) in the Tibetan ‘Great Seal’ (Mahāmudrā) Traditions of the 15th and 16th Centuries” (FWF Project number P23826-G15). (Source: WSTB Description)

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)

Part I of these Studies in Indian and Tibetan Madhyamaka philosophy consists of three sections. The first outlines the history of the Madhyamaka school in Tibet from its origins toward the end of the eighth century until the time it fully assumed its classical form in the early fifteenth century owing to the efforts of Tson kha pa and other eminent masters of approximately that time. An earlier publication, The literature of the Madhyamaka school of philosophy in India (Wiesbaden, 1981), has traced the history of the Madhyamaka school in India beginning with its source, Nāgārjuna, and extending to the early part of the second millennium of the common era when it was establishing itself firmly in Tibet.

Section II investigates the complex, and controversial, problem of whether a (Prāsaṅgika) Mādhyamika may, within the frame of his school's philosophy, assert a thesis (pratijñā) and maintain a philosophical position (pakṣa, mata). It is a reworked and expanded version of an earlier study: 'On the thesis and assertion in the Madhyamaka/dBu ma' in E. Steinkellner and H. Tauscher (ed.), Contributions on Tibetan and Buddhist religion and philosophy (Proceedings of the Csoma de Korös Symposium held at Velm-Vienna, 13-19 September 1981 (Vienna, 1983), pp. 205-241).

Section III concerns the very significant place occupied in Tsoṅ kha pa's Madhyamaka philosophy by the ideas and methods of epistemological and logical system (pramāṇavidyā) of Dharmakīrti. It is an expanded version of a study first published in 1991: 'On pramāṇa theory in Tsoṅ khap pa's Madhyamaka philosophy' in E. Steinkellner (ed.), Studies in the Buddhist epistemological tradition (Proceedings of the Second International Dharmakīrti Conference, Vienna, 11-16 June, 1989, Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophische-Historische Klasse, Denkschriften, 222. Band (Vienna, 1991), pp. 281-310).

Part II of these Studies will contain annotated translations of Candrakīrti's Sanskrit commentary on Madhyamakakārikā i.1 taken from his renowned Prasannapadā madhyamakavṛttiḥ and of rGyal tshab Dar ma rin chen's Tibetan Summary-Memorandum on the Eight Crucial Points in Madhyamaka philosophy (dKya' gnad/gnas brgyad kyi zin bris). (Source: foreword in Part I)

(Source: foreword in Part I)

An updated book version of David Higgins' dissertation on the presentations of the disparities between dualistic mind (sems) as opposed to primordial knowing (ye shes) and dharmakāya as opposed to the ‘ground of all’ (kun gzhi) conditioned experience, and so forth, in 8th-14th century Nyingma Dzogchen literature.